to think the benefits system makes women subordinate to men

[PeppersTheCat]

If a single parent (the majority which are women) partners up, she loses her benefits and become literally at the mercy at her new man. There is an assumption that the man will fund the woman AND her children. Essentially, women are encouraged to stay single parents indefinitely OR lose their independence and rely on the goodwill of their partner.

How is this system fair? Is there any hypothetical way around it? (Particularly if you have young children).

Frankly there are no medals for a woman or man bringing her children up alone without support from the father/mother - why shouldn't the other party be least financially responsible. If the mother doesn't want the father to contribute then fab, work away, provide for your children yourself

The other party is statistically unlikely to be responsible. There are many reasons for that but..well, misogyny just about covers it. Women are the worst, I find.

Lastly I am well aware that maintenance isn't part of income for benefits but frankly it should be the basis. The start point should be what is the other parent contributing and if not then we need to make them

There are many who agree. Largely because, you know, misogyny. Women should be responsible for their children and the actions of their other parent. The other parent has no responsibilities whatsoever because, well, misogyny.

And the benefits system can't handle the constant changes that happen as a result of faffing about with maintenance so it no longer takes it into account. Fix the system. You'll not fix it cos you know misogyny and the fact no one gives a shit about single mothers. We brought it all on ourselves after all.

I don't expect a medal. But this kind of 'single mother benefits' shite needs challenging and challenge I will.

Which is fine if you also force employers to pay enough so that one full time wage is enough to cover rent/mortgage, childcare, plus all essentials expenses for a family. Currently it isn't.

And without significantly relaxing laws on how many children an adult in a childcare setting can be responsible for - laws that are made for children's safety - it virtually cannot be. Since the childcare workers themselves have their wages paid by the childcare customers, as well as all the other expenses a childminder or nursery has.

I suggest people who are being disrespectful to single Mums (me) remember that we're all different and not all single because we wanted to be.
Thing is on this site people are very quick to say LTB and when that happens a great deal of women will have to ask for he!p but when we do we're seen as feckless single Mums.
I didn't think when I was walked down the aisle by my Dad that my then lovely husband would turn into a violent drunk and I would have to run with dd and have to get help
I had what I stood up in and so did dd and we don't need demonising
As I said everyone is different so stereotypical assumptions help nobody

are also not aware that child maintenance is not considered income for means testing purposes anyway so whether it is chased or not makes no odds anyway.

Of course it makes a difference to the children in that household and to the finances of that single resident parent. Even £5 a week can make a difference. These children shouldn’t be without this money

OP you're absolutely spot on - with Universal Credit the higher earners (even if both people are working) is the person to whom all the entitlement is paid. So due to the relatively low wages allowed to be paid by employers (which is topped up by tax credits now being replaced by U.C.) women who have children and are doing dual jobs - working (often part time) in employment as well as caring for children ARE dependent on their partner /OH for the top up money, that enables families to financially survive. This is not the fault of ordinary men and women but the fault of the system. It could easily be misused as a form of financial abuse and control.
So the whole "get a job" theory / comment is very short sighted. The sad bitter truth is that in order not to be vulnerable, the "answer" is not to have children

God no, it doesn't. This is an astonishing way of viewing a situation to suit an agenda

You're free to get a job, stay single or choose to stay on benefits. Why should someone decide to move in with a partner and still get money from the state.

You apologised for not understanding but it was obvious m4dad that you jumped with out even reading it at all because you were so indignant that someone might actually be expecting women to get help from the state to keep children alive.

the Guffalo it was an easy mistake to make. Child support/child benefit sounds similar. If 'child maintenance' had been said that would have been clear. And no, the state shouldn't have to pay ALL the costs of raising a child, but of course single parents should get help from the state.

ottersHateFeminist I am with you there, in fact its the opposite in my household I work and earn good money OH is on a combination of state and private pension, I earn more in a week then he gets in a month and so what?????? there is no way he is subordinate to me, we are in a loving relationship (45 years and counting) the money that goes into our bank account belongs to BOTH of us there is no mine and his money

"would cut the benefits right back so everyone works full time. I always worked full time"

There are lots of people who cannot find childcare for their child. People are being asked to fund the 1:1 support their child needs ( on top of standard nursery fees) which in many cases they cannot afford. Childcare for my son would be at least £30 an hour and that's if I could find someone to do it.

I agree that Universal/Citizens' income could resolve a lot of issues, and make life fairer, not just for those wholly dependent on benefits, but also for the workers on low incomes.

I also support the idea of recording NI numbers of both birth parents, although there are some circumstances where that isn't possible. A child adopted by a single parent, or one born as a consequence of rape by an unknown person. It appals me, as a parent and grandparent that there are people who are happy to create a child, yet don't/won't take on board the lifetime responsibility that follows.

Recording NI numbers of both would help. I would also change the law tso that the default is children 50% with each parent unless the court or parents agree otherwise as currently you cannot force a non resident father even to have the chidlren for one night a year. My case like many was unusual - there are few average cases - but there was I working 50 weeks a year full time and their father had say 8 weeks summer school holiday (private school) off school and I could take the children away for one week of holiday and then had to pay for 7 weeks of full time childcare when their father could have had them for those 7 weeks but simply chose not to!

Gran22, some put more thought into their outfit for a night out than than they do when conceiving a child sadly. They give little thought as to the state of relationship, finances etc.

A citizens wage isn't the answer, we already have far too many workshy people that encouraging even more would be a disaster.

The answer lies in making both parties responsible for the children they have, not the state paying. Harsh penalties for both parents if they aren't providing for a child. Currently it's far to easier to walk away or claim it's impossible to work and be a parent. 50/50 access would mean each is responsible for their own costs, fewer days to care wise etc.

Having children is a choice, nobody has to have them if they don't want to. If they choose too then they need to step up even if the relationship goes wrong. Nobody knows what the future holds but given the divorce and relationship break down rates it's not hard to plan for something going wrong.

Some couples can't afford childcare. So one of them gives up work to look after the children. That then leaves mum for example dependant on her partner to look after the family financially. Or it could be case that a single parent on benefits moves in with a partner and then has to rely on the partner. if wages are above a certain amount there are no top ups.

When I moved in with my partner. We agreed I would give up work because the cost of childcare was more than my wages. Once I did and he moved in he took control of everything . It was bloody awful and the worst time of my life.

I would cut theb enefits right back so everyone works full time. I always worked full time. It leads to more equality in relationships and fairness.

The concept of two people in a relationship both working part time, being equals and not claiming benefits (well, child benefit, as you did yourself) must blow your tiny little mind.

Some of the comments here about NRP are just making me angry. If you have a job and are on PAYE, it's impossible to not pay child maintenance - they'll just take it straight from your wages if you don't pay. And not every NRP doesn't want to pay - many just can't, and paying child maintenance can tip them over into poverty.

Conversely not getting child maintenance can tip a mother and child over the edge

Dip your wick
Pay for it

Funny enough my sister and I were recently discussing this. She has recently moved and her partner has moved in with her, therefore she has lost tax credits. All fine and really should happen and actually now she has support at home, today she starts a part time job while her partner watches her son. They could have easily managed on his wage but she is used to having her own money and she did not want him to completely have to support her and her son. However she did find when researching and discussing all of it that the system does expect her partner to support her and her son whereas her ex can get away scot free with not helping with childcare or with money. Of course benefits should decrease but I will never understand why we are not tougher on those who walk away from their children without supporting them at all.

Of course it makes a difference to the children in that household and to the finances of that single resident parent. Even £5 a week can make a difference. These children shouldn’t be without this money

So you think there are thousands of resident parents out there not claimining maintenance for their children as some kind of cutting off the nose to spite the face exercise? Or do you think that perhaps, knowing their ex, knowing what he may be capable of, not rocking the money boat is one way of keeping the wolf from the door? You don't think we should respect that people can make their own decisions? I would love to see a system that makes all parents pay but even within that, if you don't want the money for whatever reason, there should be no obligation to take it.

And not every NRP doesn't want to pay - many just can't, and paying child maintenance can tip them over into poverty

Poor NRPs? What do you think non payment of maintenance does to thousands of children?

@DrunkonEther

A child is more important than the parent. I've gone without food so my child can eat, because her father refuses to pay CM.

It's been 7 years of nothing. First he disappeared and they couldn't find him. Then he went self employed (he earns 5000+ a week) and they couldn't get a penny. Then he started threatening my life and that he'd "go on the dole" but authorities are not interested. Now he's moved again and they can't trace him.

So yes, it is sometimes impossible to get CM from a father, and yes, some of them just don't want to pay.

I agree with the thread title.

A man (for example) can up a leave a woman, move in with his new partner and start a whole new family. He can evade Child Maintenance Service (as so many do), and can also claim benefits in his own right.

If the woman left with responsibility of the children does the same, her benefits are cut or even taken away completely. The state assumes that the new man will become financially responsible for not only her, but also her children.

The parent with care is also the one who has to pay to start claim with the Child Maintenance Service. The whole thing is a complete farce, and if you so happen to have a relationship break down, you are the parent with care of the children, and you are the parent with lower earnings - you have an uphill battle on your hands. Unfortunately 90% of the time it is the woman who has to go through all of this.

Irresponsible men can slip through the net and create as many broken homes as they please. Women are demonised and punished by the state for doing the same - even if it wasn’t their choice.

There are some irresponsible non resident parents that don't pay and the penalties should be harsher but it needs to go both ways. There are irresponsible parents with care just as equally not providing financially and they should face the same penalties.

If parents were forced to step up rather than believe the government should pay then future new relationships wouldn't be affected as they would already be self supporting.

The clear message we should be giving children to prepare them as adults is to ensure they always have their own means of support and t not rely on anyone else to provide it. Far too many still buy into the man works women don't theory or that having a baby isn't a big commitment or the choice of partner not important.

And once again, we come up against the people that think that all families are the same; that all single parents are on the verge of poverty & that all NRPs are evil.

I'm a NRP. I fucking hate it. My ex-husband was incredibly abusive. I won't go into details of what happened here.

But the constant threat of child maintenance is over my head. My ex earns over £100k. He really, really doesn't need it. Conversely, I earn less than a quarter of that. I still have to provide a home for when I have the children, and clothes, toys and food. Fuel for all the pickups & dropoffs (80 mile round trip, & he refuses). After just my rent & household bills, I have £450 a month spare. £150 of that goes on fuel to get to work & for the children. Leaving me £300 a month for everything else - Food, clothes, household items etc (for me & the kids), car servicing/MOT etc. And the CSA say I should be paying him £250 a month. That would leave me with £50. A month. He hasn't claimed it yet, so I haven't paid it. I've no idea what I'm going to do if/when he does claim it. It terrifies me. So yes, I'm one of those evil NRP who doesn't pay for their children.

I appreciate I'm probably in a far more unusual situation, and I'm sure there are many cases where people could pay, are needed to pay, but won't. But I'm a case too, & tarring us all with the same brush is incredibly unfair.

Unless this new partner is going to help with childcare and help support the household why would a single parent move in with them?
We can't expect men to pay nothing to a household because a woman is on benefits. Men already use benefits as an excuse to not pay maintenance.

Perhaps the CM could be claimed back out of the state pension when the non resident parent reaches that age
That's a state paid benefit, if X benefits have been paid to resident parent due to non payment of support perhaps it can be added up and some removed when pensionable age. A bit extreme but it would be something to encourage payment. Some countries remove passports I believe. The UK is just weak when it comes to child welfare.

I like the idea of taking it from state pension, it would work fo both parents. The non resident parent could have deducted what they should have paid and the parent with care could have what they received in benefits deducted less the child support. It would certain encourage both sides to step up at the time.

However it's sad that penalties should even have to exist and that so many have no shame in not supporting a child they chose to have. It's become acceptable in society hence the very fact we have so many benefits and claimants.