That cutting benefits to widow/ers with young children by over twenty thousand pounds is heartless and cruel?

[Somerville]

My DH was diagnosed with lymphoma in 2013 and died in 2014. During both the period he was ill, and immediately afterwards, it was extremely difficult for me to continue working. A well as caring for him and then dealing with the huge administrative burden, I have children for whom continuing to attend school every day and 'cope' with normal life was impossible. Alongside all that I had to somehow try to find a way to live with my own grief. And then get out and learn a living - as a freelancer I'd have had no income at all unless I continued to work.

The bereavement benefits I received helped me immeasurably.

• I got a bereavement payment of £2000 which helped cover the immediate few months after his death when I could barely get dressed - let alone work.

• I also got a monthly amount of widowed parents allowance - about £450. (Non means tested but taxable, meaning that as my earnings increased I returned some of this to the government through my tax bill. However, I knew the safety net was there when my earnings dropped again - as indeed they did at one point when one of my children could only manage half days at school.)

I've remarried so no longer qualify - fair enough - but if hadn't I'd have received this until my youngest child left school.

However, the support available for parents who are experience the devastation of becoming widowed after April 1st this year is changing.

• £3,500 immediately.
• £100 per month for the next 18 months.

That's it.

Research by the Childhood Bereavement Network (CBN) suggests 91% of widowed parents will be supported for a shorter period of time than they would under the current system, which can pay out until the youngest child leaves school. It says the typical working family will lose out on more than £12,000, and expects a working parent with young children to lose even more – £23,500 on average. link here

Widowed parents are lone parents without any shared care with an ex partner. Without any maintenance payments from a former partner. And with bereaved, confused and devastated children.

How about it MN? Am I unreasonable to think this change is cruel? And if not, what can I do about it?

I doubt many CLAIM, I mean.

Thanks U2.

I feel like I'm going a bit insane here. The opposite opinion to what I type keeps being attributed to me.

Yeah, it is pissing me off so I can't imagine how it is making you feel.

It happens a lot on MN though. You will probably get more posts saying you don't support benefits for single parents unfortunately.

The OP has said time and time and time again that she thinks single parents deserve support.

The problem is the collection of neo-Victorian moralist supporters she has attracted who are at such pains to emphasise that widows claiming "allowances" are nothing at all like those nasty solo lone parents claiming tax credits.

I couldn't agree more somerville.

Oh okay Manumission, thanks, phew.

I know there have been some strong opinions expressed that have been derogatory towards people who are single parents for reasons other than bereavement and I don't agree with them. They're not in my name.

and all round? Everyone's probably getting a bit frustrated and ending up at cross purposes, myself included.

U2

Well, OP did said in her op Widowed parents are lone parents without any shared care with an ex partner. Without any maintenance payments from a former partner. And with bereaved, confused and devastated children. and later said Same applies for emotional trauma. Watching their loving, wonderful Daddy waste away before their eyes, then get a phone call that he does in hospital with no one to even hold his hand then watch Mummy unable to speak for 10 days - more trauma. Mummy and daddy arguing a lot and then deciding to get a divorce - less trauma.

But yes I did get confused between what OP was saying and what people supporting her were saying. People saying things like Fuckin' hell someone truly just compared the loss of a child's parent to a 'partner' going to jail or walking out and not paying maintenance. I can't believe what I read on here sometimes. and I can't believe people are comparing being a lone parent because them or their partner left etc with being widowed shock. Some people on here are so heartless. is what really gets me. Why should DD be punished due to her mother’s actions?

But I’m going to step away from this thread now, it’s making me too angry.

Good idea Manumission.

I've been drafting more of my letter to my MP and this thread has really helped me get my head round what I really want to say. Well, in between being distracted by trying to keep up with it!

I do think some people on here are underestimating the amount of money that funerals cost bereaved families and also the fact that family finances are often in a poor state already from a long period of 24/7 caring responsibilities alongside looking after small children. But of course there are people who have the caring responsibilities and small children and a funeral to pay for but who don't qualify for bereavement benefits. That's appalling and I will remain involved in a campaign on that issue.

Somerville I'm sorry about how angry I was in my post but is mostly a response to another poster who said words to thr effect thst people just dont understand whst bereaved parents go through. Modt other posters seem to be dividing lone parents into two groups, Widowed or partner has left, not died. It just seems impossible for anyone to remember that you're children's other parent may have done both. It always confuses me when Im asked my marital status because I have to say divorced, but then still have to say he's dead. I actually had to present his death certificate to get DS2 a passport. I think I just feel forgotten.

Those people were not me, wyfofbath and I did clarify my OP. The "average" lone parent gets maintenance and shares care/responsibilities. They also typically don't have a funeral to pay for which costs many thousands. And they haven't had the significant caring responsibilities that many (not all) widowed parents have had.

But I have acknowledged that there are lone parents who are outliers in statistical terms and who have as much trauma to deal with. And I have also said that I think it is better for them if payments for new widows aren't slashed, and instead their benefits are raised. Repeatedly.

Nibles my dear, it's okay. I know your situation must be tough and of course you are looking after grief stricken children too. I'm sorry you feel forgotten.

Its been 11 years but he died on the 16th of January and this is the fitst time the days have been thr same so its a bit raw I suppose

You are obviously very considerate. Thinking of others who may have to go through the same as you is very selfless. I don't know what I would do if this happened to me. Financially due to life insurance payouts etc through work I'd be ok financially but I would be in no fit state to work for t mental health.

I'm sorry you had to go through this.

I have even had people to say to me how lucky I am to be able to pay my mortgage offer. They assumed that - I didn't tell them I had. Trust me it doesn't feel lucky at all.

Chocolate. I've had significant amount of crap along those lines from a few people (who have only met me since DH's death and who don't know my children). I can only think they're secretly very unhappy in their marriages if they think it is preferable for one's spouse to die than to have a mortgage.

Somerville Sadly, the average lone parent certainly does not get financial support from their ex. In fact, it's the opposite. I fully support bereaved spouses receiving this allowance but I don't think your comparisons have been helpful. That said, I absolutely think you've had some disgraceful comments that are below the belt and I'm genuinely sorry. I hope you were able to dismiss them as goady and trolling and that you didn't take them to heart.

I'm not sure the new figures are entirely adequate but tbh I think something like this should be means tested after a certain point.

I have known a widower who had to relocate halfway across the country in order to accommodate childcare and still earn enough to keep them all going.

Equally I know someone widowed 18 months ago, who was comfortably off prior to her DH's tragic death, but thanks to life insurance and eat in service benefit is now verging on being a millionaire.

Of course that in no way makes up for what she and her kids are going through, but I would rather see people who are struggling practically receive more financial help, and maybe more investment in services to support the emotional wellbeing of all parents and kids who have been through this.

I think it is interesting to look into the history of this allowance. It was established in 1946 as widowed mothers allowance. 1946 was a very different world in terms of employment rights. Until very recently 'marriage bars' prevented the employment of married women. There were still some that existed then, and many more informal detrimental policies. So a women had not been able to work since she married, and so even if she wanted to work after being widowed, was going to be at a huge disadvantage. She may even have had to prove she was widowed in order to apply for a job. Equally, childcare for single parents must have been very tricky.

Equality only caught up in 2001 when men became entitled too.

Now that we live in a very different world, I can see the logic that says entitlement until a child is 18 is too long. Personally I think 2-3 years, or until the youngest child is 5, would be reasonable.

And I agree there are many other situations where equal hardship is suffered that don't qualify. But from the government's point of view the 'hard' rules round this must make it easy to administer. Death certificate, marriage certificate, birth certificate, done.

candy Thanks for your kind words, and I'm okay, thanks. Lots of people have an opinion on how a young widow should behave and I have already learned that what I know to be true about myself is much more important than what a random on the internet spews at me.

I rechecked the stats earlier on and although the ones about financial support vary, there all seem to be above 50%. It also seems to be the case that around 60-70% of children continue to spend time with each parent after divorce. So more lone parents than not have at the very least got children who also have another involved parent in their lives. Which is of course significantly better for a child (again on average) than the 0% of widowed parents (prior to new relationship beginning, if it does) whose children have another parent involved in their lives.

But as I keep saying, I think that other people who need more support from the government after trauma could be better off eventually if this isn't slashed so dramatically. If they can slash widowed parents allowance this much then think what the heartless bastards will continue to do to groups they consider less 'worthy' (I point on which I disagree!!)

I'd been wondering about the history and hadn't had a chance to look it up. Thanks, travelling that's interesting.
I did know that fathers were only included from 2001 as some of the people involved in the campaign on that have been campaigning on NI payouts similar to WPA going to partners/children of people who die with dependant children. A campaign that will have to change somewhat now that the link to NI is being removed.

I think a widower took it to court if i remember rightly.

@grobagsforever
I hope you're okay, my dear. Sorry I missed your earlier, very thoughtful, post in the middle of all the madness.

I too was reliant on the WPA to help me get back to work. I needed some expensive equipment so that I could work from home, then enabling me to take on full time work again, now that I couldn't split school holidays with DH. I wouldn't have dared pay for it without that coming in. Not with the funeral as well, and hearing the waiting list was so long for the counselling my kids needed.

It feels so short sighted to pay it for such a short time.

So more lone parents than not have at the very least got children who also have another involved parent in their lives. Which is of course significantly better for a child (again on average) than the 0% of widowed parents (prior to new relationship beginning, if it does) whose children have another parent involved in their lives. - I honestly don't know why you continue to be so desperate to draw distinctions about who is statistically better off!! Does it matter? really? A child who is missing one parent, be it through death OR abandonment is at a massive disadvantage than those who are not (in most cases). Financially AND emotionally. That's it, that is all people are trying to say - not that because us lone parents don't get it you shouldn't get it. People are merely querying as to why one disadvantaged group gets it and one doesn't, not who is most traumatised, who is the bigger victim!!

Because I'm answering other posters who keep raising it, Semi! That was a reply to someone else!

So more lone parents than not have at the very least got children who also have another involved parent in their lives. Which is of course significantly better for a child (again on average) than the 0% of widowed parents (prior to new relationship beginning, if it does) whose children have another parent involved in their lives

Oh what did you have to spoil it for somerville?

You REALLY wouldn't like that comparison if it was done on absolute numbers rather than percentages.