Change in benefits for Lone Parents

[MsPontipine]

I went to my annual LP advisor meeting at the JobCentre today - was rather stunned by the proposed but very likely changes.

It was a bit much to take in but basically by 2010 I think lone parents with youngest child 12 or older will no longer be able to claim Income Support on LP grounds and will be required to sign on and claim Jobseekers Allowance and look for work.

Another couple of years and that age will be reduced to 7.

There are various incentives, grants etc but that appears to be the long and short of it.

I was pretty stunned - mostly I think because this is the first I've heard of this. I am not an avid news watcher but I'm not a complete ostrich.

Food for thought. . . . . .

Hi I am not a lone parent so hope it's OK to put my opinion on this. I think that the age a lone parent should be encouraged to look for work should be at least 11. I am a with DH who works f/t and I SAH (shock horror with school age kids!) I am in school often watching assemblies and helping etc and would not want to miss that so whoever said it is not in the kids interests, I disagree as my kids love me picking them up and watching their plays etc and being home means I get stuff done in the day so I still have energy to chat and play with them after school when the work begins! (I used to work f/t and was knackered when i got home and felt I missed out on DD1 school life). SAH also allows me to study with the OU and hopefully get a degree in case I want a career when the kids are older.

Someone on this thread said that the government actually may pay more to help them into work financially, I agree and studies have shown this. Parenthood is a job in itself and it is only really in recent times that only paid work outside the home is regarded as 'work' and everything in the home 'nothing' or 'sitting at home' or as someone said 'a luxury' to pick your own children up from school, what sort of society is that? Years ago 'work' was everything a family did in and out of the home and both were valued. I agree that the gov should go after the absent fathers not those who are easy pickings!

I think the age should stay at 11 or 12 and even then be depending on the family and I think that 16 hours is enough but I have a feeling that eventually the gov will want to make this 40 hours and lower the age to 6 months, it really would not surprise me at all sadly.

My friend is a lone parent and went back to work as she was told how much better off she would be as she could keep her maintenace and get working and child tax credits, well she ended up losing her house as tax credits mucked up her claim and her maintenance was being paid 2 weeks late so she wasnt paying her rent as she didnt have the money so ended up being evicted, she ended up having to stay with her parents and is now in privately rented accommodation costing £700 per month, she dont have the luxury of a man bringing home a wage packet so doesnt know how she is expected to pay rent and 2k of arrears she owes the council then adding on council tax, rates, food, clothing, travelling costs and school uniform and shoes all on a part time wage, but then lone parents have it so easy apparently

It is possible to live as a couple with one person working on the minimum wage, and you do get more than a single parent with the same amount of children on income support, and this is inclusive of benefits payable to both.

a couple with 2 children, in which one is working on the minimum wage, with rent of £130 pw, council tax of £100 pcm, will receive £429per week in tax credits, housing benefit council tax benefits and wages(net). A single parent who is not working will receive £370.

These are the figures the entitledto website gave me when I entered in the above details. I agree that people who work should be paid more - but I don't agree that they are not better off.

I agree with Tinkerbels comment that 'I think being there to take their child to school and pick them up at the end of the day IS in the best interest of the child, what I dont think is in the best interest of a child is being stuck in childcare from 8am to 6pm each day.' I know some parents want to work and for them then it is good that they have the choice but I don't think it is in the child best interests to be in childcare 40 hours a week as a baby. It is very sad at school seeing the children who are there are 7.30 and don't get picked up till 6.30pm.

Surely it's quite simple really. The government should agree on an age at which it's reasonable that people should be expected to work, whether it's 7, 11 or whatever. And then that rule applies to EVERYONE. If you are a couple, one parent should be supported to stay at home (if they choose) and if you are a lone parent you should be supported to stay at home (if you choose). And then I guess we have to hope that there's enough people out there in employment to fund it.

I dont think people would want to sit at home all day long until their child is 12, I do think that is an acceptable age for a parent to go back to work, but I dont think its an ok age to leave them to their own devices, I dont know how it would work with parents who have disabled children whereby the children cant be left alone I wonder if they too would lose their benefits or if they would be excempt.

Sorry just realised that last post wasnt very clear! I meant the age of your children! Just re read it and it sounds like the govt could be sending 7 yr olds out to work!

I'm pretty sure parents of children with disabilities will be exempt

There are exceptions for children with a disability in all sorts of legislation eg you can request to work flexibly with older children with a disability. Definitely needs to be considered differently as the needs are not those of most kids.

and so costing more taxpayers money.

Is that your issue? You're unhappy that the government dont pay one of you to stay at home?

You still didn't answer me

and that was of course a cross post before the issue of disablity came up.

I think there should be more support for those who want to go to work too - like prosecuting people who breach sex discrimination laws at interview level , opening childcare centres suitable for up to age 16 (because some 12 and 13 year olds are idiots) and have them open in the holidays - and this should be cheap, because really, they don't need as much supervision as 2 year olds.

Sorry. I have been for so many interviews where one of the first questions is "So, who will be looking after baby? How do you know they will be reliable?"

Me too antiflounce. "who will be looking after your children" "what if your children are ill" "how will you get to work with two children to drop off" on and on and on.

LBA - the point I am making is that if this is an issue about having a parent at home until the age of 7 or 12, then it's not actually an argument about lone parents/couples is it? If society feels that a child needs to have a parent at home until a child is 12, then the govt should fund that, regardless of whether it's a lone parent or a parent who is part of a couple. That's logical. It would be stupid to say 'We think a child needs to have a parent at home until they're 12. We'll pay lone parents to do that, but if you're a couple and you can't afford to live on one income - tough!' But it's interesting that that's the reality for many couple isnt it?
I personally don't think this is a lone parent issue. As I said, either having a parent at home is important and should be possible for all parents, or it isnt important and therefore we can expect all parents to work.

I once got asked about childcare at an interview. I told the employer that I used an after school club and then lodged a complaint that I doubted they would have asked my dh a similar question.

I was told once that you should answer any questions about childcare/potential maternity leave, with the response "Can you tell me if that is that relevant to my application?"

Alfiesbabe, Im not sure anyone said it was important to have a parent at home until the child is 7. I think they said it was hard to find a job that would accommodate the hours one would need, as a single parent, to enable them to work when they had a child of 7 or less? You saw what I posted and have ignored it.

And you haven't explained why this is a lone parent issue. If a couple both need to work, surely it is equally difficult to find a job to accommodate the hours you would need with a child of 7 or less? I don't get why this is being hijacked as a lone parent issue.
Let me give an example. A woman has a DH who is working long hours, out of the house from 7 til 7,and therefore unable to help with any dropping off/picking up. She needs to work too because they can't afford to live on his wage. Why is the problem any different from those of a lone parent???
For a couple, it may be easier if you can share the bedtime routine with someone (though having said that, many couple have one parent working long hours and not around) but even so, that is a separate issue. It doesnt prevent a lone parent from working during the day. And if both parents take responsibility so that even if they decide to split, they carry on parenting their children, there's nothing to stop a child staying with each parent some of the time, or the 'absent' parent coming round to do their share of putting the child to bed. You don't stop being a parent just because you no longer live together.

Btw LBA, I am not disagreeing with you that in many respects the system is crap. It's appalling that people can have a delay with tax credits, and 'gaps' which mean you're forking out for childcare on a credit card. But the system being inefficient is a separate issue. The bottom line is, couples should be supported as well as lone families. There is no logical reason to say that a lone mother shouldnt have to work when she has, eg a 6 year old child, but in a couple, both parents have to work (unless they are in the fortunate position to be able to live on one income).
Of course there are a whole host of other issues about lone parents not having the moral support of a partner in the evenings, not having someone to help cook dinner or empty the bins. But quite frankly, you're not going to solve that by saying a lone parent can stay at home. If anything, you're probably making them more isolated - at least with a job, you have the chance to get out, make contacts, rebuild your self esteem. I also think it's impossible to generalise anyway about these things. On the relationship thread there are often posts from women who may be married with a high earning husband, but who feel lonely and trapped. And there are some lone parents who may not have a partner, but who have a good network of friends, supportive parents etc. As someone said, you can't walk in other people's shoes; none of us know what's really going on in other people's lives or what's around the corner.

Alfiesbabe, how are couples discrimianted against? why do both parents have to work?

There are all sorts of loopholes to the system Amazin. eg My kids get no EMA for staying on at school in the 6th form, whereas friends of theirs get £30 a quid just because their parents have split up. In some cases the young person lives with the mum who does a little bit of part time work, so the EMA benefit is given on the basis of mum's earnings. Even if dad lives down the road, sees his kids every other day and earns 100k. Even if he's paying school fees. (My dd has private school friends who get EMA). That's an example of how couples are discriminated against.

Amazinwoman I am also wondering what the reality is of both parents having to work.

I suppose it depends what kind of lifestyle they want. Whereas some lone parents work because they want to have a high standard of living, and so I presume do some couples.

I don't know any more about it than that. Can someone explain to me the mechanics of both parents having to work because they cannot survive on one income? I thought there were things you could claim even if one partner was working.

Sorry to be naive, I am ignorant of the system.

Alfiesbabe I think thats fraud youre describing and not the benefit system. EMA is based on parental income and it must be under £30,000 in order to qualify.

the resident parent must be declaring they are receiving under £30,000.

Only on the RPs income, because the NRP could be paying eff all towards the upkeep of the chil - so yes, the EMA is available to those whose absent parents earn loads, because if it's not trickling down to the mother it's not trickling down to the child, usually.