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.

Luckily we both have decent salaries and can afford to pay for the children we have. I’d say his children probably cost us £1500 a month if you factor in the bigger house, extra council tax, bigger car, CMS and everything else. His ex gets £3000 a month towards raising the children, we get -£500.

If we were to separate, DH would struggle to pay for everything on just his salary alone and would be ineligible for state support. If the children didn’t have their own bedrooms and fun activities they would probably be less keen to spend time at his home and the relationship would suffer. So I do see where OP is coming from. But that’s life. You have a better standard of living when in a couple. As a PP said, the benefits are to house the children, not the parents.

It's not punishment, it's consequences. We all have to take responsibility for our choices which could ultimately impact any children we choose to have. If you've picked the wrong person or can't make your marriage work whilst DC are under 18, then some support may be needed, but no, a bigger burden should not be put on the state to pay for your life choices. The consequence, not punishment, is that you all have to live in a restricted, less than ideal way.

This is a benefits issue

where should the benefits stop? The children have a home, its nt benefits issue to provide 2 homes for the same children when some children don't have any home

Exactly!

Also this.

A real parent would do those things and find a way to spend time with his kids regardless. This sounds like a bunch of lame excuses a guy would use to get out of it, and be living somewhere miles away on purpose.

You know in a lot of other cultures a healthy man would be laughed at or pitied at the idea he couldn't wouldn't provide properly for his family. Some people actually take pride in being able to do that instead of making excuses to run away from their responsibilities and try to get someone else to foot the bill as much as possible. This country would be a lot healthier and more productive if people had more personal responsibility.

splitting up often puts families and parents in a worse financial position- but it’s not up to the rest of us to co tribute to help YOU out, OP!

So then the parents would need to each fund 1.5 homes each. One where the kids live and they split the costs, and then another place they stay on their off days. Instead of each parent having one home. This would make it even worse for women.

Why would it? Sounds like a great solution. Both parents still live in the family home half the time, but swap between a studio flat when the other parent has the kids.

If we expect children, who aren't fully formed and have all sorts of shit going on in their lives, to be ok with upping sticks and moving between two houses every week, not having one place that they are putting down roots, why do we suggest adults can't do the same?

Especially if the situation was toxic or even abusive.

If the situation is abusive, why are kids being forced to stay with an abusive person half the time?

I think the time to worry about being punished for splitting up is before have children. It is best for children to be in stable families with two parents so there should be a disincentive to just chop and change the whole time.

OP - sorry, no.
I am what you would classify as a rich single parent. I earn roughly 80K - so I can afford to house, clothe, feed and entertain my family - 2DCs. My monthly take home is roughly 4K.
By the time mortgage, car, insurances, petrol commuting, household bills, food for 2 teen boys etc - there is not a lot left ( yes I do pay into a pension)

On mumsnet - there are people who will then advocate that my Ex should not have to contribute as the second family with the part time mum, who has 2 unrelated DCS to the EX needs the monies more than I do. He pays way under minimum he should.

I listen to what people get in benefits - rent, c tax, universal credit etc, free child care, child benefit etc and some are actually taking home more than me. How can a system be right that lets either single parents or married couples have the equivalent of a take home salary of someone working and earning £80K. For you to then advocate that the country should pay two parents to have that standard of living is bonkers.

Benefits should not be at a level where people have no incentive to work or provide for their family. When we have so many people saying it is not worth getting a job because I will then lose my benefits and am no better off - we know this country has got it wrong. My children, my responsibility - my 2 DCs shared a room at their Dads in a 5 bed room house because the resident children needed a play room - his choice, his decision - not the tax payer to subsidise more.

What’s the source of the £3000 the ex gets towards the children?

And where does the £500 you get come from?

I'm from Edinburgh too (only London and Bristol are more expensive to live in) and I'm in the same situation. So we live elsewhere. It's choices we make all the time. It isn't 'punishment ' if things go wrong as a result of those choices - it's life.

Yes. My support network in based in Monaco. I can't afford to live there and it is affecting my mental health.

Please can the state pay for me to live there.

If you are still not convinced you should pay for it through your taxes, I should point out that my family have lived there for 3000 and ten years.

I trust that settles the hash of those who would gripe about my reasonable request and who not are prepared to pay for my mental health.

Thank you.

Something that infuriates me, and is the root cause of most people’s negative attitudes towards those claiming benefits, is the expectation that money will just appear and save you, allowing you to live your life unburdened by the choices people who earn ‘too much’ for any sort of help have to make.

The 2 child cap on child benefit was a prime example (or a solution to the prime example) - people who have to fund their own lives don’t keep having children, they have to consider whether they can afford another baby. They might not be able to, so they don’t have one. Whereas previously, on benefits you had no such worries and the state would just step in every time.

If I am thinking about leaving my husband, I have to consider the negative effects on our family that it’ll have. It would hugely impact our lifestyle, and that of our child. It will mean less money, 2 smaller homes, or keeping one big home and the other person living somewhere much smaller. I’ll have to consider how my child will feel and how we make it work in the best way for all of us. Better to keep the life and home and lifestyle she’s used to with one of us, and the other have something considerably smaller and cheaper, worse location etc but she has some of her old life? Or we want us both to be completely equal, so sell up and start again?

Why should you get away without having to make sacrifices and choices so that others can pay for them instead? The irony is that the people paying the tax that allows ‘the state’ to step in are largely the stretched middle, who will have to make the same choices but there’s no knight in shining benefits money riding in to save them…

If I was single, I couldn’t afford to live where I live currently either! That’s the reality for most people. Running 2 households is far more expensive than 2 people contributing to one single household. That’s life.

Paying for their own housing costs?Why don’t you just do the same, rather than assume the state owes you everything you need to run two homes?
Do you have any concept of personal responsibility?

Lucky you were able to move without an expensive legal bill.

Telling people to fuck off is really unpleasant.

And you will see, if you look at Mt posts, I don't agree with the premis the OP has presented.

I love the premise that people are no longer responsible for their own decisions and the consequences😂.

if splitting from your partner means less money, that is not your fault, it’s society’s fault for not compensating you enough!

It is of grave concern to me that people in our society think like this.

What do you think "ODFOD" stands for?

Its the hypocrisy that pisses me off Parents expecting TWO homes while moaning about a pensioner or pensioner couple living in ONE home!!

You literally quoted me telling me to fuck off. You don’t get to do that then whine that telling people to fuck off is “unpleasant”. Well you have, but you look like an even bigger hypocrite than you already did.

But, as a PP pointed out, the great increase in single-adult households is contributing to the housing crisis.