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 think it should be means tested - I don't agree with payments lasting up to 18 years. I actually think the current proposals seem fair, especially as widowed parents can apply in addition for the same benefits as single parents. Most people I know (everyone I know) with young children have taken out insurance if they possibly can, plus death in service and so on. I don't agree with huge insurance payouts PLUS these benefits for 18 years.

Sorry for people's losses, it's hard to separate out emotion from financial discussions, but important if you are talking about rationalising benefits and services. There are other cuts that I feel much more strongly about than this one.

"Those saying that we have to live within our means, wait until they come for you in your ivory towers, you just think youre untouchable right now.

Magna Carta article 61 needs to be enacted"

Absolutely! And to the pp who said benefits have been too generous for too long have you actually lived on benefits for any length of time? I don't think they could ever have been described as 'generous'!

Definitely agree it should apply to cohabiting couples too, cohabiting counts against people for benefits claims so I don't see why govt should have it both ways!

Also I've NEVER been in a position to afford life assurance. Many aren't especially at the moment. And as a pp said it's supposed to be covered by NATIONAL insurance for those who can't afford it.

My ex had it through work (army) but as he's now remarried I don't know where that leaves my daughter in the event of his death.

Being , you are being either obtuse or naïve : counselling is freely given but there are usually 8 - 12 week programmes for which there are 3 month waits. These services are woefully inadequate due to pressure of growing MH issues in the young and underfunding and now massively under threat. Your cloud cuckoo land would be nice to visit.

Financially a widow/er isn't in a worse position than a someones who's partner goes to jail, or who walks out and refuses to pay maintenance, etc.

It's a reasonable point. Maybe there's been a moral distinction between widows and (for e.g.) Domestic violence survivors or abandoned spouses in the way this was set up?

It doesn't quite make sense to me. Traumatised people suddenly parenting completely solo are all deserving of support I'd have thought.

Of course a widower is worse of financially than a lone parent who relationship has broken down.
The grief could affect ability to earn massively.

There's no "of course" about it. Separation means homelessness far more often than bereavement does for example. There are many potential dangers and financial hardships in any sudden single parenthood situation.

Why are you setting one group up against another? These are all very sad, difficult places to find yourself in.

Jail and separation are choices they are not comparable.

You think women who are abandoned or beaten CHOOSE to be abandoned or beaten Seven?

What kind of misogynistic attitude is that?

margot
We've just given £100m to Turkey to buy fighter jets for their army
eh- where do you get that mis-information from

sorry previous post was OT but I could not let mis-information go past.
I do agree widows/widowers with children need support but would question why such support used to extend to age 18 when single parents are expected to look for work once their youngest is 5?

pyongyang Again, I'm clearly not making my point, or you are the one being a little obtuse. I thought my use of the word should made it obvious that I already know that these services are NOT provided freely for very long and are not easily accessible even then but, since it didn't, let me try again: yes I do know how bad things are but I would like for things to be different. Hth.

I was just about to ask about the money to Turkey but ollie beat me to it. Pretty sure it was regarding a potential deal for fighter jets being bought from the UK?

Apologies. Should be ptangyang

I think widowed parents are a far greater priority than a number of the schemes that are financed by £12bn spent on overseas aid. I agree that the NHS is also a priority along with the growing bill for adult social care. No one disagrees with emergency aid but I think the philosophy of 'charity begins at home' would help get spending priorities right.

OK, got you now Being .

Ollie, there is a misunderstanding here - it is not a benefit in the same way as job seekers. The allowance is actually a pension and is paid in recognition of the fact that an income has been lost, it is not related to the surviving partners income, except for being taxable as part of the overall income, but is related to the contributions made by the deceased. It has actually been earned by the deceased partner - in effect this change is the withdrawal of a pension.

Jail and separation may well be choices for one party in a couple but not always for the other! Bloody hell.

endof , that's an appalling thing to say.

With respect, OP, I get the user's confusion, it sort of came out of nowhere

No it didn't. I had already mentioned that my children have complex emotional issues and that I am paying for grief therapy. Something that I barely discuss on MN at all, but I was prepared to raise it on this thread as it provides the necessary context for why I am angry at these changes.

and frankly, I found it a rather gratuitous and manipulative attempt on your part to reinforce your arguments about bereavement trauma in children.

Plenty of people who disagree with me gave detailed examples of trauma experienced by their children or others they know due to a family issue other than a parent dying. No-one accused them of being gratuitous or manipulative.
And BTW do you understand those words?
Gratuitous means done without reason. I had 2 reasons.
1/ to explain why I wasn't answering (before I got a 'where's OP ')
2/ as I made clear, an example of the kind of trauma that children who lose a parent to cancer experience. As that is what this thread that I began is about, an example of it in my RL is hardly gratuitous.

Manipulative means exercising unscrupulous control over a person or situation. It is not unscrupulous for me to share an example from my fucking RL of the reason why widowed parents need to pay for therapy. And I am not trying to control anyone else - I am putting the issue up for debate because garnering what support there is and what objections there are to challenging it will help me with more effectively challenging it.

A tad hypocritical too to slam the tear-jerking in an advert when you resort to heartstring-tugging on your own account.

Son't put words in my mouth. I wasn't slamming the advert. Many people who lost relatives due to cancer do oppose those ads and I sympathise with their position. But I don't feel that as I would like more donations, leading to more research, leading to fewer families being devastated like mine have.

And I'm not resorting to heart-string tugging. I gave an example of one of the realities of my life. Other posters on this thread have shared theirs.

I am sorry for your loss and I do sympathise with bereaved families who find themselves in a financial hole due to bereavement but I'm not convinced that ongoing non-means tested financial support after an initial 18 months or so for such families is necessary and any more than for any other sole parent household. It was originally intended to support traditional sahms who were totally dependent on the earnings of the late spouse and had few or no prospects of employment outside the home. I do however see the need for ongoing emotional support and counselling though.

That is what the support paid for, that I received, you'll be glad to hear then. A fucking funeral and four lots of grief therapy.

Endof I'm not easily shocked, but do rethink what you've just said.

Ptangy it's true though and I'm pretty sure the op has been given such a hard time because everyone else was thinking it too...

endofthecentury and bythewatersedge I am not dignifying you with responses beyond saying that I am reporting your posts as I consider them to be against talk guidelines and I hope you get a suspension for typing them.

Ok then

Somerville my love, please ignore those posts, some people are just complete cunts and should be ashamed of themselves.

TBH Somerville what struck me as slightly incongruous is that you've posted extensively in the past about being a very fortunate financial position.

So that I was surprised that you'd even notice £450pcm one way or the other.

However I'm sure there are case studies out there showing that for some widowed parents it is an important payment.

It's such a great shame that the welfare state is being dismantled this quickly and comprehensively.

endofacentury

Your comment was breathtakingly fucking rude, I'm honestly shocked you had the nerve to ask it!