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.

IF the parents have 50/50 custody and claim Universal Credit then I think there should be an option for each parent to claim half the child element, and half the extra housing costs each. You both have 50% responsibility so should get 50% of what you would normally get as a couple.

Both of you getting the full amount of money is a ridiculous suggestion. If that was a thing every Tom Dick and Harry would be splitting up so they could claim double the benefits.

Ultimately it's about living within your means. If you can't afford to live in your area as a single parent relocate to a cheaper area. It's not really penalising single parents because lots of people have to relocate after a change in circumstances.

And before you tell me I don't get it and that it's cruel to move your kids. I was a single parent and an unpaid carer for my child. I got made homeless and couldn't afford to live in my area anymore. I got really really lucky and got a council house. But it was in a completely different part of the city, in an area that wasn't as nice. My daughter had to move schools but she was fine. My circumstances have since changed and I'm not longer single or in a council house. But my point stands.

Now if we want to talk about penalising single parents we should probably focus on the child benefit rule. A couple can claim 99,999 between them before their child benefit gets cut off. But a single parent can claim £49,999 before theirs get cut...that's true penalising of single parents..

I don't think this is a healthy solution. I'd want to keep clearer boundaries with an ex, myself. Especially if the situation was toxic or even abusive. Terrible idea for that to be the default even though I know it works well for some families individually. The people I've know personally who have done it have kids with disabilities.

The state should pay for neither. Benefits should be considered a last resort - so not having them isn't being punished its supporting yourself like you should. No wonder the UK is such a basket case with attitudes like this.

CB = Child Benefit?
Child Benefit should only be paid to the mother.

It's not "stopping punishment" for split parents that you are asking for - it's double funding for children whose parents aren't together. I can see that splitting existing benefits (child benefit) might be fairer, but the cost, trouble and hassle over £10 a week would be disproportionate.
I absolutely don't think the state should be funding two bedrooms for children because their parents have split up. That would cost an immense amount of money. Children need a safe, warm, loving home. They don't need two bedrooms in two different homes, and while parents are welcome to provide them if they choose, it's not reasonable to expect the taxpayer to pay for it.

No-one is punishing separated parents any more than they are punishing single people because it's cheaper for two adults to share a home than one adult to run a home alone. Is it frustrating, yes. Is it a punishment, no.
The state pays out £25/16 per week per child. It's the responsibility of the parents how that gets spent for their benefit and if it goes to one parent or is spilt between the two households. It would be ridiculous to pay our twice for children with separated parents.

From the government benefits poiny of view, they do only need to provide for the children once, via one parent. Benefits are there to ensure basic needs are met, not to do parents job for them. Of course it is more expensive to run two households than it is one. Thats for individuals to consider when choosing someone to have children with.

If you only have your children 50% of the time, you have plenty of time to work and pay for your own house.

Here's a radical thought. Maybe both adults could ensure they are able to feed and house themselves without state assistance before they have kids?

"IF the parents have 50/50 custody and claim Universal Credit then I think there should be an option for each parent to claim half the child element, and half the extra housing costs each. You both have 50% responsibility so should get 50% of what you would normally get as a couple."

This would be fine if wages were liveable but as it stands, it would mean mostly women/RPs would have even less money to run a home as a single parent. It would help men/NRPs to some extent.

"If that was a thing every Tom Dick and Harry would be splitting up so they could claim double the benefits."

I'd prefer to remain living with my husband over any benefit money we would be entitled to as single parents. Or even "single parents". I'd like to think he feels the same... don't think I'll ask though!

"If you can't afford to live in your area as a single parent relocate to a cheaper area."

But how it works out is that the RP stays in their area and the NRP has to move away. This is especially true for people in expensive areas who have social housing tenancies. They'd not lose their council house in inner London, but their ex would not be able to rent nearby which effectively prevents them from being as active a parent as they could be. That ultimately harms the RP who we all agree is usually a woman. She can't really argue that he doesn't step up when he can't even afford to live in the same city as her and the kids.

"Now if we want to talk about penalising single parents we should probably focus on the child benefit rule. A couple can claim 99,999 between them before their child benefit gets cut off. But a single parent can claim £49,999 before theirs get cut...that's true penalising of single parents.."

Yes that was raised earlier and I agreed it's another example of how you're punished for ending a relationship when it was likely in the best interests of everyone involved.

That would mean only the richest people have kids considering how many people who work are dependent on state top ups.

If that's the case, why don't we make all single people share homes with other adults because it would be cheaper? We shouldn't be giving them any top ups at all for rent or anything because they could just houseshare with others to save costs.

I think it would be better to treat adults with dependents as adults with dependents and single adults as single adults.

Yes that might mean we have to support 2 individuals in providing a stable home to parent, but that would allow both parents opportunity to provide that stability.

At the moment, shacking up with someone who has kids lessens your financial responsibility to your own child. So someone can choose to do that to ensure their co-parent has even more of the financial burden.

The only people I know who do genuine 50/50 and are entitled to CB have two kids and claim CB for one each.

they're never going to introduce a way of working benefits for both parents when it's still very rare that there is a true 50/50 split.

Of the other 4 families I know that do it there all high earning (which is why there's the flexibility for it) and benefits aren't relevant

You're basing this on your own imagined circumstances. Which won't apply for many who aren't in your position saying "what if?"
Completely tone deaf.
Lone parent, escaped an abusive relationship. Finally after years of chasing I get £29.14 per month from the man who disappeared over 5 years ago leaving behind a 7 year old. It seems the mother of his other child still doesn't claim child maintenance because if she did then the amount would be reduced.
I spent a long time fighting for years of unpaid maintenance and to get it deducted from his wages. Child Maintenance had the gall to send me a letter saying they were going to write off his debt (to the tune of around £3000). I replied with a very strongly worded letter refusing and to their credit, they took it to court twice and he ended up with two marks against his name as a result, I forget what it was officially called. They can't pursue him for the money because he was then in receipt of benefits (yeah, me too due to health conditions for many years!)
I've still managed to be a lone parent and keep us just within breathing distance of the breadline, to the point now that I've had to take out a credit card which I've never had before but the rent went way up which UC won't take into account even though it's still way less than the LHA. I go without food regularly so that I have enough money to feed DD.
It's hard all over. Maybe reading my post you'll get some sense of that.

Also imagine them funding for two homes when it's like getting blood out of a stone to get child maintenance and receive UC nowhere near enough for the RP to pay rent on the home the child lives in so you have to make huge cuts such as food for yourself! Never putting the heating on because the electric costs an absolute fortune every month and you don't dare get into more debt, just swaddle up with blankets! Give your bloody head a wobble. Those of us stuck like this appreciate the bit we can get, what you're talking about is ludicrous.

The state shouldn't be paying to house either of you full stop.

I think I’m more bothered by the fact in a 50/50 residency situation that one parent is still considered the non-resident parent suggesting a lesser role.

I understand the issue OP that the person labelled NRP isn’t technically a NRP as the care and financial burden is supposed to be equally shared.

However your solution wouldn’t work because as others have pointed out it would either mean doubling the benefit entitlement for both parents to include dependents elements and therefore being paid for dependents when they aren’t there (although admittedly housing costs remain) or splitting the dependents entitlement between both parents where they both have more than a single person but perhaps less than they’d need.

Ideally however, disability aside, one or both parents ought to be getting themselves into a financial situation whereby working provides the majority or totality of their income. Planning life finances based on a reliance on state benefits is an unstable financial gamble for anyone in the long term.

I'm certainly not rich but I've always earned just too much to qualify for any benefits. I'm a single parent and have worked full time since DD was 10 months old to keep a roof over our heads and food on the table.

The suggestion that separated parents should get double benefits is ludicrous!

As PPs have said, if you want to get annoyed about anything, get annoyed that single parents don't get child benefit if they earn £50k but couples do when they earn £99,999 between them. Single parents pay more council tax per head too... there's plenty of stuff you could get angry and fight for fairness about, double benefits isn't one of them.

It's a ludicrous idea there are so many abusive people out there who hate their ex more than they love their children
Some examples are

Going for 50/50 but not collecting the children until late and dropping them off the next day early so THEY don't pay for childcare this means the other parent needs to pay or work less hours limiting there access to work

Refusing to pay for clothing

Refusing to do any doctors/dental appointments

Getting 50/50 and promptly ditching the children if there is a court order child maintenance won't help and by this point you usually can't afford to ho back to court

Refusing to collect the children when they are ill

Refusing to return the child dragging you to court again and again

The list is endless and boring in it's predictability I don't think we should be too fussed about benefits and we should be more bothered about examples above why they are allowed to happen on repeat I've watched men violate court orders over and over again petty ones over photographs they were ordered to send digital copies of the kids photos to each other she sent hers he refused 10 years later she still has not received the photos of herself and her newborn babies this is the kind of person your dealing with you can't coparent with that there is no "sharing"

Here’s an idea that you may consider pretty out there - support yourself and the children you chose to bring into the world. So now it’s not enough that one person sponges off the state, you think 2 should be able to for the same child... right okay.

I had this issue when I split from my exH. Having only one child made things quite difficult TBH.

So I can see what you mean.

Well we want another child but it makes no financial sense for us.

We earn no benefits so have had to make the difficult decision to not make our family bigger. Why should those who rely on handouts have more freedom than those of us who work and don’t claim.

I understand where you are coming from, in an ideal world both parents would be able to afford for example a 2 bed flat if they had 2 young children, so a room for bunk beds for the children, and they may need support from housing to do this.

But unfortunately we are living in a housing crisis, particularly within social housing. I work with families where 2 parents and 5 children are living in a 2 bedroom flat, families with 1 parent and 3 children are living in a studio flat, children in wheelchairs are being carried up 4 flights of stairs on their parents back. Waits for housing are many years long, and if a family that was living in 1 property is then allocated 2 seperate properties, the wait will become even longer. The state paying out even more money to private landlords isn't viable when so many public services are at breaking point, that money would have to come from the nhs, or education, or social care etc money.

I fully agree with you in principle, but practically what you are asking for isn't viable.

Why should the state provide 2 homes for one child or sibling group?

I fully agree with the poster that if the children are 50/50 with each parent and the parents need state benefit for whatever reason, then the child element of UC should also be 50/50.