Benefit rant- seems really unfair?

[Tralalalalaa24]

I know I will probably get a bashing for what I’m about to say. But for the record I’ve always worked full time until I had my children and then financially it made no sense to work full time and pay nursery fees to not see my child much so I dropped to part time hours and have remained part time as I’ve gone on to have 3 more children. I then became a single mum to those children and have no financial help whatsoever from the dad but have managed ok on my wages and UC top up. I’m now in the position of wanting to live with my partner but it means I will lose all my benefits due to his wages. He’s not a massive earner (around 40k) I get that’s what the system is but it seems really unfair that he will be held financially responsible for my children. He has two children of his own who he has 50% of the time and still pays child maintenance for. So ultimately it means we can’t afford to live together without it being a struggle which I don’t want for my kids, or for his. Not really sure what I’m after as there is no solution, we just won’t live together until I’m in a position where I go full time when my kids are a bit older. Just wondered if this is a common issue people have

Non-resident parents are usually providing a home and everything it entails too, even if it sits empty a lot of the time. Why shouldn’t resident parents be expected to contribute to raising their own kids too?

Lots of posts on men not paying, which should be criminal, but not much talk about the men who do pay, and that this amount doesn’t need to be declared? I have a friend who works part time and claims full UC AND gets £700 a month from the dad! Why is this not accounted for? She is very comfortable, far more than someone working full time on an average salary and I don’t blame her, but the system is a joke!

I think you’d be surprised…

They long long ago stopped counting maintenance because maintenance is so often not paid/used for blackmail/withheld if you don’t comply with demands/withheld to “teach you a lesson you won’t forget. I’ve been there. It’s terrifying. It was a mandate for abusers. It id quite right that maintenance should not be counted because you don’t know from one month to the next if it’s going to turn up. I appreciate that a very small minority will do “well” out of this but there are many many more who will continue to suffer from financial hardship.

If it is true and the OP is pregnant again then perhaps she should have looked into the financial situation before getting pregnant....... Churning out kids and expecting benefits to subsidise life choices is partly what it wrong today, that and the fathers not paying what they should.
They need to completely scrap CMS and start again and have much more power including suspending driving licences and removing passports etc. Might 'encourage' absent parents to pay up.

This.

@Tralalalalaa24 I mean it makes more sense that your children’s biological dad (or in his absence), new partner who loves you contributes to supporting you and any dependents surely rather than the taxpayer? Why are you so content to burden the taxpayer rather than your new life partner/biological father?

To add to that, I also find it scary that someone would choose to get into a serious relationship and merge families with someone who has 4 young children.Then be surprised that some things won't work out well.

Like some posters have said, I hope they've thought this through from the children's perspective, privacy and all.

Agreed. We should take a leaf out of other countries and either garnish their wages or prison sentence. It has to be a crime to have children and not take care of them. Yet we're wondering where all our money is going when we're expected to pick up the slack for feckless parents.

Imagine if everyone had kids with one person, then moved in with a second and benefits were payable merely because the kids were living with a different parent. There would be no incentive to build a stable family unit and the benefits bill would be (even more) insane.

Ah well history always repeats itself in these cases, doesn't it? I was going to suggest they don't bring in more children than the 6 they already have combined but thought it would fall of deaf ears (and may even get some ppsters jumping down my throat).

More often than not, people in these situations always happen to "fall pregnant" while struggling with the children they already have.

Please can you use your crystal ball to find out this weekend’s lottery numbers? Thanks.

Surely her having 3, whilst on benefits and him having 2 would be enough of a clue that they didn’t need any more kids and probably couldn’t afford anymore. Unfortunately this is another example of no thinking until afterwards and then it’s a ‘poor me’.

Lots of people only care about their money and their love life but rarely show the same care for the children they're popping out and blending into different families against their will.

OP has shown she only cares about the money. Pathetic excuse of a human and her poor kids only there for her financial advantage.

First off, £250k is a ridiculous figure. It doesn't cost £1200 a month to raise a child. Thousands of people give their children a perfectly happy childhood on much less.

Second off, why are you adding to the loan for half of uniform payments? What is the £250k paying for if its not uniforms or shoes?

How out of touch can you be?

I can't find the lottery numbers, but there's a few things I can predict, like if you're having unprotected sex with someone you're likely to get pregnant and if you get pregnant you're likely to have a baby. And that if you can't afford to support your 3 existing children without tax payer help you won't suddenly be able to pay for the 4th. And that if you post on Mumsnet posting about how you're gaming the system in order to get taxpayer money to pay for all the kids you've had then you won't get a good response.

The OP says they wont be living together until her kids are older and she can work full time again.
I do not understand the hate she is getting on here.

I had 3 kids when I was married and my husband was a high earner. I was a sahm.

we divorced. (He cheated)

I was on benefits while I got qualifications and ultimately a degree.

when I went out to work in my first job, I would’ve had more money due to the tax credit system and age of the kids if I’d stayed at home.

I wasn’t at “break even” even for 2 years almost.

but that’s what you do. You put the graft in. I worked full time and weekends they were with their dad I did shifts in the local pub.

and I had no more children and didn’t even properly date til they were adults coz their dad blended with his new lady and her 3 kids and it wasn’t great for mine so I put mine first.

im partnered now but mine are adults.

not everyone who takes benefits is gaming the system.

The OP clearly said she became a single parent after she’d had 4 children. Are you saying that nobody should have children just in case their circumstances change and they can no longer afford them? Because that could literally happen to anyone.

It’s incredibly annoying how skewed the benefits system is. I’m sure many of us would love to have more children but it’s just not financially viable!

If you’re at the stage in your relationship of having a baby together it shouldn’t be possible to continue claiming as a single person. These men aren’t being called to account at all, they need to be financially responsible for the children they’re creating ( women too tbh).

I agree that it’s unfair, by the way. I don’t think it’s the new partners responsibility to finance 4 children that are not his. But more so, the way the system currently works leaves the woman very vulnerable to control / financial abuse by making her and her children reliant on a man.

There needs to be a better system in place to ensure absentee fathers remain financially responsible for their children. The fact that there isn’t is not the OP’s fault.

It is a very problematic aspect of the benefits system.

I've only 1 child, bit similarly am not moving in with my fiancé for the same reason.

I was abused by my stepdad and part of his resentment was that he didn't want to pay for his stepchildren.

I'm not sure what alternative would work. Obviously, enforcing child maintenance from absent parents would be ideal, but no help in situations where the parent can't pay or is deceased. Perhaps maintaining some child element of U.C., while stopping the adult and housing elements.

Search her history and you’ll find a post, from a month or so ago, where she says she’s got 3 boys and is pregnant with her fourth. There’s a scan photo there too.

While she couldn’t foresee the breakdown of her marriage, and the difficulties of affording 3 children on her own, she absolutely could see that adding another child into the mix would be completely daft.

I’m confused at some of the comments about how the father should be paying child maintenance for his 4 children rather than relying on tax payers money. Of course he should more than contribute to his children, however that is irrelevant when it comes to benefit entitlement. Even if the father was paying 100s of pounds a week, you’d get just as much benefits as child maintenance is disregarded.