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?

Oh for gods sake not agaun, sorry

Oh for gods sake not agaun, sorry

I think if you earn a certain amount which means CTC/CB isn't paid then this shouldn't be paid. I don't know if you intended it that way, but when the PP said I pay 40% tax on it & it all goes on counselling, sounds a bit goady. When you know there's widow/ers barely making ends meet.
I'm sure losing a loved one is heartbreaking, but is it any less heart breaking than the love of your life running off with another woman and not wanting to see their children. Ok a hypothetical situation but this does happen.
What about those who have children die, I don't think they get much by means of support at all. This again is something that is heartbreaking, if not possibly more so.
I don't object to those earning under a certain threshold getting support, I imagine those who have to cope with terminal illness and then death find it really hard, trying to work and support their family. Not to mention those where the other person was the main breadwinner.
I totally empathise that it's a horrible situation to be in, but to have that amount for up to 18 years non means tested is unaffordable. Especially when you consider how little the disabled and Carers for the disabled get with a million questions to boot. People who quite frankly would possibly welcome their demise, as they feel it's so unfair on those around them.
If you're paying the higher tax threshold I don't think it's a need. If you have children and don't have life insurance then this should be a wake up call to get it sorted or adjusted to an amount that will cover as much as possible. So not just the mortgage, those renting consider a higher amount so your family is stable for a period, considering I believe for a non smoker in their late 30's it's £10 a month or there abouts for £100k.

I really don't want to sound mean, but money needs to go where it is needed most. I am sorry for your losses. But everyone is suffering under the current government.

Calling people who have lost a spouse goody for stating facts 'noveLla this the government can't afford this for 18 years is crap. It has never been means tested because it would be too costly for the numbers claiming and I would hope 18 years is a rate situation. After all losing your spouse after coming birth must be horrendous.

No idea what auto-correct did there. The end of the sentence was 'nice'.

You are still losing an income though singing whether the widow/ers is a hrt payer or not. I would rather the money was given to a hrt payer and than taxed at 40% so it can be given to the poor widow also. How is removing it or severely reducing it going to help those poor widows.
I despair sometimes. No wonder the government can cut all these benefits when people just say Well so and do lost x so why should they get y.

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?

Somerville the whole principle of insurance rests on people buying in when they're young and healthy and it's relatively inexpensive so as to avoid being denied coverage for pre-existing conditions. Much as we sympathise with terminally ill people, surely it's plain to see that the enterprise falls apart if people only consider coverage once they've received bad news about their health.

Of course there will be people who can't afford insurance but if you start when you're young and healthy - payroll deductions from the first job you get as an adult - it's manageable.

As for congenital illnesses and sick children, I don't have any great answers just .

What happens if it is the mother who dies? Do widowed fathers get the same benefits currently and how much under the new proposals?

This may have been asked and answered already, but I can't find it if so.

Yes it applies to both parents/sexes

I think it was about half and half somerville. I also fundamentally disagree with this benefit being this generous and also with it being restricted to married people. I also think that in a time when huge cuts are being made, I cannot support a payment which is used to buy extensive private counselling, that is not what benefits are for in my view. I think the current provisions which are not means tested and which some people choose not to take are generous and out of step with the rest of social benefits.

Agree also about insurance being taken out when you're young if possible when it's cheap, but recognise this is not possible for some people.

It's hard because it's easy to say this must be funded. But I don't agree that the existing provisions.

SingingInTheRainstorm
Being goady is against talk guidelines so if you really think that you should report my post.

Most of your points have already been addressed further up thread. But just to reiterate - again - that your point about it being no less heartbreaking than the love of your life running off with another woman and never seeing their children again:
What is supposed to happen in this situation (and does in the majority) is that the parent who leaves still pays maintenance to their ex and still does see their children.
No children of a parent who dies has both parents still paying to raise them and involved in their lives. So why should widows and widowers get benefits in line with the worse scenario - that public opinion and the law are both disapproving of (though there is not yet enough enforcement of paying maintainance and there should be) rather than in line with the more standard (and in line with public opinion and the law)?
I have repeated many times that I have been actively involved with a campaign to get unmarried parents treated with parity. I've also supported in a small way (signing petitions and the like) campaigns to make it a criminal offence to not pay maintenance. I ageee with you that parents who lose a child (the worst pain I can imagine) should get a lot more support from the state. And children of prisoners and children who have fled DV with one parent.
But it doesn't help any of those causes to cut bereavement benefits so drastically. Quite the opposite in fact.

Just a random thought but not only should people be campaigning for protecting our vulnerable citizens financially but also, it is disgraceful that you cannot access basic counselling services on the NHS or via charities. I don't know why but I assumed that perhaps bereavement counselling was more readily available. I guess that was naive of me. The governement really doesn't give one. :(

I've witnessed kids abandoned and kids bereaved. The bereaved kids fair worse in the short term.

Perhaps singing could tell my friends kids that texting mummy is great but she can't reply from heaven. That they can never take the day back when they were rude. That mummy's illness wasn't their fault.

Fucking hell.

I feel sick reading some of the asshole comments on this thread.

I apologise for anything distressing you've read Somerville

extensive private counselling... that is not what benefits are for in my view.

Well we agree on that point at least, Because. I think it is appalling that many people are spending more on counselling than they receive in benefits. When a GP says that someone will be helped more by talking therapies than medication (as in my case) those talking therapies shouldn't then have a 2 year waiting list on the NHS.

But me getting some money and spending it in the way that helped us enabled us to re-engage with the world again. I returned to work much sooner than I'd have managed without it so that by the following tax year I was once again a tax payer and a net contributor.

I support you OP
18 months is far too short a time to get over the devastation that the death of a parent and partner brings.
The fact that the benefit is taxable means that those widows who earn more than the personal tax Threshold (around £11000?) will lose 20% of the amount awarded and a higher earner will lose 40% means that this is not so generous.
I think those who have not been Carers or who have suffered a sudden loss of life in the family understand just what a massive financial impact it has
YEs, insurance may be possible but wasn't there a study recently that showed a large percentage of the population do not have 500£ in savings ? so there are definitely many many people who cannot afford life Insurance.
there should be no discrimination between parents who are married or not.

Somerville the whole principle of insurance rests on people buying in when they're young and healthy

Museumofcurry Other posters and me were making the point that some people are never healthy. They have a life-long physical or mental medical condition that means they cannot get insurance at all or that it's very expensive and the condition they are most likely to die from is an exclusion.

Toast I already made that point about the figures in one of my follow up posts. There were contradictory reports of the figures when it first came out.

Miss There is no need to compare. All pain is valid and real. All children should be supported - emotionally, practically and financially - through their traumas. We shouldn't be fighting over the last scraps of bread (money) while the fat cats eat lobster and caviar. There is enough money to go around, if we prioritise it.

Thanks to everyone who supports this benefit not being altered so dramatically. I will update when I have heard back about what may work for contesting it for those widowed after April 5th of this year.

There are some very upsetting reports coming out of hospices on the emotional impact of this change on terminally ill patients with young children.

That was my fifth response on this thread. It's an observation that I've been able to make unfortunately.

OP, OP I don't want to be needy but did you see my latest post. If you are thinking of pursuing this issue you need to make sue you have the correct facts.

Another thing to consider is that it looks like this matter has been considered in depth by the government already and that they have already considered evidence/comments from outside sources including Bereavement Charities - this has resulted in changes in their original proposals such as increasing the payments to 18 months rather than a year so that they don't coincide with the first year anniversary of the death. It's clear from the reports that this new benefit is no longer intended to replace a deceased persons salary or pension but to help with the initial costs that arise immediately following a death of a partner.

I suspect the horse as already bolted with this issue and I wonder if it might be more effective to focus on other related issues such as the obvious lack of councilling for the families of a bereaved parent. What do you think?

Sorry, I cross posted.

Yes I saw your post and had already corrected sone way upthread.

That document has been made to sound like they consulted with bereavement charities but what they actually did (from what I understand from the charities letters to supporters that I've received) was go along and consult on the issue of widowed spouses who are not parents of dependant children. They then used raising the amount that they get (very slightly) as an excuse to remove WPA.

Toast I already made that point about the figures in one of my follow up posts. There were contradictory reports of the figures when it first came out.

There have been definitive figures since 11th January but I can see that if you were looking at older sources of information that were published before the latest Government statement that they appeared contradictory as they were still considering several different options. I think I found your post commenting on this but in it you were saying that you still weren't sure whether the monthly payment will be£100 or £350. I presumed this meant you weren't aware of the latest government statement on this issue.