A quarter of kids live in single parent families

[AdventAnnie]

One in four kids live in single-parent families today compared to 1 in 20 when I was born in the 70s.

Surely the priority to fund the cost of the benefits system and the affordable housing crisis, is to make both parents contribute much more to the cost of raising their children? Family breakdown tends to impoverish both parents to some degree, but so many absent dads in particular seem to get away with it.

What do you all think - if we could make these men pay more (without them claiming it all back in benefits at the other end!), would it go some way to solve the problem or not touch the sides?

Well, DH died at 37 so his pension was a bit rubbish. But we do fine and I manage to work around eldest’s additional needs. Not all of us are alone due to useless dads - he was the best dad in the world

Your OP assumes that single mums are all on benefits but that isn’t the case. I wonder if there are figures for that..

I have been a full time working single mum since DS was 11 and am currently supporting him through uni. His dad has paid nothing. I have never claimed benefits.

I don't see where the OP assumes all single mums are on benefits?

America is somewhat different as they have a much stronger attitude to individual responsibility over there.

the population as a whole seriously objects to paying state benefits for children where the dad is capable of paying and so while the state will pay benefits there are a lot more weapons to make that dad pay.

it’s still difficult though. They don’t have a good track record on making men pay.

https://www.aecf.org/blog/child-support-statistics

And some women choose to become pregnant.
Need to be fair to all

On another note, there are 'single parents' claiming benefits as lone parents whilst residing with another undeclared partner. Those people are significantly financially better off than the majority of working parents.
Very unfair

Benefits are for the benefit of the children. It's not about someone deciding what they think is 'fair' to adults.

If a man and a woman choose to do something together can lead to pregnancy, they are both responsible for the child that results. The only exceptions are when a child is conceived through egg, sperm, or embryo donation.

Sarcastic response, I didn't intend to irritate or upset you.
Wishing you and your baby the best

45k divided by 12 is 3750 per month. So he has 3k left. You don't think three kids cost that between the higher rent, food, tech, phone plans, utilities, gas to ferry them around, school clubs, etc ?

The reality is that two parents may not be able to have a three bedroom house each, and the priority is to house the kids. This may not feel fair but what's the alternative ? If they're in good terms they could do that thing where they rotate in the house, but they'd have to be amicable.

As for him being suicidal, if that's the case he needs to seek help, if you feel he's in danger of hurting himself please reach out to the appropriate emergency services.

If you didn't intend to irritate or upset me, frankly, you need to work on your communication skills. It was an idiotic and rude thing to say. And your other posts on this thread suggest you're just trying to stir.

Only if they have combined their finances. Why should mum's partner pay for kids that aren't his and with whom he might not have a very close relationship ?

That’s quite a sad statistic. Obviously people have their reasons and we’d much rather everyone be happy and safe separately than stay together for the sake of it but most families are stronger together when it comes to raising dc. Having two parents working together and committed to their family as a common cause gives you more resilience on all fronts.

The issue with CMS is that there js zero political will for them to use their powers.

On these threads people always say "they should be able to do X" and 99% of the time I'm reading and saying "they can, if they want"

I worked for CMS briefly. After my training was completed I asked if a specialist team dealt with certain powers or did we learn about them at a later point. The trainer had no idea about the powers I was talking about (putting a charge on their house) and had never heard of it. I only knew as I had to go a long way in threats with my ex for him to pay up.

I was reprimanded twice while working there. Both times for being "overly aggressive". It was acknowledged that I was, on both occasions, polite, professional and in no way rude. I followed the processes properly. The reason I was overly aggressive was refusing time to pay for two people. One had been messing his ex around for over a year and the other had been dodging payments for FOUR years. Apparently I should have given one more month.

I was also refused permission to just take money from the bank account to non payers - a power CMs have without going to court - on every occasion I wished to use it.

They are understaffed. The staff are poorly trained, through no fault of their own, so are very often ineffective. And there is zero political will, from any party, to change that.

The last system was that NRP's owed the sec of state all bar £20 a week of maintenance if the RP was on benefits. This was to go toward the welfare bill. When the debt owed got so high it was decided that something must be done. Rather than do anything effective they decided to let RP's on benefits keep the maintenance that they knew wasn't being paid

I am stating my opinion and that is the purpose of this forum.
Nowhere have I been rude or 'idiotic'. My opinions may differ to yours and we need to respect that.
You are coming across as defensive.
There appears to be double standards by some on this forum and I am permitted to challenge that.

A good sentiment but try getting money off DS's dad. He gave up work and sponges off his family so there's nothing to pay CMS with. This includes the arrears he accrued from when he was actually working...
(I'm not on benefits though)
When i met him he had 2 degrees and a full time professional job before anyone starts blaming me for choosing the wrong partner. This is usually what happens on single parent threads....

You don't think you sounded silly when you felt the need to tell me that you need a man/sperm in order to conceive a baby?

You did.

Then you did a classic 'poor menz' about how women having babies alone reduces the status of men to sperm donors, and then you said that some women 'choose' to get pregnant and it's not 'fair'. I think that accusing others of 'double standards' is pretty rich when you manage to hold both of those positions!

I know a family where parents split while DC was a baby. Both parents are currently recieving UC with housing paid for and are not working. They have the child half the time and currently neither are required to look for work.
So we have a split family taking equal responsibility for looking after the child (brilliant) but the government is funding 2 households!

@StJulian2023 I am so sorry for your loss. Your husband passed at the same age I am now. I've a terminal diagnosis and my pension isn't all that either. Whilst I am the lower earner in the house it does play on my mind to how tight things will be for my husband when I pass one day. Sending you lots of love I can't imagine how you felt at the time.

I finally went to through the CSA as my ex wont pay.

He is married with a step daughter but because they receive benefits he doesn't have to pay yet they both work. Its a joke. Meanwhile I have to work 2 jobs.

Any benefits that the resident parent is entitled to due to being a lone parent should be reclaimed from the NRP (minus child maintenance payments). And it should be treated as a debt to the state that follows you for as long as it takes to pay it back.

Children shouldn't be raised in poverty but it also shouldn't be the tax payer picking up the tab IMHO

Maintenance is not included in calculations for benefits so even if every absent parent paid it wouldn’t change benefits rates unless it was also counted as income for UC purposes

My ex discovered the capital loophole. He inherited £700k pounds. He brought a £420k 4 bedroom house for himself with no mortgage and is currently living off the rest. So he isn't working because he doesn't want to. CMS can't get me anything. I was told I could take him to court and try to get 10% of the interest on his savings but that won't be much. I didn't bother as he isn't a part of our lives anyway and it would be a lot of stress and cost for me to do it.

So yeah....it's rather depressing how some people can just choose to opt out of parenting. If he had paid child maintenance I probably wouldn't have needed my UC top-up during that period.

🤣🤣

love your reply. The fact ne I was composing in my head was much shorter & ended in off and I have no skin in the game, just find the comments offensive.

I'm sorry to hear about your DH 😘 that's so so young xx

im glad you're managing (financially) ok.

Lots of love

Yes, this.
My DB in this situation. 50/50 split care but ex moved to Central London council housing and won't let him sell house an hour plus away. He has to rent in London and pay the mortgage on the old family home. She doesn't have to contribute to mortgage even though she will get half equity when it gets to court. She doesn't want the money because it will mess up her benefits so she is stalling. It's a mess but he is broke because of it. And 3 properties involved where there was only 1....