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?

Bugger posted at the wrong time. It assumes the NRP earns c 35k. That seems altogether reasonable to me.

Just to be clear, this benefit is a one off not per child.

I never claimed any of this

Some heartless comments and views on this thread.

Really? Where is all the money going? If there isn't any money to go around and I am STILL paying the same tax, what the fuck is going on?
It's people like you who normalise stuff like this. Bit by bit. Step by step. And then realise when it's too late already.

This.

There isn't "not enough money to go round" because of some unfortunate incident that no one is responsible for.

There's not enough money to go round because this government and those like them are bleeding the system to make their companies and their friends rich.

This government's policies mean the safety net is being taken away and ordinary people suffer. Bereaved wives, homeless children, sick people, the disabled, the mentally ill, people on low wages, people needing hospital treatment, the list goes on.
Nothing is too low for this government, focused so keenly on breaking up the welfare state so they can find new ways to fund tax breaks and make profit for the rich and powerful.

We should all be fucking angry, not doff our caps and say "it's OK guvnor, I know my place, you say there's not enough money to go round. Here, you take this widowed mother's money so you can have a nice new tax break."

Fuck that.

Bit late for me to get life insurance. Had I known I was going to get ill I might have done. Hard to get it with a terminal diagnosis. I'm distressed at these cuts. I'm very worried about my partner and son. Emotionally and financially. being ill impacts both parties' incomes prior to the loss. I only found out about them recently and now they're vanishing.

Nobody asks to get ill. nobody asks to have their family life implode from within. Some of the attitudes on here stink. Thank god some have compassion and see beyond their own front door.

Lots of posters who didn't know about widow benefits, why would they if it's not happened to them or someone close.
There will be widows from April who know none of this stuff.
The article I read made it sound like a very good deal, bigger lump sum, then a huge drop in the monthly payments, which will be for only 18 months.
I agree with Somer, it is outrageous to do this to a family at the worst time in their lives. So after the 18 months payments is it supposed to all be ok again then, are the government setting an 18 month timeline for grief?
In a report I read they said that the reason they were limiting the payments to 18 months is that they didn't feel it motivated widows to move on with their lives and get married again, that's insulting, everyone is different I've been widowed 8 years I'm not going to be moving on anytime soon.
My DH died way before pension age, I see the benefit as coming from the pension pot he never got to claim.
I have young adults that have autism, they won't be able to go out and get a job, I will always be their carer. Our family have already had cuts made to disability benefits and care packages, transport to their special needs provision,
This government are harsh what will be cut next?
Instead of parents arguing about which is easier or better widowed or divorced with no support let's rally about the injustice and lack of support for families.
Sorry you've had some nasty comments on here Somer, I was once told on here that I was to count myself lucky to be a widow, apparently it was so much harder to be a single parent than a widowed one.

Don't see how anyone can think this benefit is anything other than a good idea. Such a shame if it is cut. Good luck in what you are doing, OP.

I'm a single parent of 3 who has never had any contact or maintenance. Still don't think that means bereaved parents shouldn't get this benefit. I knew from day 1 I'd be single so I could choose a full time job with childcare that would make enough money to be on my own. People who don't expect their singleness (by whatever means it comes about) don't get that luxury and should have support.

Apart from anything else, I would worry that saying 'after April 5th families of those who die will be worse off financially' is going to lead to a spate of premature suicides by terminally ill parents in March. They will naturally want to leave their family in the best position possible and could feel they have to lose out on months of life with their children due to this reason.

How about campaigning that the benefit stays and is also extended to he paid to all bereaved children regardless of the parent's marital status?

I don't think anyone should be supporting the continuation of a benefit as fundamentally unfair as this in any event, which clearly discriminates against children whose parents were unmarried, even if in a relationship for decades. I think I'd rather agitate myself about that, and campaign for the revised benefit levels to apply to cohabitees, and the children of lone parents (where lone parent dies and children under 18/ in Ft education). That seems fairer all round.

Plus, most people have insurance which, if they have a mortgage, pays that off, with perhaps a lump sum left over. In any event, for most people your mortgage is your main expense. Absent that, a much lower income is needed; whilst I work Ft now, if I had no mortgage I would only need to bring in £700 or so at most to cover basic bills, utilities, council tax less 25% discount, etc, and I would imagine most people with a mortgage paid off would be in a similar position, so I am not convinced on the hardship argument; and in any event the unfairness between married and unmarried remains.

Hugs to you Somerville

I'm frankly disgusted at some of the responses on this thread, especially from user, shame on your cold heart. Saying the OP isn't resilient? She is more resilient than you could understand. Your attitude is Absolutely appalling.

If someone splits from their partner, they can comfort themselves that the man was a no-good loser and they are better off without him anyway. But if your husband dies, your whole life as well as theirs is cut short, a life you should have had, happy together. There is no denying that you would have been happier with them.

Instead of being upbuilding and supportive, this thread has become full of bitter remembrances of no-good husbands and boyfriends. Very sad to see.

In answer to your thread OP, I'm very sad to see the benefits cut as there is no one more deserving to have them as a widow. It was a biblical command to look after the orphans and widows first. There is enough money there to continue the benefits. Is there a petition I can sign?

If someone splits from their partner, they can comfort themselves that the man was a no-good loser and they are better off without him anyway.

Tbf it was posters talking about the effect it has. Not sure 'comfort' will help keep with any finances, emotional trauma or is an conciliation to those escaping DV.

Someone much further back makes a really good point. If it is 'fair' to severely cut this because other single parents don't get it. Than how would these people react if the Govt said that maintenance payments should be taxed and treated as income like the wpa is?
It is like all the cuts. When they cut child benefit for high earners people didn't care because they can afford it right?
Than they moved onto the next group. No-one is immune to these welfare cuts.
The government have done a great number on us with people on low income being jealous of what non working people get in benefits....
Race to the bottom it is.
O and I have lost both my parents and a sibling btw. And no way was either the same is losing a spouse.
Another thought also occurred to me is that yes children can be deeply affected by guilt when someone dies. When my best friend my Dd thought it was her fault because she had been mean to her child.

What is it with the unmarried parents don't get so no one should??

How bizarre.

Racing to the bottom.

Catlady1976 difference is msintance payments have already been taxed by the original payer and they are treated as income in certain circumstances. But the main difference is a government benefit is reliable unlike what appears to be unenforceable child support.

I don't for one minute believe that any changes should be made to maintenance payments or wpa.
I just feel that in some ways wpa could be likened to maintenance. The state are in effect paying from the decreased pension pot which will never be claimed.
It has been argued that some Widow/ers are financially rich due to Life Insurance etc. So they don't need it. The same had been said on here on other threads that single parents with wealthy ex's shouldn't receive state support as they get so much maintenance. I don't agree of course.
I believe support should be available in both situations.
Someone else not receiving a benefit is not a fair reason to remove it.
The government are picking on the wrong people.

There is no 'pension pot' as regards the state pension - so much mis-information still around even in the age of the internet. So by that argument if someone died one day before they claimed the state pension (which is taxable!) their estate should claim the entire mythical pot
Private pensions are completely different of course.

I agree maintenance isn't guaranteed so shouldn't be treated as income. Didn't know if was ever treated as income though. Spousal maintenance yes but not child maintenance.
I get what you are saying with the taxation side though new

It's about time they put in more stringent measures to make child support enforceable. The lone parent doesn't have the power to do that.

With regards to life insurance not everyone can get it - some pre existing conditions mean you can't get it.

I also think 5 years for WPA is not enough - you will only ever have a single income and it's horrific trying to juggle childcare and offer emotional support. The same as it is for any lone parent. You wouldn't expect maintenance payments to be for 5 years.

Cutting any benefits is inhumane and leads to more stress.

As some of the stories show the emotional trauma runs deep - penalising people financially is unhelpful.

I do agree that WPA should apply to all parents- it's irrelevant whether you are married or not. The clue is in the title - parent.

Somerville, I lost my dad when I was 6. This year to mark significant birthdays for both me and him I am commemorating his life and raising money for Winston's Wish. My mum would have been sunk without widows benefits as my brother had health issues that severely limited her ability to work. Let me know if there are any campaigns for this and I'll sign, share etc.

My dad died when we where young and my mum got none of this. She was to young for widows pension and had to fight the life insurance company for a couple of years before they would pay out. I think this benefit is a good idea but pretty unfair on unmarried couples. Ive lived with my partner/father of my children for 10yrs and if anything happened to either of us we wouldnt be entitled to a thing. So would just have to suck it up and carry on so to speak.

"Plus, most people have insurance which, if they have a mortgage, pays that off, with perhaps a lump sum left over. In any event, for most people your mortgage is your main expense."

You're only just right. 60% of 25-34 year olds are homeowners. That leaves 40% that aren't. If you don't own, you're paying rent which is generally more expensive than a mortgage and you're probably generally poorer therefore can't afford life insurance. 70% of 35-44 year olds own. That's 2011 figures too so given the cuts likely fewer people own now.

Also critical illness/severe disability isn't always included and massively depletes a families resources.

Where I live (an area of high unemployment and deprivation) most rent. Most can't afford life assurance let alone critical illness cover.

According to uk insurer stats 46% of adults DON'T have life assurance.

Oh and good luck getting life assurance if you're unemployed, on a temp or zero hours contract!

@velvetspoon - see my post about childcare. I need £2000 a month for childcare. That's how much it costs for two tiny kids! So no, even with the mortgage paid I couldn't live in £700!! Council tax is £120, food £200, Fixed bills are £350...then there's car, clothes and an endless list of things. You can't find two children and one adult on £700 a month!!!

@Somerville - huge congratulations on your recent marriage. I'm ok ta, just starting a new job