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.

Why is that the states responsibility? Why can’t parents teach boys to be respectful, model good family relationships, think about implications and plan their families themselves and get their own contraception sorted? Seriously people need to start taking responsible themselves and their own lives. These are basic things.

Again open to abuse how many parents take the money and dump the kids

Child support payments are no longer taken into consideration for benefits because the paying parent would often stop paying randomly and the departments were too slow to move to correct the balance children suffered what is stopping people claiming 50/50 getting the payments then not getting the children? Absolutely nothing they cannot work fast enough to keep up children will again suffer

The simplest way is to have a nominated main parent and encourage them to share unless their income is significantly lower than the other parent anything else is just nannying

Bloody hell! Is there anything that people can actually take responsibility for themselves without dragging the state into it? I am sick and tired of people trying to push more and more onto the state and then complaining that the state has failed them by not erasing all their problems (including those if their own making).

Children will replicate what they see at home. This has been proven time and time again. The state can try to educate kids about respecting women etc but all of this will be erased if they see the opposite being modelled at home. Women need to raise their standards and not facilitate these awful men. We can't expect men to change when they have every incentive to stay the same.

Well... I think the general consensus until 5 minuts ago, and upon which is based the legality you critique, is that the state must look to protect the most vulnerable in this situation, the children, because children are the most negatively affected by the dissolution of their family unit.
(Not talking about abusive situations here, just parents splitting up as per your post). So I guess the state has the duty to disincentivize separation of the parents. A way of looking at it is "we're punishing parents for splitting up".

But the thing is your partner is child free 70% of the time so can use that time to earn whereas his ex is more limited in earning capacity.

Who does it fall to, then? Teaching boys to respect women isn't going to come from women, is it? Or the majority female teachers they come across daily in school? You can tell people till the cows come home that having children is difficult but it doesn't stop those natural urges we have to procreate, to carry on the family line. And in my case, you didn't need to tell the couple about the long term implications of children - you needed to tell it to the one who had a long term affair and buggered off, using his self employment to not pay maintenance but at the same time demand plenty of time with his children, as per his rights. Sod all about responsibilities, eh?

The real issue is getting society as a whole to recognise that children are not just women's work. That men who shirk their responsibilities towards their children are not somehow justified in doing so because 'she got the house' or 'she has a good job' or 'who knows what goes on behind closed doors? She probably deserved to be left high and dry'. The abandonment of children and non payment of child maintenance should be as unacceptable as drink driving or smoking over a newborn. But it isn't. And that's why we are where we are.

I do agree that there is a problem with families (whether divorced or not) and key workers being priced out of places like London and Cornwall, especially when their jobs and support network are there.

But that's a separate issue and not easily solved.

But might be making OP's situation worse if she's London based.

This is one of the most entitled things I have ever read. Relying on the state to look after your children is not taking responsibility. Of course the state shouldn’t pay for children twice, it shouldn’t have to once.

But ultimately this could result in for eg housing benefit being paid to house those children twice over. Sorry but you sound so entitled. Is it not enough that that state is willing to contribute towards the cost of housing and rearing those children once, you think it should pay for that twice?

There are negatives of living in London obviously but I don't think it's a case for special treatment. There are benefits to living in London too which counteract the negatives. London gets so much more investment than other parts of the country.

She’s childfree 30% of the time so he’s got 40% more free time than her. She’s being compensated to the tune of £2500 for that extra 40% of her childrearing time and he’s down £500.

Do you think many parents earn £2500 for 40% of their time? 100% would be £6250 a month, after tax. Equivalent of £125k.

Like I said I do think OP is unreasonable but it does rankle a bit. We suck it up and pay for the children from our salaries.

If benefits were split according to residency, there’d be a lot more children in poverty, just with two homes. And as a country, we can’t afford to pay for children twice and empty bedrooms.

Surely it’s up to the parents to house the children
If parents split up that will be more difficult

It’s not the state’s responsibility to maintain twice the standard of living you previously had (ie 2 family homes).

I always find it baffling that people don’t realise that halving their income by splitting up will result in a lower standard of living.

I agree to an extent @Corinthiana but I think we need to recognise that at the moment lots of parents simply aren't equipped to do this well so they need support to get better at it if we want things to change. Plus I think some of what I mentioned absolutely should be a core part of state education and health offerings.

Saying that, the people I know who are most determined to make their families work are those who went through this in the 80s / 90s and are determined to do things differently. Unfortunately determination alone might not get you there.

@TheTealLemur you make good points...

You want to live in a country where workers and businesses are taxed at a higher rate, and then those additional funds are redistributed to single parents to pay for a higher living standard in two homes. Thereby expanding the welfare state and paying higher benefits to non working and lower earning individuals.

The majority of people (voters) would need to be content with that. And the reality is the majority of people probably wouldn’t.

It all comes down to the type of society people want to live in. Your arguments have to seem reasonable to both those who would be in receipt of higher benefits and those who are expected to pay for them.

I do think OP has a case for special treatment.

Cost of housing in London is much higher than other parts of the UK. London weighting on wages is quickly eaten up by higher living costs.

Family and community are important.

Someone who can demonstrate that they have generational ties to the area (in OPs case back to 1700...) I think should be enabled to stay.

In other areas, the set up OP is looking at may be affordable.

I'm not discounting what you're saying, I think your points are valid, but that's another thing left to state education. All teachers can do is deliver the curriculum, support good behaviour, model good adult behaviour and intervene with bullying. They can't "teach" about relationships. I do think, however, that many women are somewhat drawn into romantic notions and fairy tales, more so than when I was young. Many threads on here about waiting for a man to propose, wanting a lavish wedding etc. so many threads with men who don't do anything, are reluctant to parent, who are lazy and disrespectful. There's a bit of a malaise, really.

Taxpayers shouldn’t have to step in twice when parents split up.

Wouldn't that discriminate against incomers and migrants? Why should she be supported to stay in London more so than a woman who has built a life in the capital after arriving from, say, India?

@pickledpoppetpickle I think you may have misread the last part of my post. I was saying I think most change in this area needs to come from men, precisely because of the kind of example you gave, which seems to be a common scenario sadly. I agree society as a whole needs to see children as a fully shared responsibility and agree completely that men who abandon their kids, don't pull their weight or don't pay their share should be very poorly thought of whereas historically it has been single mothers who were stigmatised and shamed. So I'm saying I think the state has a role to play in driving change in terms of attitudes and so on but frankly the majority of actual change needs to come from men.

Every time "the state" is used in a post, I suggest substituting, "my friends, acquaintances and neighbours," since they are among the people who actually foot the bill for whatever is suggested. Then see how you feel about the statement and its fairness.

Absolutely. Also "other women".

@lateatwork I'm from Edinburgh. Edinburgh is extraordinary expensive. I can't afford a family home in Edinburgh. Am I entitled to extra help? No, obviously. It was my choice to have children. If I can't afford my choices I look at plan B, that is life.