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?

Graphista - but with respect you probably shouldn't have dependants in that situation should you? And if you have then you pay the £20 life insurance before you eat frankly, that's what I had to do and bring old it was expensive

I think this thread went downhill when people starting comparing those who have split from partners and those who are widowed. It's apples and oranges. Of course it's wrong that this benefit - like others - is being cut. I agree with others who have said that the government can afford to continue to give these, however govt choose to prioritise other things. A little compassion goes a long way, eh? Let's not judge widowers who have remarried or women who have fled DV by pitting them against one another. It's just what the shitty government want.

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

Newbrummie - but with respect you probably shouldn't have dependants in that situation should you?

So unemployed people shouldnt have children? Are you unhinged or on clue?

Graphista - but with respect you probably shouldn't have dependants in that situation should you?

You are seriously saying that those that are unemployed or on zero hour contracts shouldn't have DC?

Wow aren't you a peach.

*glue clearly lol

Don't worry I take no notice of newbrummie's posts on anything.

Her own circumstances are far from perfect.

she of all people should know people's circumstances change and that human beings are not perfect. But I agree people on crap contracts shouldn't be considered unsuitable to have children. The problem we have actually is a top heavy population as the baby boomers like my parents tended to come from larger families. Dads one of 6 mums one of 5 all still alive, all pensioners, all well off and all getting help from the govt that they don't actually need but they still take it.

Ugh, this is what the govt wants... pitting the 'deserving' against the 'undeserving'...

Somerville, what is your definition of 'lone parent'?
You have mentioned your second husband several tiimes, what is 'lone' about your current situation?

Thanks Candy. Nice to read a voice of wisdom!

Lone parent means the children's father is dead.... irreplaceable, they only have one parent. DEAD, BURIED, not coming back, loved them dearly and didn't get to stick around.

Jesus.

You're using a different definition from government and the rest of society then Miss

Lone parent means the children's father is dead

No it doesn't. Legally or by the government.

No need to be so snappy, MissMrs.
The term is commonly used to describe parents bringing a child up with no support, regardless of how they arrived at that position.

Graphista I pay my life insurance no matter what. It's ironic that those who need it most never seem to understand that.

I have to say though if I was renting in zero hours contract I wouldn't have a hamster nevermind a kid !

I have to say though if I was renting in zero hours contract I wouldn't have a hamster nevermind a kid !

Ok then, I'll bite.

What do you suppose people do who through no fault of their own fall on hard times. What do you suppose happen to their DC? You seem to be saying they shouldn't have them, so go on then, tell us where they should go.

I lost my fiance while I was pregnant with DD. We weren't married, therefore, I got absolutely nothing. I had my maternity leave and was back at work when DD was 8 months old. That's even LESS fair.

The continuous comparison of DV/abuse to widowhood (e.g. "mummy argues with daddy for 10 days then leaves. Less trauma.") doesn't make any sense to me because I'd say you can make a good case that trauma of a lone parent fleeing DV and abuse is higher for the children.

Widows and bereaved children don't get perfect care but they get much better care than lone parents fleeing DV. Widows and bereaved children also receive a minuscule amount of social stigma and shame. They receive the benefit of maximal social and financial support from their support structure. Of course, they get a widow's allowance and ongoing financial support to help them transition.

Now, lets look at the child of a parent fleeing DV and abuse. Their parent usually have a reduced support structure because the abuser has alienated them all and they have no additional benefits. More likely to end up in a shelter. Children suffering primary or secondary abuse from a parent are much less likely to be given the educational and societal leeway that a bereaved child receives. They are more likely to be excluded or disciplined. The abuse and control attempts may be ongoing from the abuser - for the rest of their childhood. They suffer much more social stigma. It may shatter their trust in adults, confidence, belief in their own self worth, make them very vulnerable to other abuses.

Is their trauma really less? I don't think so.

PigletWasPoohsFriend if they already have them there's nothing they can do but you wouldn't actively make your situation worst by putting yourself into that situation on purpose would you? I know financially I'm pretty fucked which is why I have life insurance and will claim on it otherwise my DC have no chance tbh.

And tbh it's rare that people fall on hard times through no fault of their own. I can trace back all the shit that happened in my life to bad decision, it's always your own fault if you're brutally honest with yourself.

Lone parent means the children's father is dead

Umm, no, it really doesn't. A lone parent is a parent who is raising a child/children alone. The OP has remarried and is therefore not a lone parent (barring some bizarre set-up which will no doubt now emerge).

To those who have said they can't afford life assurance, please have another look at it. I appreciate that there are some situations where it will cost a lot more, but for most parents of young children, who are usually relatively healthy adults in their 20s, 30s, 40s, it is really, really cheap.

Lone parent means the children's father is dead.... irreplaceable, they only have one parent. DEAD, BURIED, not coming back, loved them dearly and didn't get to stick around.

Jesus.

Oh come on, that's absolutely incorrect.

Are we really getting into competitive trauma debates?

DV horrific
Abandonment horrific
Grief horrific.

All these situations are awful, but that doesn't mean the one that receives support should decrease to level it off

Come on

No I think what's happening is that everyone is picking you up on your somewhat demented definition of "lone parent" Miss.

ElizabethG81 - I pay £10 a week for £500,000 over cover. About £26,000 in totally over the term of the policy, seems a good bet to me. You just have to find the £10 it's not an option

Hands up to phrasing a sentence like I am still a lone parent rather than a former lone parent. I remarried literally just a few weeks ago, and sometimes expressions trip off the keyboard out of habit, after a big change in life circumstances.

Thanks those who've said they're interested in possibly signing a petition or getting involved in a campaign on this. I've now written to my MP who is interested in this kind of issue and whom I have worked with before a bit. I'll start a new thread in a section less likely to stir up vitriol (there have been some wholly unacceptable things written - and deleted by MN - by people on both sides of this debate in this thread) when I've heard back about any steps I could take that would be useful

And FWIW I will remain involved in the campaigning for unmarried parents to get parity over bereavement benefits.