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 we have to stop punishing parents for splitting up.

237 replies

JustAskingThisQ · 31/01/2025 23:12

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.

OP posts:
Househunter2025 · 01/02/2025 08:26

JustAskingThisQ · 01/02/2025 00:05

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.

Show quote history

Not really. I'm all for benefits to keep people off the streets and from starving. I'm not for benefits to allow people to have exactly the living arrangements that they prefer when this costs double.

There isn't an unlimited pot for benefits.

Bushmillsbabe · 01/02/2025 08:27

JustGotToKeepOnKeepingOn · 01/02/2025 03:38

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.

Show quote history

Couples often don't. My husband earned 60k last year, I earnt 38k as am part time, so we earnt 98k but still had to pay all the child benefit back. Your example only works when both partners earn exactly £49,998.50, which is pretty unlikely.

OneForTheRoadThen · 01/02/2025 08:31

It's not correct that you have to receive child benefit to claim UC. I claim CB and my ex claims UC and includes both our children in his claim even though I have them more. He actually checked with UC before he claimed and its above board surprisingly. Claiming CB is no longer a condition of claiming UC.

LadyQuackBeth · 01/02/2025 08:31

The variable you are not considering is that separated parents with 50:50 have more capacity to work more hours, as they don't have children all the time.

This should balance out any extra needed, and child benefit, if each was getting 50% of any support.

Househunter2025 · 01/02/2025 08:32

JustAskingThisQ · 01/02/2025 02:16

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.

Show quote history

Do single adults with no dependents get benefits? The ones I know in London do all live in house shares and work. Disabilities excluded obviously.

When I was a single adult I always lived in house shares, out of choice to save money for the future. It's not unusual or a particular hardship

Nina1013 · 01/02/2025 08:33

JustAskingThisQ · 31/01/2025 23:49

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.

Show quote history

You are literally suggesting that depending on tax from other people’s earnings to give your children TWO homes is reasonable.

Spoiler alert…. it isn’t!

helpfulperson · 01/02/2025 08:40

This is most of what is causing the housing crisis the vast increase in the number of single adult households.

Original poster
JustAskingThisQ · 01/02/2025 09:01

StinkyWizzleteets · 01/02/2025 03:05

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.

Remember most people on benefits are working. It's just that wages aren't high enough to cover the COL. Wages being high enough would solve all of these problems.

OP posts:
Original poster
JustAskingThisQ · 01/02/2025 09:02

LondonLawyer · 01/02/2025 02:04

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.

That puts the entire burden of childcare on the RP who is usually the mother.

OP posts:
Original poster
JustAskingThisQ · 01/02/2025 09:05

AkashaPlease · 01/02/2025 02:41

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.

I think my circumstances would actually be relevant to the majority of people. Especially whi live in London in social housing.

OP posts:
Original poster
JustAskingThisQ · 01/02/2025 09:09

OneForTheRoadThen · 01/02/2025 08:31

It's not correct that you have to receive child benefit to claim UC. I claim CB and my ex claims UC and includes both our children in his claim even though I have them more. He actually checked with UC before he claimed and its above board surprisingly. Claiming CB is no longer a condition of claiming UC.

From what I read, you have to prove you're in receipt of the CB to have any housing allowance for children. So if you're not, you'll be seen as a single person who isn't in need of a place where you your kids can stay. In some instances that means you're only given enough money for a cheap houseshare in your area, not even a studio.

If you get CB, you're given enough money to also have space for the children. I'm saying move it away from who gets the CB to who is a parent that needs to house their kids.

OP posts:
BadSkiingMum · 01/02/2025 09:10

I think you are right to ask questions of ‘the system’ and clearly the biggest problem is unpaid maintenance. There was a recent report by Gingerbread about this issue.

I believe that adult children should be able to sue NRP for unpaid maintenance, once they turn eighteen.

But apart from that I think there needs to be greater emphasis on personal responsibility, that an individual (unless they become a victim of crime, accident or other circumstances beyond their own control) mostly shapes their own life with their decisions.

A decision to have several children will make it far harder to house all of them in the event of a split. A decision to become a SAHP will decrease your earning power later in life. A decision to have another baby in a brand new relationship, which is less likely to last, will mean that you are tied to two different co-parents for a very long time.

Parenting is about sacrifice and sometimes it is actually better to keep a stable home and family unit for children to grow up in. Not always, but sometimes.

There is too much social weight given to adult fulfilment and not enough given to stability for children.

I always find attitudes towards nesting very interesting, because it literally puts children at the centre, which is what everyone claims to want to do. However, as soon as it is put forward, lots of people aren’t too keen because they feel that it will prevent them from ‘moving on’.

Original poster
JustAskingThisQ · 01/02/2025 09:12

DancefloorAcrobatics · 01/02/2025 08:24

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.

Why? Because it would allow each parent to take responsibility for the child rather than saying one person gets money for it so it's mostly their job. That's how it works now.

I assumed that with 50/50, you were both automatically viewed as people who need to support a child but you are not. Only the person that receives CB is allocated any funds to house the children.

OP posts:
Margot2020 · 01/02/2025 09:13

A lot of talk about what’s “best for women” or “punishing women” in the OP. But many women are taxpayers. And for me personally as a taxpayer, beyond a minimum for those in dire need, I’d rather keep my money to invest in my own children’s childhood than pay additional tax to fund two family homes for each separated couple, of which there are many.

Macrodatarefiner · 01/02/2025 09:15

I wish both parties would think harder before having children if they're not then going to do their utmost to raise them in a loving and committed family. Sometimes it's hard. And no, I'm not saying one person has to such up abuse from the other.

Original poster
JustAskingThisQ · 01/02/2025 09:16

BadSkiingMum · 01/02/2025 09:10

I think you are right to ask questions of ‘the system’ and clearly the biggest problem is unpaid maintenance. There was a recent report by Gingerbread about this issue.

I believe that adult children should be able to sue NRP for unpaid maintenance, once they turn eighteen.

But apart from that I think there needs to be greater emphasis on personal responsibility, that an individual (unless they become a victim of crime, accident or other circumstances beyond their own control) mostly shapes their own life with their decisions.

A decision to have several children will make it far harder to house all of them in the event of a split. A decision to become a SAHP will decrease your earning power later in life. A decision to have another baby in a brand new relationship, which is less likely to last, will mean that you are tied to two different co-parents for a very long time.

Parenting is about sacrifice and sometimes it is actually better to keep a stable home and family unit for children to grow up in. Not always, but sometimes.

There is too much social weight given to adult fulfilment and not enough given to stability for children.

I always find attitudes towards nesting very interesting, because it literally puts children at the centre, which is what everyone claims to want to do. However, as soon as it is put forward, lots of people aren’t too keen because they feel that it will prevent them from ‘moving on’.

I think a toxic relationship can halt you from being as good of a parent as you could be. I think it would be very hard to remove yourself from that toxicity without clear boundaries and separation from your ex. So I think sometimes you need to move on, not necessarily with someone else, but just emotionally, in order to be a good parent. And that's where I think the nesting arrangement might be problematic.

OP posts:
MrTiddlesTheCat · 01/02/2025 09:16

What would you like the government to cut in order to pay for your children to have 2 homes?

Original poster
JustAskingThisQ · 01/02/2025 09:17

Margot2020 · 01/02/2025 09:13

A lot of talk about what’s “best for women” or “punishing women” in the OP. But many women are taxpayers. And for me personally as a taxpayer, beyond a minimum for those in dire need, I’d rather keep my money to invest in my own children’s childhood than pay additional tax to fund two family homes for each separated couple, of which there are many.

Yes some people.resent funding a welfare state which is again, a general antibenefits stance.

OP posts:
Original poster
JustAskingThisQ · 01/02/2025 09:18

MrTiddlesTheCat · 01/02/2025 09:16

What would you like the government to cut in order to pay for your children to have 2 homes?

Nothing. They don't need to. Stop spending money on crap and tax people and companies properly and we would have enough money.

OP posts:
Original poster
JustAskingThisQ · 01/02/2025 09:20

PotaytoPotahhto · 01/02/2025 08:22

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.

Show quote history

If only people who didn't have to rely on state top ups have kids, only the richest people would be reproducing. I find that problematic, I realise that many others don't.

OP posts:
Corinthiana · 01/02/2025 09:21

JustAskingThisQ · 01/02/2025 00:00

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.

So? The taxpayer should pay for his upgrade?
If he's a parent he needs to step up. No one's life is perfect and all parents have to adjust and compromise.

Original poster
JustAskingThisQ · 01/02/2025 09:22

Bushmillsbabe · 01/02/2025 08:23

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.

I think it is. Across the road from me there is a new housing complex with must be a thousand flats. Half are bought by investors and empty most of the time or air bnbs. Those homes in the middle of London could be housing parents with dependents in the area they have a support network.

OP posts:
FrutenGlee · 01/02/2025 09:22

I agree with you in principle and the housing crisis is warping how we live in so many ways.

Original poster
JustAskingThisQ · 01/02/2025 09:24

Corinthiana · 01/02/2025 09:21

So? The taxpayer should pay for his upgrade?
If he's a parent he needs to step up. No one's life is perfect and all parents have to adjust and compromise.

Show quote history

You can't step up if you also have to be miles away working all the hours god sends to pay for the maintenance that is so high because you can never have your kids overnight. You literally cannot step up and the person who bears that burden is the RP. So even when the other parent would take a fair share of the load, they cannot. And who pays for that? Mostly mothers.

OP posts:
Corinthiana · 01/02/2025 09:24

JustAskingThisQ · 01/02/2025 09:20

If only people who didn't have to rely on state top ups have kids, only the richest people would be reproducing. I find that problematic, I realise that many others don't.

Show quote history

It's unfair, that's life. Plenty of low waged people have children though, and plenty of single people do, and parent successfully.
The point is that there is no such thing as "state top ups" because it's taxpayers' money, so other parents are paying for you. Splitting up is tough, and it's obviously not going to be as easy and convenient as a 2 parent household.