To think we have to stop punishing parents for splitting up.

[JustAskingThisQ]

In a post earlier, I was talking about the law that says CM can be reduced if a man moves in with a new partner who has children as it's assumed that he will financially provide for those children.

This assumes that his ex will then net herself a new man to pay for their kids which is not only presumptuous, it's dangerous for her and the kids.

Of course this works regardless of gender, it's a RP vs NRP issue.

Well just now, I was looking up something to do with another trending thread and what I found out is that because the RP gets the CB, the NRP can't name their kids as dependents in the welfare system at all. Even if they had 50/50 custody. So that means that if, for whatever reason, I split from my husband and it was best I left the kids with him in the family home, I couldn't get any benefit top ups that would take into account that I need a place to house my kids, too.

So I literally couldn't have 50/50 custody. It would be near impossible for me to find a place close enough to do so due to the COL and that everything we have and know is in one of the most expensive parts of country.

It would not be all that different for their dad. He earns more money than me, but if he had to have a whole other home and supply the kids while they are there, he would maybe fall below the threshold and be eligible for benefits as a RP. But if he couldn't get them because only one of us can count the kids as our dependents, then he would potentially not be able to see them as much as he could, not be as involved in their lives as he could, and would end up paying more CM the less he sees them overnight. So a vicious circle.

What does this mean? Well it means that people like me will be more likely to stay in a toxic relationship which harms the kids. It means that mothers are more likely to have to shoulder the weight of raising the children even where the father wants to be as involved. It means parents have to consider fighting for that status in court just to be recognised as someone with dependents. Its because they've centred this whole thing around who gets a measly 20 quid a week. CB should be totally separate to who needs extra room for their kids.

What are you suggesting? The state aka the general public should not be paying for two houses for your dc. If you genuinely want to have children 50/50 and there's 2 or more children, it's possible to split the child benefit anyway

There isnt any point in splitting 10 pound. And yes, the state should pay by counting both parties as people with dependents, especially in a case of 50/50 custody. It would pay off in the long run by giving both parents the opportunity to work around their parenting responsibilities. Instead of one person sacrificing their career for childcare while the other one works to pay for a big enough home to never have their kids and pay CM for the unequal parenting load.

No. I'm sick of people expecting others to pay for their children and relationship decisions.

I don't believe living 50/50 between parents is a good thing for children anyway. They need main home.

No, the state should NOT pay for you to service two households.
The idea that you think this is owed to you is breathtaking.

They aren't paying for anyone to service two households. They're paying for two separate adults to service their own household and house their dependents.

Of course there is a point of splitting child benefit. If there are 2 children and the parents have 50/50 then they each claim it for one child.

But I don't think 50/50 is always in a child's best interest anyway. And I know of no split families, mine included, who do this. For me and all the single mothers I know, the men simply don't want that responsibility. It has nothing to do with the money either.

The state does not have an unlimited pot of money. What would be better is if the rules were relaxed in terms of earnings - at the moment 2x parents earning 50k each can claim child benefit and funded childcare hours but 1x parent earning 100k can't. Single parents are literally penalised.

Well that's an argument against all benefits.

I would support an overhaul of the CMS which ensures NRPs actually do pay for their children, and doesn't enable them to go self employed to avoid it, like my exh has done, and many other men according to this forum.

But nobody cares about the womenz and their bad relationship decisions so it won't happen.

No because there is usually a lower earner and it's rare to have true 50/50 one parent invariably does more than the other however in true 50/50 orders it can say the child benefits can be split if there is no difference in each parents income

Personally I wouldn't stay in a relationship for £20 a week

That's another example of how you'd be punished for splitting up.

What part affects you depends on your income I suspect. A lot of people I know would be reliant on the social housing system in some way and unless they were the RP, they'd not be able to have somewhere their kids could stay.

That's bad for dad's, but literally for some women I know, not being declared RP would be a total disaster because of their lack of earning power. Not that the men involved have much more but they can at least do more physical jobs that might permit them a place to stay nearby without ever having the kids.

That £20 a week means that the system acknowledges that your earnings have to also support the home of dependents. Thats why I'm saying the money thing should be separate to things like your housing allowance on UC.

In your scenario you are double counting the dependants.

The benefits for dependants are FOR dependants, not for the parent. Those dependants only need one home. Any other arrangement is a family decision and should be funded by the decision-making parties.

Yes because they need a home with each parent so each parent needs to be able to pay the rent to do so. The parents have split up but have equal responsibility to still parent and care for their children. Giving them the means to have a home to do so is the first start of that.

And I'd argue with the idea they only need one home. No they need to be able to have a home with each parent so each parent has the facilities to fulfil their parenting responsibilities.

If a guy can literally only afford a studio flat miles away from his kids, he can't have them overnight. He can't do school runs ever. He can't do emergency pick ups. He can't have a sick kid for a week off work. And not could a woman in the same position.

Would this mean that parents with no interest in looking after their children would go for a 50:50 split because they would then be able to claim benefits for it? So children would have to spend half their time with a parent, usually their dad, that really doesn’t want them there.

Not that the men involved have much more but they can at least do more physical jobs that might permit them a place to stay nearby without ever having the kids.

My ex has 100k in the bank from the divorce settlement but because he supposedly doesn't earn anything he can't get a mortgage, so until he does he is living in a 1 bed flat. Our children don't even have their own beds when they go there, they have to share.

He too, was rather cross at the fact he doesn't get any "handouts" for the children. In the circumstances I described above though, there is only so much hand holding the state should do - at what point does the parent in the situation have to take responsibility for a situation they created?

No they need to be able to have a home with each parent so each parent has the facilities to fulfil their parenting responsibilities
Do fund it yourselves . Seeing that you’re so hot on responsibilities…

That happens anyway. People go for 50/50 so they don't pay CM. This wouldn't stop bad dads, but it would give all parents the means to step up if they so wish.

Having 100k would disqualify you from benefits anyway.

That's just against benefits generally which is a valid stance if you have it but it is irrelevant to a system which only counts one parent as needing to provide housing for the children. You think neither parent should qualify for assistance which is fine to think.

Nobody needs a second home. One person needs one home. If separated parents choose to provide two homes for their children, they need to pay for it rather than the taxpayer. We can’t even get people with no homes off the street.

Nesting. Kids stay in the home and parents move between the family home and the studio flat.

In this scenario, the children stay in the family home and the parents move back and forth. That's the best case scenario for the children anyway. It's also best for the tax payer. If you really care about what's best for the kids you'd take this approach.

Each parent needs their own home. You're right nobody needs a second home, each person need their first home since they're no longer a couple.

So then the parents would need to each fund 1.5 homes each. One where the kids live and they split the costs, and then another place they stay on their off days. Instead of each parent having one home. This would make it even worse for women.