To think this child maintenance benefits loophole is ridiculous ?

[Strawberrrrry]

I was talking to my sister today. Love my sister, don’t begrudge my nieces and nephews etc. However, I find this benefits loophole ridiculous, though I appreciate she doesn’t make the rules and is just claiming what she can. Anyway.

My sister has just broken up with her partner, they have two kids together. He is a high earner and child maintenance will be £1,200 a month (via the child maintenance service).

She earns £900 a month working part time, school time hours.

She has just put in a claim for benefits and she has been told she will receive £1,400 a month. This includes housing benefits, income support, child benefit. It doesn’t include discounts from council tax etc.

This brings her total monthly income to £3,500 and some change (I have given rounded figures). Completely tax free. I had assumed her benefits would be reduced as she gets a high amount of child maintenance. But no. They don’t count it. She admits herself that her monthly income is massive and she did first assume that the children’s maintenance would warrant some sort of deduction.

As I said, fair play to her as she is only doing what the system allows. However, I can’t help but feel this is a huge loophole, and there should be some sort of cap i.e once you are getting £500+ a month in child maintenance, it starts to affect benefits? And I realise her ex could lose his job at any point or stop paying, but if that happens surely benefits could reassess at that point…

It just seems ludicrous that someone can be getting that level of monthly income from maintenance & benefits, completely tax free. I’m sure it can’t just be my sister in this position.

AIBU?

Not at all. It is not my experience that any form of childcare is easy to come by outside of normal working hours plus an hour or so each side. Lots of jobs that people have trained hard for require out of the usual working patterns. Let's not be disingenuous about that. Additionally, even if you can find childcare that fits your working hours, it's not necessarily available straight away ( waiting lists are common), is outside of budget or is located miles away extending working hours unreasonably.

Sure, other work is available but you need to get the job in the first place and you still need childcare.

Which is exactly what my original post said no it all

But it is not what your last post said.

And, actually, it isn’t what your original post said. That said “CMS stops at 18 unless your child is still in education not including University. If still in education it is payable until age 21.”

That isn’t true. It continues until 31st August following the child’s 16th birthday unless they remain in approved education or training. And if they do continue in approved education or training it continues until the young person turns 20, not 21.

100% this.

OP sounds a wee bit jealous.

I'm very upto date with Child Maintenance thank you.

Clearly not! The rules are explicitly stated here.

“Child maintenance stops on 31 August on or after your child’s 16th birthday if they leave education or training.
It can continue until your child turns 20 if they stay in approved education or training.”

Ha ha. Your life must be so exciting. Enjoy 2025 😂

How childish.

OP specifically talked about school aged children, and has not mentioned disabilities. Under 5s nurseries area often open 7-6.30 (with waiting lists) and at schools up and down the country 7.30-6 is extremely common for wraparound care. That's 52.5 hours per week. Holiday clubs do at least 8-6, plus there is paid annual leave. The suggestion is just that adults work full-time 37.5 hours, leaving 3 hours every day available for commuting / 1 hour commute each way and a luxurious 1 hour lunch break. Struggling for overnight childcare is an entirely different challenge that's problematic for 2 shift workers too, so separated parents might need to stick with fixed shifts or daytime shifts that they can manage. None if this makes the idea of the mum of a 5+yo working full time so laughably impossible that benefits should be automatic for every separated parent instead of needing to get into full time paid work like non-separated families do.

Seems like this is wrong. I was on mine recently.

The Gov website says:

Therefore maintenance must be paid up until the child's 16th birthday or 20th birthday depending on their education or training status.

Holiday clubs do at least 8-6

Well that's bollox. I run a summer holiday club from 9:30 to 4. Always full, before you suggest otherwise.

Paid annual leave is not so easy if self employed or on zero hour contracts, supply teaching, agency work etc

Children with disabilities or medical conditions are notoriously difficult to find care for. You don't have to run the risk of getting it wrong with such a child if you have a waiting list.

There is no suggestion mums of 5 year old shouldn't work full time but do remember the system allows for one full time job between a couple and I don't see you having an issue with that? Your assumption is that care is always available and in many areas, that simply isn't the case. Having 2 adults, or more with grandparents and aunts and uncles, makes things easier juggling the responsibilities of children. It is much harder when you're on your own with all that. Maybe acknowledge that?

Wraparound is school aged children, and I didn't mention disabilities either.

On the rest, those are some astoundingly optimistic claims you make about holiday clubs offering at least 8-6 (I've never seen one even doing that!) and about wraparound from 7.30 being 'extremely common'. It's the sort of claim that requires evidence. You need to prove those claims, particularly in the context of a sector that we know is shrinking (look up what's happened to the number of childminders, for example). Worth noting that we've already heard from one poster working in holiday clubs who disputes what you say.

Paid annual leave doesn't come close either, not even for two parents. You are free to hold whatever views you like about benefits, but the claims you make about childcare availability are ridiculous.

What about the parents who pay if and when they choose to though? If it’s set at an amount taken off the benefits as the paying parent is supposed to pay maintenance but doesn’t - then what? Because it’s far more common than you think, financial abuse post separation

Your assumption is that care is always available and in many areas, that simply isn't the case
There will always be parents who genuinely can't work FT.

However there are still many single parents who COULD work FT but choose not to because the maintenance they receive from their ex is mire than enough to enjoy a pleasant lifestyle.

These are the parents for whom the system is not helping. Many very capable women mainly who end up with nothing once their kids are grown up. My daughter even had a girl in her A level class who was doing a third year because her mum begged her to. Her court order stated the house needed to be sold when the youngest finished secondary education but she didn't plan for what she'd do then and she was desperate for at least one more year in her home. The daughter felt sorry for her mum and so agreed.

It’s not the cms that’s the problem it’s the ridiculous high amount of benefits that people can get for opting to only work part time. This is what needs stopping - working part time should only be a choice if you can afford to without relying on the state to pay !

I do agree with you to a degree op .

Back when I had young dc, I used to work part time and my friend didn't work. We sat down and worked out our outgoings and she had a lot more disposable income due to the child maint her ex gave her and benefits. The big difference was that she rented but I had a mortgage. Now our dc are young adults I'm in a much better position as my job is now ft and pays well, I'm also a few years off paying my mortgage off with a decent pension. She on the other hand still rents and probably won't ever be able to buy, has no pension and is working a much lower paying job.

So although it might 'feel' unfair, the long term benefits of working will always outweigh the short term benefits of not working and claiming benefits.

The rule was changed because so many fathers paid nothing and yet their ex had the amount deducted from benefits.

Why the hell should your sister and children with a high earning ex / father be reduced to the breadline?

What is the point of maintenance if it doesn't give the children a better life? I'm sick of men not paying for their children because the state, i.e. taxpayers pay for them instead.

OP your sister's STBEH sounds like a decent man. Also the maintenance won't be for ever.

Very rude to just deny facts that holiday camps exist. Those who have not searched before for holiday camps, here are some examples, look at "extended care" or similar times. In my area there are loads so I've searched a few random areas of the country to grab a link to a camp with those timings and found similar provision on every search:
https://www.supercamps.co.uk/
https://www.campbeaumont.co.uk/
https://www.ymcaeastsurrey.org.uk/children/holiday-playscheme/
https://www.totalsportslimited.co.uk/holidayclubs/
https://gsal.org.uk/holiday-clubs/
https://fun-fest.co.uk/harview/
https://www.ultimateactivity.co.uk/locations/kings-heath-birmingham.

Yes, shorter hours holiday camps exist. That's good for those who want that. Longer hours also exist for those who want or need that. Try a search in your own area.

Very rude to imagine this is sufficient to back up your claim.

After all, nobody said longer hours wraparound doesn't exist ever. But you said 'holiday clubs do at least 8-6'. That means they all do it as a minimum. They do not.

If you now want to walk back your claim, you'll need to be explicit.

My post was specifically and only about the implausible wraparound claims. None of this relates to that.

Agree that is a loophole that should be closed, by no means the only one.

Non-resident parents who don't pay should face a sanction. Simplest one to implement would be taking passports off them until they do.

It’s to encourage the RP to claim maintenance. Because some never bothered as they thought no point as benefits will just cover the difference. So some dead beat NRPs were getting away with not supporting their kids.

I'm always surprised at how liberal many mn users are with benefits money and yet how resentful they are when someone who works full time complains about being skint.

I mean anecdotally there is no holiday club in my town that does 8-6. In fact I don't think there is a holiday club at all.

I suspect the vast majority wouldn’t care about this. I’d take their driving licences off them personally.