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 also don't understand how people can compare a bereavement to a situation where one parent has left. Maintenance can still be paid, and there is the option of court to persue this. A shit parent is not the same as a dead one.

I made the comparison because the OP made the comparison herself in her OP. I was just pointing out that not all lone parents have a co-parenting, maintenance paying, caring ex.

I certainly don't begrudge any help given to someone who suffers a bereavement and said that we should all be looking out for each other rather than the "Them/Us" attitude.

I hate the comparison with "well my ex doesnt pay" - why the fucking race to the bottom?

somerville, you asked for opinions on whether widows should get big payouts.

From your responses, I'm reaching the conclusion that you are nowhere near resilient enough to actually hear people discuss this.

It is a terrible thing for child when they are abandoned by a parent they loved. That is not comparing your partner to a father who walked out. I just said the financial reality is similar. It didn't even mention the emotional impact until someone else referred to it. But the emotional reality is pretty devastating to.

It is not true that bereaved children miss more school. Some do, some don't, some miss less than they did whilst their mother was alive and well. Generally very little schooling is lost.

It is true that their motivation suffers. Children who lose a mother can feel that they are no longer special to anyone, and self esteem can go down. Schools are aware of this and respond the best they can. Children who lose a father don't normally get the same knock on affect, but all situations are different.

You absolutely cannot "rank" the trauma felt by different people in different situations.

We have had children celebrate the death of relatives they didn't like. Children don't always feel the social constraints that adults do!

On the other hand, a child who's father has gone to jail can say the would prefer it if he had died. And for the child and their mother,, it might have been better if they had- financially,

if you ask for people's opinion on the money handed out after a bereavement, you are going to get it, along side their opinion on the financial situations of other families too.

i believe the prior system may have been too generous but this new one is not fair or morally right. Payments should last for longer than 1 year and payments should be higher.

I'm with you OP, as a fellow widowed parent.

As far as I'm aware, the amount of widowed parents allowance I receive is calculated on how much national insurance my dh paid and is somehow linked to what would have been his state pension entitlement. I'm not completely sure how it works, at the time I put in my claim I had bigger things to think about, but now whenever I get any letters related to it, they're the same as the ones my granny gets about her state pension.

If people really think that the relatively very small number of children who lose a parent aren't deserving of state support, then they need to take a hard look at themselves and consider themselves lucky not to know what it's like to lose a husband/wife when you have children. It's shit, and yes there are other very deserving people who also need more in the way of state support, such as families with disabled or long term sick adults and children, but it shouldn't be a competition. There is enough money to go round, it's just about what the government decides to prioritise.

It would be great if everyone had or could afford insurance, but it can be a huge amount out of an already tight monthly budget for most people, and surely a western civilised society should be able to support people who find themselves in an extreme and highly distressing situation through no fault of their own.

Taggie - the two situations are not the same and probably not comparable. But they do both produce awful side effects.

I cannot pursue my ex through the courts for maintenance because he doesn't work and doesn't claim benefits. His partner funds their life style.

My children have suffered depression and anxiety from their father walking out on them and wanting nothing to do with them.

No the two situations aren't the same but they are both bloody horrible.

User

I agree.

I genuinely hope that none of the people who are so hard-headed about this go through the devastation of losing a spouse. But if they do they will learn that it is life changing and agonising in a way that they currently have no clue about.

as I pointed out, I lived through the loss of a parent twice as a child

Widowed parents are lone parents without any shared care with an ex partner. Without any maintenance payments from a former partner. - I'm not a widower but I am in this situation. I understand that losing a parent/partner is extremely sad and difficult but financially we are still left in the same situation except we only have the basic benefits, there are no extra provisions for my son or I and I don't expect it. It's not the governments fault that my ex is a prick, likewise it's not the governments fault when someone sadly passes. I don't mean that to sound harsh or uncaring and I accept that the situations are different emotionally but from a strictly financial pov it's pretty much the same imo.

To be fair, no one at all has comparing your late husband to a deadbeat parent in jail; they were comparing the financial situations of a widow and someone whose partner is in jail.

It is a heartless and meaningless comparison. There are consequences for the families of adults who commit crime. That is sad and TBH I would probabaly support an increase in support for these families.
But it has nothing to do with the consequences for the families of people who die leaving dependant children. It is a different situation. And only those devoid in empathy would consider it to be anything other than a hurtful comparison.

osolea my mum's £2k payment was specifically due to my dad dying before he ever claimed state pension, having made NICs.
So to the posters who say abandonment and jail sentences are financially comparable. They are not. In fact the leaving parent receives everything they are entitled to from the state and the inmates cost the taxpayers even more again. Deceased spouses aren't costing a fraction of that.

My condolences to those who have suffered loss, through death and any other circumstance.

*are (technically)

likewise it's not the governments fault when someone sadly passes. I don't mean that to sound harsh or uncaring and I accept that the situations are different emotionally but from a strictly financial pov it's pretty much the same imo.

It's not the same at all, you're not also dealing with a bereavement and bereaved children.

OP, no one has compared your DH to a deadbeat or imprisoned Dad. . They have compared the financial situation which may or may not be similar.

It seems impossible to discuss subjects like this without people's feelings getting hurt. It's a shame as it's a big change in how these benefits are being given out. Hopefully threads like this will prompt people to take out life insurance.

I'd be in favour of increasing the payments for a longer period than 18 monthly payments (Something between 3-5 years?) but for the payments to have some sort of means testing. I think it's good that the payments won't effect any exsisting benefit payments as it makes it a more straightforward payment. I don't know how it would work but it seems wrong that unmarried people receive nothing if their partner dies. Surely that's not right. I also think this needs to be publicised more so that people can sort out life insurance.

Losing a parent isn't the same as losing a spouse. I lost a parent as a child too, it didn't even begin to compare to losing my husband, especially when I had children to provide for.

Either way, it's not a competition about what is worse.

The point is that we're a wealthy country, and as a country, we should be able to support our widowed parents and their children adequately.

Presumably as a lone parent on a low income you would still get tax creidts, child benefit etc on top of the bereavement payments ? Also housing benefit if renting. Anyone with a mortgage should have life insurance which would mean hopefully the mortgage would be paid off in the event of a spouse dying. What I think is more worrying is that if you are not married then you don't get any bereavement payments ( I think) even if you have been co-habiting long term and have children together.

somerville, you asked for opinions on whether widows should get big payouts.

£100 a week that is tax deductible is hardly a big payout.
Current widows and widowers will continue to receive the current amounts, remember.
It is those who are bereaved after April 5th that this will apply to. Very much a two tier system.

Not everyone can get life insurance. If you have certain conditions it is impossible.

It has something to do with it Somerville.

Both involve a parent being absent
Both result in finances being compromised
Both elicit extremely complex feelings in children
Both are isolating and difficult

You seem to be verging on a deserving/undeserving narrative insofar as one parent chooses to commit a crime and one doesn't choose to die which is of course correct but ultimately makes no difference to the children.

I think the point is that many families are struggling for a myriad of reasons. Many of these will be one parent families. It is right and fair financial assistance should be provided. Provided for eighteen years, potentially? I think we can have a discussion about that.

I think it's unfair that that £2,000 that's given to spouses/partners when their partner dies isn't given to children whose single parent dies. Given it's based on NIC, why is it given only to someone with a partner? If a single person died without any money their children would have to pay for the funeral. If a married person died in a similar situation, their partner would get £2000 for funeral expenses. Very, very unfair.

*osolea I'm agreeing with you. I mentioned the circumstances of my mum because I recalled the reasoning for the payment in government docs echoing what you posted about. Sorry

Absolutely, Imperial

We really struggled for my dad's funeral and had to sell his car, which we would have done anyway but at the time was a huge wrench.

Children whose parents aren't married don't get this, yet are in the same position. If fighting for children, surely this is the place to start rather than saying it's needed for twenty years.

Both married and unmarried, left as a lone parent all are entitled to the same benefits bar this extra one.

Maybe two years would have been better but at some point the child and adult have to get back to school and work and get on with life, often both can be a lifeline from personal experience.

There are consequences for the families of adults who commit crime.

You mean for the children of criminals? Why should their children be punished? I guess this is what I (and I think a few other people) find a bit hard about your stance: it is the very definition of believing in deserving and undeserving poor. Children don't deserve lesser treatment and to live in poverty because their parent is gone for a morally 'bad' reason. If you campaigned for better support for all lone parents then that would, of course, help widows and widowers too.

By the way, if you are going to have a public campaign I would a) never refer to £100 a week as 'not much money' and b) be very mindful of how much it is than most benefits pay. You're going to lose a lot of sympathy from the off otherwise.