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.

It’s not being punished for splitting up. Do what you want but don’t expect someone else to pay for it.

I mean I do agree with you in principle OP, that finances are tougher if you split up, and your version would be better for the family. Especially where there is abuse and the other partner feels trapped due to finance.

But we don't have unlimited money as a country, and we're really struggling to provide functional health, social care and education systems. So I think having the state fund two homes for one set of kids is going to be so far down the list of priorities that it will never happen.

No. They don’t need a home with each parent.

Children just need one home. Having two loving and involved parents isn’t dependent on having overnights.

This is crazy. It doesn't mean you work less, you work around your child.

As for the nonsense of 50/50, it's incredibly rare. Giving them the 'opportunity' is just handing them free money as many wouldn't step up.

From a single mum with a far better house and income than I had when married, with an ex who 'wanted 50/50' but, ahead of going back to family court and having done the maths, has had contact just 1.5% of the year.

I think people should try a lot harder to make marriage work where there are children involved and not put their romantic desires or their objection to boredom above the needs of children for a stable home.

Obviously no one should stay in a marriage where there are issues of control or violence, but it's almost guaranteed in a long marriage that at some point each partner will fall out of love with the other for a while, and each partner will at some point be hard to live with due to stress or illness or bouts of depression or preoccupation with children or work or elderly parents.

We need to learn to stay kind and respectful to our spouses and recognise how to value sticking at a marriage long term, work hard at having fun together and raising a family together, and enjoy the shock when you fall back in love.

I see too many people split up because they think with their groin or they crave excitement and create drama by splitting up instead of finding excitement in the marriage or through things that won't destroy the family.

This

Meanwhile, elsewhere in London, people earning £100k+ a year and both working 40 hours a week, are opting to have one child, because they cannot afford to buy a 3-bed property.

👆🫶 the truth! We all have choices. Some people can’t be assed to make them.

I actually think OP does have a point on this. If all her family and support network are nearby then there should be support to stay.

Well, the support clearly isn't enough, is it?
Maybe a cheaper area and a cheaper house would mean she has more money for childcare.

Maybe in some other areas, the set up.thay the OP wants for her family is available as housing prices are lower.
Some councils in key tourist areas are putting extra taxes for second homes. I don't believe this happens in London?

I mean it's a different point. But I have the utmost sympathy for communities in Cornwall where young people can't get on the housing ladder because of second home owners.

Maybe it's the same in the area iñLondon where OP lives?

Support to stay from those family and friends network, not support from the state.

50/50 parents need to be forced to share any benefits if they both qualify in terms of earned and other income. I know of a couple of ex couples with 50/50 where only the mother receives the benefits and doesn't split it. In one of those ex couples the mother berates the father for not earning enough. I believe if you have your kids 50 percent of the time you can both claim the housing element part of UC for the extra bedrooms though, so that's not really an issue.

I’m divorced have roughly 50/50. We don’t pay maintenance to each other. He earns more than me so tends to splash on holidays etc. I cover more day to day costs. We have 4 dc so each claim for 2 dc.

Yeah- I do get that.

But there could be other things that London boroughs could do to prioritise established community and family links that aid things financially..it's off topic though... But also god to note that OPs problem is amplified because of where she lives.,

More housing stock and benefits to cover family sized-homes that are only fully occupied a maximum of 50% of the time?

Yet people who are still together with children are unable to live in appropriate housing.

The entitlement of some people never fails to astound me.
NO @JustAskingThisQ I don't want to fund two homes for your family while me and my husband are working full time to keep one roof over our children's heads.
If you don't like living together anymore YOU fund the properties you want to live in.

The OP doesn't want to be financially "punished" but has no issue with the rest of us being financially punished for her life choices. She reeks of entitlement.

Completely agree with @SereneCapybara and further I think the state should consider what it can do to better prevent family breakdown. And when I say prevent, I don't mean at the point where it is actually happening, which is far too late. Real prevention would mean teaching boys to grow up to respect women and treat them properly, it would mean helping couples really think about the long term implications of having children and recognise how much dullness and drudgery is involved and how to cope with it together, ensuring everyone has excellent access to contraception and the confidence to use it effectively, teaching children what good relationships look like and so on so that as a society we are better at building positive long term relationships. And frankly I do believe that most of the burden of change in that area falls to men.

Where would the money come from for this? We already have plenty of people who are homeless or crammed into tiny properties with their kids. I don't think Starmer can pull a few million family home out of his arse for them to sit empty half the week.

That's not the responsibility of "the state". It's the responsibility of parents.

It is not the fault of the taxpayer that you and your partner separated.

This, to be honest. Perhaps the system should just split it if 50/50 though so not reliant on the parents to do it themselves

I can see where you’re coming from OP but still disagree.

DH has children from his first marriage and we have them about 30% of the time (can’t do 50/50 as she moved away) and his ex receives about £2000 in benefits plus £500 child maintenance for them. In reality, we have a lot of the same costs that she has - bigger house, bigger car, same petrol costs, clothes - and we receive no money.

It does feel unfair but the admin of splitting the benefits would probably be impossible and his ex certainly wouldn’t volunteer anything. As a PP said, the benefits are to provide a stable home for the children, which they do.

There's also nothing stopping single parents from banding together and living communally. We have a national housing crisis. Our public sector is crippled. The last thing we need is having to fund people to have bigger homes than they need half of the time/benefit top ups they only need half of the time. Perhaps the resident parent can get half of the usual top up instead and then the other pwrent can get half subject to means testing - but then you'd probably find that one home doesn't meet the threshold so less money overall is divvied out and it wouldn't have the effect you think it would.