Astounded that this is actually legal

[movingthemountains]

A friend of mine has 4 children, 1 with her ex partner from years ago and 3 with her husband. They have been separated for a year and plan to divorce eventually. He moved out of their rental property and now lives with his mum. He doesn’t work, never has really, apart from the odd job here and then over the years but it’s never lasted. She works part time, 2 days a week. They share the kids 50/50 and it’s all amicable.

Due to the two child benefit cap, which applies since the youngest 2,were born after 2017, they are unable to claim for all 4 kids simultaneously. As a result, they each claim benefits for 2 kids instead.
He receives between £900-£1000, a substantial amount considering he has no rent or bills to cover. It’s wild that they can pull this off, but if they were living together, it wouldn’t be possible.

AIBU to feel shocked by this?

Additionally, before anyone suggests that this is just a bait (generally how these threads go), friends do talk, you know!

Why on earth would it be antisocial or unethical to have children with different fathers?

OP is meant to be a 'friend' , then who posts about her to strangers on the t'internet.

Yes, I'm shocked in what universe is this person 'your friend' ??

Think about it.

@Doubtmyselffpeople talk about all sorts on here, family, friends, real life situations. I’m not sure why this is any different. It’s not like I’ve slagged her off either.

Well, they sure as hell shouldn't be pracitising unprotected recreational sex if they can't afford the outcome. And spare me the "contraception fails" wail. I and millions upon millions of other women are living proof that where there's a will, there's a way, to avoid giving birth. No one just "falls" pregnant.

Obviously we have to feed and house the children but I do believe this sort of aid should be reclaimed from the parents' state pension later in their lives, when they aren't responsible for vulnerable minors. Maybe if they knew their old-age pay would be docked a few hundred quid per month in perpetuity, they'd be more careful.

It’s also unethical to ignore that the uk has an ageing population crisis that will lead to economic ruin. More babies please.

It’s very modern to “be together but live apart” isn’t it! Massive loophole but has been for years - I knew a couple like this 20 years ago who were always ‘on and off again’ and never (officially/openly) lived under the same roof.

They had 4 children together over a period of about 12 years and both got benefits for one or two at a time, until the youngest was 18! Neither adult worked in a PAYE job but both did cash in hand work, allegedly.

The “family” lived the life of fucking Riley! More new cars, treats, amazing holidays than anyone else I knew.

Just to make sure I understand this - so they have the kids 50/50, and then when the kids are with him, he spends the money on them for food and clothes etc? or he refuses to? in which case how can he have them 50% of the time? Are they being neglected? Is the nan paying for everything and he's spending the child benefit on booze? I don't see what you are objecting to OP.

It would still be peanuts compared to what the super rich do. Just let them get on with it. There are so many other issues in this country to get annoyed by. It’s actually very hard to commit benefit fraud here.

So we avoid plunging children into destitution and instead make pensioners who if they've never worked, will already be on a low income, £50 a week worse off? And when that means they can't eat properly or heat their homes and this impacts their health, they cost the tax payer a lot of money through use of the NHS and social care services. Unfortunately whether you like it or not, it isn't cost effective to use financial penalties as a form of behavioural control because the poorer you make people, the more they end up costing.

Do you think your friend tells your her business so you can spread it all over the internet? More to the point will you tell her you have shared it on the internet?

Among many other loopholes. In the great cosmic oneness, I wonder how much money is actually "lost" this way?

I don't think it is what the system is designed for, but I imagine that there are many, many loopholes such as this. They will get to them eventually, but the work involved in chasing these things down, or legislating for it will probably cost more than it will gain.

I agree!!

From the £1.06 trillion of government revenue collected? (2024).

Hogwash. There is no shortage of humans on the planet. Sensible (and non-bigoted) immigration policies can solve all future needs for consumers and workers. We don't need to burn the planet down by encouraging irresponsibile reproduction.

It’s unfair and many situations are!
Someone in my family decided not to pay for his child for years and now owes so much that it’s easier for him not to work and claim benefits for himself and his other two kids. If he works he’s out of pocket. The system is a joke!!

Its not a 'loop hole' its a perfectly ordinary part of the legislation which says that benefits can be paid for two children per household. These people are two seperate households with two children in each one. Its no more a loop hole than if a man has two children by one mother and another two by another, and each woman claims for her two children. Beside which, if it were a loophole its not one many would benefit from exploiting. Most men would not be able to turn up with two children and live cost free at their mothers expense. Most would actually have to fund a second home, which would cost more than they gain fron the extra benefit.

Yes, it's bonkers that people can choose not to work for no reason and live off tax payers, that people can be better off splitting off or pretending to split up than they are together and that they can suddenly claim for all 4 children when they do so. I agree, of course, that the children should not suffer but the system should be encouraging work and a contribution to society. It does the opposite in many ways, including things like the tax banding at higher incomes and the way in which work is taxed much higher than investments. The whole tax and benefits system needs an overhaul across the board.

Why are we pretending that throwing money at men like this is going to in any way improve the lives of those kids?

I very much doubt he is using that money to buy healthy nutritious food and pay for music lessons. In fact he isn’t, is he, he is using it for himself so he doesn’t have to work.

Just throwing money at him isn’t going to improve the lives of his children at all, it just means he doesn’t have to work.

You’re right. But if they do, why should the kids suffer?

I just went on the gov site, and it says only one person can claim child benefit , even if they live 50% with one parent and 50% with the other, so I believe they could be braking the law.

I believe they are talking about the child element of universal credit, not child benefit

I was a mum who had four children. Between me and my ex when we were together we could afford them fine. When we split I couldn’t support four on one wage but fortunately I was on historic tax credits so I got support for all of them. I feel for those whose circumstances change with more than two children. Life isn’t always planned. This family have found a way to survive.