Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think this child maintenance benefits loophole is ridiculous ?

501 replies

Strawberrrrry · 30/12/2024 20:28

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?

OP posts:
cadburyegg · 30/12/2024 22:10

Blueybingobanditchilli · 30/12/2024 21:40

The children should be comfortable though OP and having all the extras that come with having a high earning parent. I’d expect a child who had a high earner parent having music lessons, as many sports/extracurricular stuff as they want, tutors if needed etc. The benefits are for the living costs, the maintenance is for the children.

Agreed. The kids should be able to enjoy some of the benefits that come with having a high earning parent.

JimHalpertsWife · 30/12/2024 22:10

FedUp1000 · 30/12/2024 22:09

I just did this maths as well (although it could be slightly lower if he doesn’t see the kids at all). It seems unlikely that if he was earning this much that she wouldn’t have got too much savings in the divorce settlement to make her ineligible for UC.
OP are you sure you’ve got your facts right?

Show quote history

I dont think they were married, so no.divorce settlements, entitlement to his pension etc for the sister.

NoOneKnowsWhoYouAre · 30/12/2024 22:10

The real crime here is that the benefits system props up people who chose to work part time, rather than that it doesn't take off child maintenance. Why on earth should the state pay so that someone can chose not to work full time?

Starzinsky · 30/12/2024 22:12

I have never got why tax papers are funding single parents families when the absent parent has the means to provide for their own children. There is something very wrong about that.

JimHalpertsWife · 30/12/2024 22:12

NoOneKnowsWhoYouAre · 30/12/2024 22:10

The real crime here is that the benefits system props up people who chose to work part time, rather than that it doesn't take off child maintenance. Why on earth should the state pay so that someone can chose not to work full time?

If she's doing the lions share of raising two small children, as the primary parent then why not be part time? At least in the younger years. Its beneficial to the children, given that they will rarely see their father, to have plenty of time with the mother.

ARichtGoodDram · 30/12/2024 22:13

This current system is a direct result of the fact it is socially acceptable for NRPs not pay for their children.

researchers3 · 30/12/2024 22:14

You're right op. She should struggle - as should I- as my children's dad decided to buggar off with a younger woman!!

You do realise thst the benefits are only while her kids are young and once they get to a certain age she'll need to work more hours, as is fair?

What would make you happy in this scenario? What's fair?

It would cost more to means test this presumably, or that's what the government would do.

JimHalpertsWife · 30/12/2024 22:15

Starzinsky · 30/12/2024 22:12

I have never got why tax papers are funding single parents families when the absent parent has the means to provide for their own children. There is something very wrong about that.

Because usually the absent parent underfunds or doesn't fund at all.

Acommonreader · 30/12/2024 22:16

Strawberrrrry · 30/12/2024 20:39

If a bloke is paying, and it is a lot, why not deduct it from benefits?

If he doesn’t pay, revert back to full benefit entitlement.

Changes reported to Universal credit usually take 6 weeks minimum for a resolution. Payment can be suspended in this time.
UC are not great at efficiency. A change in maintenance payments could lead to a nightmare for the resident parent.

CinnamonJellyBeans · 30/12/2024 22:17

I agree with PP: Many men withhold and weaponise their maintenance, so there are very few single female parents in your sister's position.

It makes more financial sense from an administrative perspective to just assume that the dad is not paying for his children.

As for your BIL, it may be that in the future, when he finds a new partner or starts another family, he realises that here in the UK, men don't have to pay a penny, no one will chase, chastise or penalise him, so he can just stop.

JollyGreenSleeves · 30/12/2024 22:17

£3500 isn’t as much as it sounds when raising 2 kids, especially if they eat well, have the heating on and do extra curricular activities- all of which surely you’d want for your sister’s kids? Stop being so mean spirited.

SapphireOpal · 30/12/2024 22:17

Strawberrrrry · 30/12/2024 21:21

I think there should be a set amount (£500 for example), then for every £1 of maintenance above that, 50p is taken from the benefits. Something like that. Otherwise you end up with situations like my sister, who has an income of almost £4,000 a month, a massive percentage of which is made up from the tax payer and none of which she pays tax on.

Show quote history

I know at least two people who would use this system to control their ex partners and induce huge anxiety in whether they were going to bother paying up this month. Can you imagine how stressful it would be not knowing if you're going to be able to afford rent because your ex partner thinks it's funny not to pay on time?

Theunamedcat · 30/12/2024 22:17

It's there so kids arnt disadvantaged when the maintenance stops or gets messed around out of a potential £3000 ish I was supposed to get this year child maintenance managed to grab around £800 he is just about to quit his job again so I will get nothing as his wife earns too much for benefits so I will get nothing 😉 again

DrCoconut · 30/12/2024 22:18

adviceneeded1990 · 30/12/2024 20:46

I doubt that very much unless he was a high earner but she controlled the finances and kept a fair chunk. She’ll have a much higher disposable income on £3500 a month. She has a higher “take home” than me and I earn more than 50K.

The system needs to ensure children are cared for and that people can survive, but reliance on welfare should never pay more than work and unfortunately that’s what the UK has become. Zero financial incentive to work as a single parent in this country and certainly not full time.

Edited
Show quote history

I'd say the threat of losing our home is a good incentive. Single parents don't get to opt out of work until their youngest is 16 any more.

cadburyegg · 30/12/2024 22:19

OP are you aware that

33% of single parents are disabled compared to 15% of couple parents
44% of children in single parent households are in poverty compared to 26% of couple families
36% of single parent households have no savings compared to 14% of couple households
13% of single parent households have used a food bank in the last year compared to 3% of couple households

The odds are stacked against single parent households, money wise. Anything that helps a child NOT to be part of this statistic is a good thing IMO and it's better for society in general for children to be cared for financially.

I get no regular maintenance from my ex and I don't resent your sister at all. Child maintenance can change. Benefits can change. As the kids get older your sister will be expected to work more. The hours your sister will be able to work will be restricted assuming she will be solely responsible for school drop offs, sourcing holiday childcare, sick days. Etc etc. Her career, pension and earning potential will have been permanently affected. Whilst couple households can struggle with these things too of course, imo it is NOT the same thing as being a single parent with all that responsibility on your shoulders.

hettie · 30/12/2024 22:19

Strawberrrrry · 30/12/2024 20:39

If a bloke is paying, and it is a lot, why not deduct it from benefits?

If he doesn’t pay, revert back to full benefit entitlement.

Because it would incentivise some to not pay knowing the state would luck up the tab.
CHild maintenance should come out at source regardless... Like tax or a student loan. It's too easy to evade and the tax payer and women pick up the tab. You made a child, you have responsibility....

FedUp1000 · 30/12/2024 22:19

JimHalpertsWife · 30/12/2024 22:10

I dont think they were married, so no.divorce settlements, entitlement to his pension etc for the sister.

Show quote history

That’s a fair point, I hadn’t realised they weren’t married.
This is a very unusual situation as her ex must be in the top 1.5% earners in the country based on a quick google search.

Theunamedcat · 30/12/2024 22:19

NoOneKnowsWhoYouAre · 30/12/2024 22:10

The real crime here is that the benefits system props up people who chose to work part time, rather than that it doesn't take off child maintenance. Why on earth should the state pay so that someone can chose not to work full time?

Honestly they either top up her part time wages or pay for childcare

Almostwelsh · 30/12/2024 22:21

The only fair way to deduct CM from benefits would be for the benefits to be paid to the RP and then the state claim back the appropriate CM portion from the NRP with penalties for non payment being treated the same as non payment of tax.

But that would upset too many men, so it won't happen.

ARichtGoodDram · 30/12/2024 22:24

FedUp1000 · 30/12/2024 22:19

That’s a fair point, I hadn’t realised they weren’t married.
This is a very unusual situation as her ex must be in the top 1.5% earners in the country based on a quick google search.

Show quote history

It’s a tiny percentage.

i worked for CMS for a short time twice (8 months then just over 3 months) and didn’t work on a single case where someone was getting that amount.

DrCoconut · 30/12/2024 22:25

NoOneKnowsWhoYouAre · 30/12/2024 22:10

The real crime here is that the benefits system props up people who chose to work part time, rather than that it doesn't take off child maintenance. Why on earth should the state pay so that someone can chose not to work full time?

Find me a childminder who picks up 13 year olds with SEN from secondary school and another for primary age who both has places and can deal with DS3's probable PDA and I will work more (I'm currently 21 hours per week not counting commuting to a neighbouring city two days a week). Until then I cannot physically be at work and taking care of my children at the same time. My ex got to opt out, I don't, but I'm the bad guy, the scrounger, the lazy one.

ARichtGoodDram · 30/12/2024 22:26

Almostwelsh · 30/12/2024 22:21

The only fair way to deduct CM from benefits would be for the benefits to be paid to the RP and then the state claim back the appropriate CM portion from the NRP with penalties for non payment being treated the same as non payment of tax.

But that would upset too many men, so it won't happen.

You’re right, it absolutely won’t.

when the amount of money owed to the Sec of State to go toward the benefit bill got ridiculous it was decided that something should be done. That something is the current system of the RP keeping all of the money that many many never see a penny of

Mockingjay876 · 30/12/2024 22:26

Her financial situation means she is heavily reliant on someone else to maintain her current lifestyle. No one finds that ideal surely. It’s also not forever because children become adults . Hopefully she is planning ahead for that.

outthereandbeyond · 30/12/2024 22:28

Yes. This is definitely a loophole!

She is earning way above average monthly income. Anyone who thinks you’re being unreasonable is most likely receiving benefits or benefitting from a similar arrangement. I have so many “friends” who do f all to better themselves; purposefully avoid work because “it will affect their income and they will be worse off”. I know people who have sold their houses, hide their income, work part time or refuse promotions or salary increases because they prefer the security of benefits!

From my personal hardworking experience, proudly not entitled to anything because I am a (single) working parent who earns, and budgets, and has a mortgage, I find this scrounger mentality difficult to bear.

This is not to include those in genuine need. However from my personal experience, I don’t know a single person who is genuinely deserving of benefits. Not one from my large circle who couldn’t do with a kick up the backside….

Billblue · 30/12/2024 22:33

If she has 2 primary ages kids how is she going to manage working full time. I looked into breakfast club and after school club. Our school no longer offers wrap around care. Anyhow, it was £200 per week for 2 children. That's before I get to work or make a packed lunch. Holiday club would cost me £80 a@AmIabigmeanie day. I would earn around £400 a week working full time. After term time childcare £200 and travel £78 I might have £100 a week. During school holidays I'd be in minus money.