more finicial help for single parents?

[blarneebeekeeper]

Im a single parent. I have 3 (expensive) teenagers. I work full time hours, and extra shifts, as an NHS nurse. I love my job but im on the lowest band as a nurse, and not able to apply for better paid jobs as of yet due to not having as much experience in my area that is required in a very competitive speciality. Hopefully in the future, for now though i average 50 hours a week working to earn enough to support effectively 4 adult sized people. Although i have an open claim for universal credit, i often get 0 in a month, at most i get £100 if my shifts have been mostly week days, not nights and weekends.

I have friends in similar positions, however they also have an ex who shares care, and assists financially. My ex husband doesn't. He hasn't seen (completely his choice, he disappeared and hasn't been heard from since 2016 now) or paid towards my children in 10 years. I have gone through CMS, i have applied for the deductions from his pay so many times n the past 10 years, however he changes jobs regularly, and every time he changes jobs it restarts the whole system, my account on CMS states he owes thousands, which i will never see. The only times i have gotten anything is when he is on benefits, which is £29 a month for 3 teenagers, and that happened a handful of times before he vanishes and i have to start the whole nightmare again. So in recent years ive basically given up fighting them, CMS dont actively pursue anything, there's no consequence for him not supporting his children, im just fighting a loosing battle i dont have the energy for.

When we separated i also had to sell the house we owned, ive not been able to buy again as i cant save a deposit whilst single handedly raising 3 children, so i have high rent to pay, plus other outgoings, i have zero savings, i even gave up my car as it was costing so much to run. My children have what they need but very few luxuries. As i dont get UC im not entitled to any other help.

Today we have had a letter about a 3 day residential trip for one of my children, this trip is partly confidence building/team work activities, but mostly maths and English language revision sessions for GCSEs they are sitting next year. They want just under £300 by the end of the school year, i absolutely cannot do this, and theres no help through the school to be able to allow my child to go.

I understand my wage is above average for the UK (around £40k including my extra shifts), but alot of times this average is in a dual income household, or, topped up by the non resident partner, which is then disregarded by UC, which is also then added to the household income. I have friends who work just their standard 37.5 hour weeks, but then get the UC top up and the CMS money off their ex's. Resulting in a much higher household income.

Do you think that UC should take into account this CMS income? or if a person is truly raising kids alone, with zero help physically or financially, despite trying every possible avenue to make the father support their children, UC rates should change? Or make a system whereby school events that directly benefit education can be subsidised for children who cant afford it despite the parents best efforts which isnt solely based on FSM entitlement? I work hard, i get virtually nothing off the government in way of assistance, but my children are still missing out on things that will impact their education if 90% of the year group is getting this 3 days of dedicated revision time for maths and english.

Completely agree!

A dual parent household has 2 tax allowances. So 2 people earning 20k each will take home a lot more than a single person on 40k.

Are you a member of RCN? They have benevolent fund and they might be able to help. It’s worth investigating.

@blarneebeekeeper What kind of school is it that thinks a £300 trip for revision is ok? And provide no funded places.

OP, I agree that a single higher earner is penalised more than 2 low earners. When really it should be the other way around. There's no need for a 'low income' household with one parent not working FT to be subsidised more than a single parent. Given that the latter will have childcare, wraparound etc to pay for. Unless there's severe disability or anything else preventing working. Similarly, CMS should be much stricter.

I also think a £300 revision trip is ludicrous anyway and shouldn't even exist, and in this case it's unfair to exclude your child.

However at the risk of sounding v. 'race to the bottom' your expenses listed include socialising and technology, your child can afford BMX parts and branded clothes.

Other 'educational' trips that aren't part of the curriculum are a luxury, not a necessity. If your child really wanted to go, they could contribute to at least some of the cost.

For a school trip directly related to the curriculum eg for maths and English revision, there should not be a £300 cost. There should only be a requested contribution. Schools usually give plenty of notice for school trips costing £300 too- so that parents can pay in instalments. When did school make you aware of this trip? I would approach school again. I don’t think that someone earning 40k should be subsidised by universal credit (to compensate for a dead beat father), no. I think you must live in an expensive area. Was there not much equity in your house when it was sold? If you didn’t buy another property, was there no opportunity to keep some money back from the sale.

I do not think there should be any more financial support from the government. More so when the children are old enough to work. The country is already flat broke.

What I would like to see is more laws to ensure that fathers have to pay more towards their children's upbringing. We need to dissuade broken families where possible rather than subsidise it.

Dissuade broken families?

How?
Stop a spouse having an affair?
stop abusive spouses?

I did not want to become a separated family. I couldn’t have stopped it happening!

That sounds so hard and frustrating OP.

Personally I think where an absent parent isn't contributing, the state should pay and then that amount should form a debt owed by the absent parent to the state. Then it's on the government to pursue the debt, not single mothers with no resources or energy to do it.

Non payment over a long period of time should have a jail term.

PP wasn't talking about you, but feckless men.
How many would think twice about spreading their sperm wantonly, if they were severely punished for it?
Right now cheaters and abusers can use women to their hearts' content, walk out, and face no consequences.
Of course there are irresponsible women too but a) lower in number and b) not really the point.

I think they should be jailed and/or as a PP said, incur debts payable to the state. If they can't pay, they can work it off :)

Yeah i include socialising and tech for my kids. I am out the house 14 hours on days or nights i work. My kids need phones so i know they have got to and from school safely, and can contact me when jm on a night shift. I also dont allow them to go out and about when im at work, so internet and games are how they socialise. They also get money to go to the cinema with their mates once a month. I go without pretty much everything to ensure my kids get what they need and some of what they want. My eldest works part time to afford the luxuries i couldnt get him. Im not taking that away from him. Suggesting it is ridiculous.

With regards to the house i owned over 10 year ago. Back then i was a hca on min wage and couldnt get a mortgage. The little equity i had was used to rebuild our lives. We left my ex, my kids had a bag of clothes each and that was it. No furniture beds white goods nothing. Never mind their toys bikes childhood gifts and keepsakes. All of it was gone. My ex took everything we, me and my children, owned to the local tip. We had nothing. So no i couldnt save

All of this is irrelevant however to my situation today.

I'm a single parent too and I think the UC system is reasonably generous to us. I may change my mind of course because my children are only primary age. But I think the focus needs to be on the feckless men that don't pay maintenance. My exh for example quit his job last year to go self employed and is under some UC start up period so doesn't have to pay anything right now despite a huge sum of money from the divorce settlement that currently sits in his bank account accruing interest. How is it that as the RP I am expected to work but he is not, and isn't required to provide for his own children? How is it that he can buy a new car and go on holidays and city breaks with his girlfriend but looks at me with two heads when I tell him he needs to buy new clothes for his flat for the children, because the trousers that they wear whilst there are literally falling apart?

I read a post recently about apparently in America you cannot even buy a doughnut if you are behind on child support. Why isn't child maintenance treated as a priority debt?

I'd say the answer is a better wya to ensure the ex pays proper cms

Child maintenance did used to be considered under income support .

it became disallowed as claimants were forced to apply for maintenance . Also due to unreliability of payments . It became discounted

Non-payment of child maintenance should be treated like non-payment of council tax or income tax.

For starters all these so called fathers who dodge it by going self-employed/leaving the country etc this should not be allowed. I agree with a PP the Government should pay it then claim it back from the NR parent through the tax system. If you don’t pay it you get jailed.

Ok that’s seems fairer if there are real consequences. Which might stop someone. Who knows if it would.

At the moment cms do have extensive powers. But they don’t use them. Ex is self employed and owes 3 years worth of maintenance. He could just stop paying and I don’t have the funds to pursue.

Yet another societal problem caused (mostly) by men. I know its just pie in the sky, but I don't want the taxpayer to have to provide more financial support for single parents, or for the CMS to have more power to enforce, I want men to do the right thing. I'm fed up with society having to come up with workarounds to counter men's piss poor behaviour.

Last I heard it takes two people to make a baby.

Men should be forced to contribute more to funding their children. In my opinion if they do not then the state should have the power to enforce payment or send them to jail.

However some women do not help themselves jumping into bed at the drop of a hat.

Basic supermarket clothing is perfectly adequate. You shouldn't be paying more because your child wants expensive fashions and brands.

Give your child enough money to dress themselves adequately. They do it from cheap clothing brands -OR they buy less and have expensive choice brands -OR they earn something and pay the difference themselves and have more choice brands.

I did this for 10 years with my children's school shoes. From the age of 13 or so, I chose a cheap, adequate pair, gave them the cost of it, and they either bought that cheap pair, or added their own money to it and bought something more expensive they preferred.

so you can pay for the trip if you up your hours for a few weeks?

I honestly believe that state should fund resident parents for the actual costs of raising a child where the non-resident parent won't or cant but be able to extract the equivalent labour of the costs at minimum wage from the NRP. This would encourage men to pay rather than hiding their self-employed income or choosing to become STHP to their new girlfriends kids. You should have to pay for your kids neither the resident parent or the tax-payer should have to pick to up for you.

You’ve worded it perfectly -race to the bottom!

OP has got herself qualified as a nurse whilst a single parent with no support, financial or otherwise, from the kids’ father…yet we have people saying her teens are “privileged”…£40k is NOTHING when raising kids, let alone teens…OP has already said she had to sell her car as she can’t afford to run it, yet posters are suggesting she uses a credit card!

The issues are the utter privilege of a school offering a £300 residential for core subjects, with (probably) diddly squat notice for parents to plan it financially, and the fact that so many men just walk away from all responsibility for their dependent children….I don’t know what the answers are about these fucking useless fathers, but there has to be something which doesn’t involve yet another useless government run system for it.

I don’t usually respond to threads like this as it’s not something I have experience of, but this one has really got to me!

You do seem to be very much settled into role of victim, but you are not really. Not having a car doesn't make you some sort of martyr. I've never been able to afford a car, and have planned my life accordingly. I don't see it as a problem.

I am very dubious about teens who cant earn a few quid themselves, as well. I have one child who pocket money from the age of 8 singing in the local church choir at weddings and special occasions. Other than that, any 16 year old with a 9 in any GCSE subject can fairly easily find year 11s wanting a cheap tutor. it is very common now. Other than that, there are always pet care opportunities. One of mine advertised himself locally as a cat feeder, but ended up having to turn away more than half the requests he got , and settle for a few regulars in the end. That was the easiest work ever, and very lucrative. Then there is house cleaning, and again, settling for one regular couple of hours on a Saturday and turning away all other requests. There is babysitting of course. There is quite a lot available to school children, even outside of formal work.

I don't see where this sense of "disadvantage" is coming from. Your children are very seriously NOT disadvantaged. I really hope you have not been convincing them that they are. I think 99% of children in the country at one stage or other can't go on a trip they want because it is too expensive.

You have a high salary, and the option to do overtime, apparently. Your children are not disadvantaged.

They children who are automatically given everything they ask for money no object are actually far more disadvantaged than everybody else who has to grow up and struggle for what they really want.

And of course there are the children in schools who you will be totally unaware of, who are homeless, who are in care, who have one or both parents in prison, who are living in homes with benefit sanctions, whose parents have mental illnesses or addictions, etc etc etc - we have children in this country who are genuinely disadvantaged.

Your childfren are not disadvantaged in any way, except possibly by you convincing them that they are.

40k is a fantastic salary. Not having a car should be seen as the norm. Having a car is an immense privilege, and disadvantages everyone else who has to live with the environmental consequences! Most teens can and should be earning their own pocket money - it is a stage in life they are more disadvantaged by if they miss out on!

I think so many people on MN are so rich and privileged, and don't even recognise how rich and privileged they are.

There is something seriously warped in any thinking that sees car ownership as normal and expected, when we know it is destroying the planet. There is something seriously askew in thinking teens are "disadvantaged" if they have to earn their own pocket money, rather than that this is a completely normal step forward into the grown up world

OP that sounds tough. No way could I support three teens easily on that income. Of course you want them to focus on their studies. And socialising and tech are vital at this age.

And let’s not forget you are working as a nurse. The NHS is a damn stressful environment to work in, without the emotional and practical and financial needs of three teens. I think mine needed me more as teens than when they were babies.

You are their everything. Their dad is a dick. I have no experience or advice but I am in awe of all you have done alone. Your kids are lucky to have you.