Should CM be considered as part of income

[SnowJon]

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

@snowjon why does it bother you if a parent claims uc and maintenance they can also claim free school meals?

In a lot of cases(all maybe?) if a parent claims uc then they do not earn enough to pay maintenance anyway

My dc get free school meals with no maintenance issues though. They are a lifeline for us( and many others)

Jesus Christ snowjon,
is your new whatever got a ex with kids?
and hes bitching he has to pay for them and she gets cheap school lunches?
so he shouldnt have to pay as much?
no he should pay more! they shouldnt have to rely on free or cheap school lunches because their mother cant afford more food or new uniform or shoes and dad thinks because the government will give her money, he should give more, all part time dads should make sure their children have what they need, then the government wouldn't have to
he should pay more

My gripe is with the system.

How can a mother who works part time be better off than a full time worker? That makes no sense to me. Cos she is part time gets a host of other benefits which the ft worker doesnt.

The system is screwed.

Is it just part time working mothers being better off than full timers that's the issue, are you ok with it when it's dads? If what you're actually making is an argument against top up benefits, you're likely to be taken more seriously if you just say that.

Most mothers who work part time won't be entitled to free school meals.
What else do you think they're getting that they don't deserve?
Believe me as a single mother the benefits I get don't nearly cover what I lose in earnings by being the only parent available most of the time.
Most nrp are being subsidised by the rp going part time, looking after the kids and paying for childcare while they are free to work full time hours.

My gripe is with a system that lets men leave their kids in poverty.
That lets men off to the tune of 3.8billion quid.
That money is owed to children up and down this country.
Money that selfish, bitter, controlling lazy men have spent on them selves before looking after their own kids.
Rail against the men who are really fucking up the system by not living up to their adult responsibilities, not the mothers who are actually raising their children to the best of their abilities often in less than ideal circumstances and making sacrifices everyday to do so.

I agree its feckless of NRPs to assist the RP but how many kids are born to feckless parents seeing them as a cash cow.

I believe NRPs who do not pay should be jailed and top up benefits should not be worth more than working for both sexea

You cannot make a blanket statement that this is always the case that a part time worker is better off than a full time worker.

I feel sorry for people who clearly have nothing better to do than worry about what everyone else is getting

And frankly i am a FT worker and don’t begrudge children who have parents who pay to provide for them. If Karen over the street from me cleans for a living on min wage but her ex husband gives her really good maintenance as he’s a high earner, I don’t begrudge that woman or those children. If ex DH drops dead tomorrow or loses his job, she more fucked than me

If you don’t like the situation you are in, either change it or suck it up. Stop looking at everyone else’s finances

To qualify for free school meals you must have a household income of less than about 16k per year (excluding child maintenance, but including benefits). That is really low and only people who aren't working at all usually qualify. It is very unlikely a mother working part time will get FSM for her children unless she only works very, very few hours.

And if that is the case the UC people will constantly be hounding her to up her hours unless her children are younger than 3 years old.

Children have two parents. Both should financially support them and there should be harsh penalties for those that don’t. Children would fare much better if we imposed penalties for failure to support.

Relationships do break down but that doesn’t absolve either parent from not financially supporting a child they bought into the world.

"The RP can abuse and control what's best for the child when in fact is best for them to line their own pocket."

I think this is a bit strong. I'm not sure I understand why you're so on your high horse about this OP.

Maintenance is an agreement between two parents of a child. Their arrangement, not anyone else's. Free school meals are given to children who need them. In the absence of total transparency of the mother's budget I don't know why you're sat here in judgement of that?

SnowJon

Given the tone of some of your other posts about your bf and his ex I think you are extrapolating from your personal situation.

I am not convinced your gripe is about the system as a whole but rather about your tangential experience of it through your bf.

Just because someone is entitled to free school meals doesn't mean they have to claim them. OP why don't you suggest to your boyfriend that he pays for his child's lunch?

Based on OP’s posting history I find this thread goading. You posted on a thread recently where countless women were having to send their DC away to the NRP at the weekend with a bag full of laundered clothes, shoes, coats, nappies, food etc because the NRP doesn’t believe they should have to supply anything as they already pay maintenance. This is really common, my ex has also tried to deduct money from CM when he has taken them on holiday .
Therefore if this arrangement is the case for many, even more RP are responsible for even more cost and outlay than the NRP!

@PookieDo you make a good point about holidays. If the NRP is having them for half the month as in 2 weeks why shouldn't the maintenance be changed accordingly? As the NRP has them so costs go up?

@snowjon child maintenance is calculated based on the number of nights the NRP has the children, so holidays will have already been accounted for in the calculation. You're really trying to be goady now aren't you?

Because you still have to pay rent and utilities. You stop paying rent on your house for 2 weeks and tell Scottish Power to reduce your bills as your kids on a holiday

If you are talking about 2 weeks out of 52 of the year, this is covered in the CM calculation. I’m sure you are being extremely pedantic now so here you go - for your info:

How often does X stay overnight with you?

Never
Less than 1 night a week (less than 52 nights a year)
1 to 2 nights a week (52 to 103 a year)
2 to 3 nights a week (104 to 155 a year)
3 nights a week (156 to 174 a year)
More than 3 nights a week (175 or more a year)

If you are in any further doubt about anything at all, just ask. We have it all covered. Holidays included!

Because it's not calculated like that.
It's calculated by the average overnights a week over the course of a year.
My ex could take our son for two fortnights a year, big hint, he never does, but he would still be in the same 1-2 overnights a week bracket for calculating maintenance. That he never pays.
By your logic does your boyfriend pay his ex more maintenance every time he goes on holiday without his kids or misses contact for other reasons?
Bet he doesn't.
How is what he pays, how much money his ex had got or what his kids eat for lunch any of your business??

If maintenance is required to provide a home for children, do you think the costs of that home cease if NRP takes them on holiday for a week? Should the RP get a lodger in to the children’s room for a week?

You clearly have an anti-RP agenda here.

Good point. Perhaps I should ask for more when NRP goes on holiday and doesn’t have DD

The wider point is how as a civilised society we balance individuals taking responsibility for their own choices versus ensuring that children don’t live in poverty.

Pre welfare state it was entirely personal responsibility and thus children abandoned by one parent frequently lived and died in crushing poverty.

The welfare state is there to assist with unknown events eg no one can know that they will have a disabled child and therefore the state assists with the additional costs of that.

Therefore the issue is how to ensure that both parties who produce a child remain responsible forever for looking after that child. Maybe there should be compulsory insurance policy to pay out in the event that both parents are unable eg illness to provide- like car insurance

I don’t think many children get free school meals. Eu g on a low income does not qualify you. You have to be receiving income support. So basically a rp earning a low part time wage and receiving working tax credits does not qualify.
Again the real issue is the number of deadbeat dads.
Far too many and the government encourages them to be so.
50% of nrp patient ZERO or there about to their child’s upkeep, 50%!!!!
Of the 50% that do pay something, this includes those who pay a measly 10% of their wage.
The cms are revolting. You cannot get through to speak to someone and when you do they speak to you like shit.
Despite having to pay to use the service, I’ve given up. It’s too soul destroying. Let my ex h pay zero towards his children, he has made them despise him anyway. His vile new wife can have it all and spend it on her kids.
It’s just not worth the effort anymore.

Ffs . You are simply a goady fucker .

Kids cost money , a lot

Shall we equally see how many parents start objecting if nights go down because Rp has took them on holiday.

Go have a spoon full of sugar and see if you can find some sweetness.

Just looked this up and a FSM is £2.30. I'd have to top up my child's balance because £2.30 doesn't cover a meal and drink.

It is cheaper for the government to subsidise a meal (2.30) than 70% of the childcare cost for the day. (People on the cutoff of £7,400 would get maximum subsidy)

Ks1 kids get a free meal regardless of parental income. Get angry about people earning too much for child benefit getting a free meal before children living in low-income households getting one.

With regards to the holiday - if mum and dad both take the kids on holiday the cost cancels out.

You don't take into account how many RP have offered clothes that they bought. My ex does not buy clothes for holidays - I make sure the kids have appropriate clothing out of my pocket.