Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Should CM be considered as part of income

239 replies

SnowJon · 30/10/2019 19:02

Should Child Maintenance be included when claiming benefits?

Example child maintenance is being paid to the resident carer. Why should that parent then be enabled to claim further benefits like Free school meals etc? Is that not what the cm is for?

The system is screwed in my eyes

OP posts:
Venger · 30/10/2019 20:34

So the abiding NRP is giving the agreed amount of money for the Children why then should the RP be allowed to claim for school meals etc? Seems wrong in my eyes cos this wouldn't be available if still together

Maintenance is a percentage of the NRPs income which can stop at any time. If they were still together as a couple then the child would, or should, have access to 100% of that income in order to meet their needs.

It's been explained why maintenance isn't counted as income in benefit calculations.

Why do you resent the money your DH is paying to his ex when it's for the benefit of his children?

emilybrontescorsett · 30/10/2019 20:37

How about every time the nrp decided not to pay maintenance, the rp immediately claims that amount back from the tax/NI contributions they pay out of their salary.
So if nrp should pay £300 per month and doesnt, rp has some way to pay £300 less from their next wage.
The government then had to peruse nrp directly for the money. I think they would soon recover it.
Whereas now as far as I'm concerned the nrp is allowed to do as they please.

Ronnie27 · 30/10/2019 20:43

I think it should be considered as it feels unfair for some parents to be worse off just because their ex doesn’t pay up but I also think that payment of it needs to be enforced by the government. It’s outrageous that we just let people get away with not paying for their kids.

MaryPoppin5 · 30/10/2019 20:47

I would like to think that those individuals who had a large enough monthly income due to benefits / child maintenance/ own income would not be so greedy as to also claim free school meals etc

Wildthyme · 30/10/2019 20:48

Take responsibility for your children you utter melt. I fucking despise people who begrudge their children anything just in case the RP might be a bit more comfortable in a house where the gas bill might be paid out of CM.

Blackopal · 30/10/2019 20:52

^Star^

Meercatsarecats · 30/10/2019 20:55

Who are all these people claiming free school meals?
I'm a single parent, I work in a not particularly well paid job but more than nmw, my child has never been entitled to free food at school.
Only certain benefits will trigger that entitlement and I doubt many of the single parents relying on them will be living the high life, maintenance or not.
My ex has not paid maintenance for over a year.
He will start paying again next month and after 4- 6 months will lose his job again and I'll get nothing from him.
If tax credits started pissing about with the £100 week I get on my lazy ex's whims me and my child would be homeless by now.

Ellisandra · 30/10/2019 20:55

I absolutely agree with OP that CM should be included in any assessment of household income for benefit purposes.

I’d just make a little tweak before introducing that though:

Starting a robust process of CM collection with appropriate (strong) sanctions for non payment.

Sort that out, and I’m with you.

Given that OP appears to have no actual statistics to share, I’ll throw in an unevidenced one of my own:

I very much suspect that the number of RP’s receiving a high about of maintenance but entitled to FSM is lower than the number of RP’s dicked about by non payment, under payment, and regular / accurate payment that doesn’t actually cover half the cost of child rearing.

Original poster
SnowJon · 30/10/2019 20:56

@Wildthyme what a disrespectful post. I do take responsibility thank you very much and your missing the point.

The maintenance is being paid why is the government further subsidising the RP. Makes no sense to me.

OP posts:
lyralalala · 30/10/2019 20:57

The government then had to peruse nrp directly for the money. I think they would soon recover it.

They wouldn't.

It used to be the case that parents on benefits only got to keep £20 of maintenance and the rest went the Secretary of State as a reimbursemnet of their costs.

There is no, and has never been, any feeling on the part of successive governments to chase NRPs (primarily males) for money they owe. Not even when that money was owed to the government!

Instead when the amounts owed got too big they scrapped the system and 'let' RP's keep all of the maintenance that they still don't get

Starlight456 · 30/10/2019 20:57

Well in England. On ctc I get £7 a week cm and I don’t get free school meals you need to be on income support to get free school meals. Low income doesn’t count.

I assume you are a nrp who begrudges rp a quality of life because I can’t see a reason why when a system where billions of unpaid cms is paid you chose to want to save a little more on the benefit bill when if you read the thread there are many that would suffer.

Meercatsarecats · 30/10/2019 21:01

Go to the gingerbread website for accurate statistics.
Last time I looked it was more than half of non resident parents (usually men) don't pay any, or enough cm.
Enough, being the bare minimum amounts cms say they should pay that nowhere near cover half the costs of raising a child.
Let's fix that massive absolutely disgusting scandal out and then we can worry about a few kids getting £2 worth of sub par food 5 days a week that they might not otherwise be entitled to.

Original poster
SnowJon · 30/10/2019 21:01

Maybe the solution is to instantly give 50/50 access between both parents unless not safe to do so and not weaponise the children.

That way both parents have the same cost

OP posts:
Venger · 30/10/2019 21:04

The maintenance is being paid why is the government further subsidising the RP. Makes no sense to me.

Because maintenance can stop at any time if the NRP decides to be a dick about it.

Because even when maintenance is being paid the RP and the child(ren) still have a lower household income than they would have had they not separated.

Because even with maintenance the RP is spending more of their household income on the child(ren) than the RP is and therefore is more in need of financial support.

Because that's how the law currently stands and if you don't like it then campaign against it.

Really though, why so bitter?

Blackopal · 30/10/2019 21:04

Has been explained many times why the situation is as it is. NRP often fail to pay.

Fascinating, that your righteous indignation is reserved for the parents (mainly women) who stayed and raised their children. Not the NRP who fails to pay, causing the whole system you have a problem with Hmm.

Winsomelosesome · 30/10/2019 21:05

Doesn't really matter what you or anyone else thinks op, it's not taken into consideration for reasons already stated and it's not going to change anytime soon. Best thing you can do is try to get over your glaringly obvious resentment.

Original poster
SnowJon · 30/10/2019 21:06

@Meercatsarecats What is enough though for raising children?

I actually think NRP should be jailed but I do also think the "chuck it in the pot" is open to abuse as well.

OP posts:
DGRossetti · 30/10/2019 21:08

I suspect this is a benefit bashing thread so I'd just like to remind everyone that benefit fraud rate is under 2%.

Should CM be considered as part of income
Meercatsarecats · 30/10/2019 21:08

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Worriedmum1511 · 30/10/2019 21:08

The matinence I receive doesn't compensate for the fact I had to quit my job when I split with ex. Matinence and benefits still isn't on a par to my individual income beforehand.

Starlight456 · 30/10/2019 21:12

Yes 50/50 is the obvious answer from birth no matter the fact that evidence states very young children should be with their primary carer . Mum unless they are a danger.

What about parents who live 100’s if mikes away. What about nrp who don’t want 50/50.

Life really isn’t that simplistic

I agree with the poster who said you sound bitter and deal with that . I get £7 a week and yet manage not to resent people who get more.

Meercatsarecats · 30/10/2019 21:15

Well enough is more than I get.
Which is nothing.
I'm sure you can agree it costs me, and all the other mothers more than half of nothing to feed, clothe, house and entertain a child.
Even when my ex does pay, less often than he doesn't, the amount doesn't even cover the childcare bill. So obviously that's not enough.
I think the question should be, what standard of living do you think your children deserve and what do you need to contribute to make that happen?
Since you begrudge your own children a free school meal I'm guessing the answer to that is, not very high, and as little as possible.

Inebriati · 30/10/2019 21:16

I'm gobsmacked at the dog in a manger attitude that would let kids go hungry & resent them getting a free school dinner.

Venger · 30/10/2019 21:20

Maybe the solution is to instantly give 50/50 access between both parents unless not safe to do so

Access is decided based on what is in the best interests of the child. For some children this may be 50/50, for others it won't be. Children aren't toys, you cant whine "it's not fair! You have to share 50/50 and it's my turn now!" if 50/50 isn't what is best for the child.

Blackopal · 30/10/2019 21:28

I would love to see my ex's face if he were told he had to have 50:50 access! I'm guessing an offshore job would quickly arrive.

His preference is around 3:97, although that slightly higher than the children's approved model would be.

You're understanding of this issue is ridiculously simplistic.