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.

I also pointed out the millions from tax evasion.

No, you were unable to give any examples of tax evasion beyond using the words companies, rich and shirkers.

My family have been in London since the late 1700s.

Because stepping up and earning more would usually mean working more which would mean the RP is forced to not work as much meaning their career suffers and they have less time to be anything other than a parent. That's how women very swamped with childcare, stay on low pay, all for a measly amount of CM. Less CM, more contact time in a stable environment and more support for.dads to be parents would free women from that cycle.

So? You have no right to live there in perpetuity, if it means taxpayer funding. That's capitalism for you.

Most of us are taxed properly and don’t wish to pay child benefit twice over for the same child thanks.

Ultimately, taxpayers ' financial support is not a limitless source. If people's circumstances change, which they often do, at what point should the state maintain their situation and lifestyle?

Exactly.

Then maybe capitalism is the issue. Moving my kids away from our wider support network would be detrimental for their wellbeing and outcomes as well as mine. It wouldn't make us more productive in the workforce. It would probably be more likely to disable us as tax payers. Of course I can work much more and pay more tax with a close support network of people who can help with childcare.

The weirdest thing about capitalists is that they're terrible at making and keeping money.

Why would the RP need to work less, if the NRP is working more?

I the OP dislikes the idea of paying for their children, so wouldn’t want to pay for childcare and would only seek freebies by taking advantage of family members.

Because they can't work outside of hours where childcare is available and reasonable. Sure you can higher an overnight babysitter so you can work the higher paid unsociable hours, but that childcare is likely to be more expensive than standard day time childcare. Even day time childcare doesn't extend long enough to.cover a lot of people's normal working days.

No, the parents would fund two half homes each. Each pays half for the family home and each pays half for the small flat. This is obviously more expensive than living together, but can't be avoided if they want to live separately. It's considerably cheaper than running two family homes, which is what you're arguing for.

Are you 500 years old? Lots of people move out of London because it’s expensive, even people whose families rebuilt after the Iceni. You don’t have a taxpayer funded birthright to live in an expensive place. If you want to live in London, pay for it. It you want a single income household, pay for it. Everyone else has to make choices and compromises. You chose to live in a place you can’t afford, you chose to marry a man you dislike, you decide your kids need two bedrooms, you decide I will sub you instead if you having to either earn more or manage with less. How about I move back to London and you pay my rent? I have 4dc so I’ll need a 9 bedroom house, thanks.

Well, that's the system. Unfortunately.
When my husband became critically ill, and then disabled, we were hit very badly financially. We had young children and a massively reduced income. We sold our house in London and moved somewhere cheaper to release capital. We didn't want to move, but what was the alternative? Should I have expected taxpayer funding to stay put and carry on with my lifestyle?

I'm not sure that sharing a small flat is healthy for everyone. Sure we could.say that as you have not managed to stay together, you don't get to consider your mental health but that again is a punishment.

I think you are looking at an ideal that doesn't exist and will never happen.

People can take care of their children even if they have to commute to see their children.

Granted, 50/50 doesn't always work, but it's down to the parents to find a solution for their individual situation.

A better way to spend government funds is to make NRP pay for their children

Case Study:
DH used to do a 6 hour round trip to see his DC every other Weekend, sometimes bringing DC back to us and sometimes staying in a B&B... this was because mum moved back to her home town, which had cheaper rents at the time.

It cost time and money and we had to sacrifice some things in order to see DC.
DC is in their 20's, still comes to visit or we go see them.

So, it's all possible without a 2nd set of benefits if someone wants it enough.

They would never be there together so they're not really sharing in that sense. Obviously, it's difficult which is why no-one does it, but it does make sense from a financial and practical view.

How do you think everyone else (and particularly single parents) do it OP?

You work when your child is at school / nursery.

You work when they’re at the other parents house.

You use childcare (for which it sounds like you may be able to claim funding up to 85%). Your relatives help out if they can.

As a single parent, with young children, relying on state support, in an expensive part of the country… it’s going to be hard.

No-one is being "punished".

Out of interest OP, as people may be able to suggest some help.

What is your income / UC / child benefit / childcare cost etc? Do you get support for housing currently? Have you looked at claiming additional childcare cost help? This might make it feel more worthwhile working more hours.

The parents could each stay in the home that houses the children and move to the other property when they don't have the children. No need for 2 large properties.

Don’t be so entitled and blind.
Its not my fault I had children with him (blub blub)
Its not my fault we split up (blub blub)
Its not good for mental health to be sharing a small flat (blub blub)
We should both get enough money from tax payers to maintain the lifestyle we had while we were together for our children (blub blub)

How about no!!! I’d sooner pay MP’s a higher wage.

No absolutely not, sorry. Why should the state pay to support two houses for kids. People make choices, I’m sick of entitled attitudes that think the state should pick up the cost of everything when actually it’s people’s choices and actions that have led to many situations and people need to take responsibility for their own situation and provide for their own kids. It is not on to expect the state, and therefore the population, to support two houses.

Oh so you are looking at the state to fund housing for your children in two households.,.

No. If you need 2 x 3 bed houses so your children can spend 50% of their time in each home, then the state shouldn't fund this. Parents should.

Neither of you have the kids full time- so you can work more hours when you don't have them.