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?

@olliegarchy99

It was on the BBC news at the weekend! www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/28/theresa-may-arrives-turkey-post-brexit-trade-talks/

I don't approve of any of these cuts at all but given there happening it seems wise to be prepared.... Buy whatever cover you can afford

They're- blasted phone !

I tend to agree that this is what life insurance is meant to cover. MN is a funny old place about insurance, though.

I'm a massive fan of insurance myself, saved my arse on many an occasion

BUT being a massive fan of insurance doesn't preclude you from understanding that other people are priced out of buying it, no? Or entirely excluded because of existing conditions?

And the most vulnerable families - who probabaly rent rather than own and through ill health or periods of unemployment or caring responsibilities cannot get/afford insurance - will be the ones who are disproportionately affected the most by WPA being capped at 18 months.

The government are stealthily imposing this system that will affects those most vulnerable who can't get insurance the most.

I got plagued by insurance companies after having children, warning if the consequences should anything happen.

You can plan for most things, through savings or insurance. Nothing is life is guaranteed and children come with costs that still need bearing relationship.

Too many get swept up in the "babies only need love" and don't get giveca seconds thought as to how they will finance them now and in the event of a split or worse. Nobody wants it to go wrong but it very often does.

Life insurance is very cheap, if insurers charge a lot due to medical reasons then health is obviously an issue prior to having children.

Life insurance is very cheap, if insurers charge a lot due to medical reasons then health is obviously an issue prior to having children.

Sorry, but are you meaning that those with health issues shouldn't have DC?

Yes those of us with genetic health problems should simply not have children.

It's always the way that those who can least afford it get hit the hardest, has been since time began, this shouldn't be a shock to anyone. We've all just got to do our best with the information available to us at the time. Even as a young girl and I was a single parent from day one I knew the only person who gives a shit about my child was me. I needed to cover her and then subsequent DC's

Somer it's shit.

I couldn't get any affordable life insurance for two years. Depression and a psychiatric hospital stay mean I was (understandably) too much of a risk.

Those of you saying that those who are uninsurable shouldn't have children sound dangerously close to supporting eugenics. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

Nobody is saying they shouldn't have children it's just going to be harder for them in every aspect isn't it ? That's not something that can be ignored in the decision making process surely. They have the upper hand really at least they have prior warning unlike the car crash/hit by a bus scenario we all face

My MH problems came after my DD's. I didn't expect my child to die leading to PTSD and a subsequent bipolar diagnosis.

No one plans on getting cancer either. There was no history in my family till my mam got diagnosed in her early fifties (one teenage DD still at home)

Affordable insurance (or securing any insurance at all) is a massive issue for so many with all sorts of health problems unborn and it must lead to so much extra worry and stress while in that position. Especially alongside welfare cuts and a seeming change in public opinion (or sections of the public's opinions at least) against the welfare state as we knew it in the past.

And even those who take it out often have done so through work or to cover their mortgage and haven't thought through all the costs involved in being a carer for a spouse AND THEN burying them AND THEN being the sole bread winner AND THEN paying for childcare AND THEN being able to retire with a pension some day.

UnbornMortificado - when I made the decision to keep DD1 that's exactly what I expected and anticipated, worse case scenarios and I was barely out of uni myself.

Newbrummie; no people with medical conditions that exclude them from life insurance don't have the fucking upper hand.
I'm going to report some of your posts as I consider them to be disablist.

Except people have DC knowing the current situation. My DP has a genetic illness, but was unlikely to die very young. More likely to die about 60 years of age, when DC are grown up. And it causes very little issues at the moment. But that made my DP uninsurable. However, my DP can still get cancer, be run over or any of the other things that can happen to previously healthy adults.
But this is simply another attack on the disabled.

I'm going to sound like a complete git. I do have a heart I promise but...

I didn't realise this benefit existed

I'm quite shocked that it exists as a non-means tested benefit

I would actually rather put the whole thing on means testing

I don't understand why widow/ers who are financially comfortable would receive a pay out at all? That is what life insurance is for and I believe there are more pressing social issues to solve in those cases.

As for those that would still get the benefit with means testing, I would rather they had a little more provided for by the reduction of overall recipients.

Reminds self to organise life insurance now I actually have a DP

I'm not answering that.

I don't fancy a ban tbh.

Sorry, I meant to add that I think it would be more appropriate to receive some benefit for 2 years or until youngest goes to school.

I think 18 years is far too much. People are lone parents for all sorts of reasons and though it's incredibly sad when someone's partner passes away I'm not sure it's actually worse than someone who's partner leaves them and doesn't pay maintenance. It's different for sure, and I don't want to get into grading people's awful life experiences but I'm not sure it's necessarily worse.

I assume very few people get it. You actually don't get automatically the amount the OP says. It depends on your age if your DP dies. So if your DP dies when you are 40 you would get the full amount, but if you are 59 you get very little.
Those without children only get a payment for a year. So this affects only those with children.

Most people don't know WPA exists as thankfully not many people die young enough to have dependant children, Stumbly. It's only claimed by just over 40,000 people per year so it is a tiny part of the benefits bill.
And did you see the point about it being dependant, for current claimants, on national insurance contributions of the deceased? As they won't get their state pension, their bereaved spouse got this money until youngest child 18/ remarriage.

I'm not saying I necessarily disagree with you about means testing but apparently it is the case that it will cost more to means test than not as the numbers of applications every year are so small, so means testing is not one of the changes they're making. It has been a taxable benefit however, which does mean it is worth much more to those who most need it.

Yes brasty and also depends (currently) on how many NIC the deceased person made. I know at least 2 widowers and 1 widow who don't get it because their late spouse hadn't paid much NI for various reasons.

Also the amount for the year helps those who have no other money, and can't cope with working, or working full time. Sadly I know about this benefit because a relative died young, Her DP could not manage going into work, and only got statutory SP, so without this I don't know what would have happened.