Change to the Law 2013 - Compulsary payments till the child is 18 now!

[THNX4THT]

Strange that all of this wasn't happening 20 or 30 years ago.

The "empowering" of women made some mothers think that a father is just an unnecessary accessory to the life of their kids.

50% of marriage fails nowadays for a simple reason: very few couples understand the importance and seriousness of marriage.

They're together for a few months and get married or worst, have children.

They then realise they want a life and the partner is not as nice as they thought.

They separate and the true victims are the kids.

In the old days people were more tolerant towards their partner and worked things out, while now at the first obstacle they go separate ways and leave the kids to be bounced back and forth between them.

And imo it's all due to the media promoting a celebrity lifestyle for all.

In today's society if you are normal you are a loser.

You're a married man with kids, bills to pay and no time to go out?

You're a loser.

You're a married woman juggling work and kids with no time for social life?

You're a loser.

If you are a single parent than you're a hero!

How did we get to this point?!?!

How can society consider someone a hero when they had kids with someone they barely met and then splitting up leaving the kids in a limbo?!?!

Irresponsible, selfish losers if you ask me!

Of course there are a few cases of misfortune when for example the father becomes a violent drunk.

But a longer relationship before having kids could highlight faults from either parties and maybe kids won't even have to be born to couples destined to separate.

Irresponsible is what they are.

I'm so sorry for the kids.

 

There is a slight problem if you're on benefits, you're not given the equal right to meet someone and let a relationship flourish in the normal way. It is DWP that push couples to live together at the early stages of a relationship. If you are in receipt of benefits, you are not allowed to have your boyfriend stay overnight for ONE night without being considered as living together.

 

If you go on holiday with your boyfriend, that also is considered as living together.

 

""[[How can society consider someone a hero when they had kids with someone they barely met and then splitting up leaving the kids in a limbo?!?!]]""

 

If you want relationships to take time, and people not to rush into anything, treat people equally, and allow them the same rights as working people, to let a relationship grow slowly, rather than be pushed into living together without choice, you have to live as a couple if you spend just ONE night together. - change the rules.

[goodatresearch]

That is actually quite true. They told a relative of mine that even if she let her brother stop for one night they may question whether he's contributing and try and stop her benefits.

[THNX4THT]

Thinking back on the DWPs visit, I was told by DWP if my mother came to stay, after 2 weeks we would be considered as living together. DWP told me they didn't consider the next day to be till 8am, so even if your partner came over at 4am the next morning, it was considered the previous day. As far as Im aware, generally speaking, we celebrate New Year on 31st Dec at midnight not 7:59am on the 1st. And we put our clocks back and forward at 2am. Since when did DWP decide when the day starts and ends???

[antone]

Thinking back on the DWPs visit, I was told by DWP if my mother came to stay, after 2 weeks we would be considered as living together. DWP told me they didn't consider the next day to be till 8am, so even if your partner came over at 4am the next morning, it was considered the previous day. As far as Im aware, generally speaking, we celebrate New Year on 31st Dec at midnight not 7:59am on the 1st. And we put our clocks back and forward at 2am. Since when did DWP decide when the day starts and ends???

 

You can't be considered to be "living together" as partners with your own mother. Can we please stop spreading this sort of misinformation.

[antone]

That is actually quite true. They told a relative of mine that even if she let her brother stop for one night they may question whether he's contributing and try and stop her benefits.

 

You can't be considered to be "living together" as partners with your own brother. Can we please stop spreading this sort of misinformation.

[goodatresearch]

I didn't at any time say that my relative and brother would be considered as a couple, what a sick idea and suggestion. Read my post again and a little more carefully. Do you really think that the housing benefit office would throw around accusations of incest between siblings or parents and adult child.

 

I heard what was said with my own ears. Im not in the habit of telling lies. She was told that if her brother stayed over they would look into it. They were probably talking bs, but the misinformation originated from them and not me.

[goodatresearch]

By housing benefit people I'm talk DWP etcetera. The problem is if you are a single parent and an adult relative moves in your home, this will have an impact on benefits. Another example is if your daughter stays at home as an unemployed single mother, she receives less income support, or whatever they're calling it now. Been there, got the t shirt.

 

The question is, what does someone staying over 1 night or a couple of weeks mean? It shouldn't really matter but the powers that be make threats anyway.

[antone]

I didn't at any time say that my relative and brother would be considered as a couple, what a sick idea and suggestion. Read my post again and a little more carefully. Do you really think that the housing benefit office would throw around accusations of incest between siblings or parents and adult child.

 

I heard what was said with my own ears. Im not in the habit of telling lies. She was told that if her brother stayed over they would look into it. They were probably talking bs, but the misinformation originated from them and not me.

 

OK, sorry if that came across as offensive. But note that I mentioned "living together" in response to another poster's use of that precise phrase. Granted, it was not you, so again I apologise if I caused offence.

 

The reason I raise the point is that there's a difference between sharing a house with someone and being a couple, and while the former might have an effect on certain benefits, the latter is much more likely to be an issue.

 

Off the top of my head, I can think of two situations where living with a sibling might be an issue: Housing Benefit (non-dep issues) and DWP benefits where an SDP is in payment. However, it is sad that some staff do give bad information. It's also true that many people misinterpret what they're told. But there's no way that having one's brother crashing in one's spare room for a night is at all relevant to benefit entitlement.

[THNX4THT]

You can't be considered to be "living together" as partners with your own mother. Can we please stop spreading this sort of misinformation.

I'm only passing on information that was told to me by DWP. I'm certainly not suggesting any incestual meaning. I lived with my mother before, in our family home and in a bedsit for 2, when we found ourselves homeless for a short while. No one said anything about incest, I was just meaning living under the same roof. Not as a partner. Jeeezzz

[antone]

I'm only passing on information that was told to me by DWP. I'm certainly not suggesting any incestual meaning. I lived with my mother before, in our family home and in a bedsit for 2, when we found ourselves homeless for a short while. No one said anything about incest, I was just meaning living under the same roof. Not as a partner. Jeeezzz

 

The reason I objected is that the phrase "living together" implies a particular relationship in benefit terms. Specifically, people who are classed as "living together" are expected to support one another when they make claims for means tested benefits. This is not the case where adult members of a family live under the same roof.

[goodatresearch]

Except when your daughter becomes a single person and still lives at home! My daughter received reduced income support for this reason (I'm not talking about HB or Council Tax Benefit). The amount she received didn't cover all her costs. No account was made for her contribution to the household and when I queried it with DWP they said she was our responsibility. We had no choice but to let her live board free and we had to subsidise her and her child. Therefore adults family members living under the same roof does impact on benefits.

 

As soon as she left home, her income support increased and of course the benefits floodgate opened.

[antone]

Except when your daughter becomes a single person and still lives at home! My daughter received reduced income support for this reason (I'm not talking about HB or Council Tax Benefit). The amount she received didn't cover all her costs. No account was made for her contribution to the household and when I queried it with DWP they said she was our responsibility. We had no choice but to let her live board free and we had to subsidise her and her child. Therefore adults family members living under the same roof does impact on benefits.

 

As soon as she left home, her income support increased and of course the benefits floodgate opened.

 

How long ago was this? Under current rules, she could claim IS as a Lone Parent if her child is under, IIRC, 5 years old, but the amount would not change simply because she was living with her parents. If she had been part of a couple and became single, that could affect her benefits but again, it's nothing to do with the fact that she lives with her parents.

 

It is true, though, that most benefits don't take any outgoings into account.

[goodatresearch]

9 years ago and I did query it did it seemed quite odd. Once she left home DWP actually wrote to us query whether we would consider providing her with financial assistance.

[antone]

9 years ago and I did query it did it seemed quite odd. Once she left home DWP actually wrote to us query whether we would consider providing her with financial assistance.

 

I suppose it's probably water under the bridge now, but I think I would have complained to the DWP about such a letter. Or at least queried it, because that's just weird. Parents are not required nor expected to provide financial support to their adult children. I mean, some do, of course, if they have the means, but the DWP should not be suggesting such things.

[goodatresearch]

Did send in a snotty letter but didn't receive response.

[THNX4THT]

Well I've spoken to my local MP and I'm hoping he influences the rights of fathers to have a fair amount taken off them for their children.

 

The CSA should deduct the fathers Rent, heating and food costs THEN deduct the percentage of his wage

 

If the CSA should deduct the fathers Rent, heating and food costs before deducting a percentage of the absent (fathers) parents wage, then the Rent, heating and food costs of the parent looking after the child full time, would have to have those taken into consideration too. This could potentionally result in absent parents paying more for their children. Just a thought

[eskimoman]

Just a reply after reading the first page of this thread regarding fairness, ie the mum shouldn't be spending the money the dads paying out.

 

They should simply make a law for accountability, ie receipts for what money is spent.

If any left over it should, by law, go into savings account for the child/childrens future, withdrawable only by them & for when they become officially of adult status & have left school.

 

Easy enough really, if the government pulled it's proverbial finger out & applied it to this.

[goodatresearch]

All these poor men who don't want to pay for their children and object to their exs having a life. Eskimoman wants the mothers to account for every penny they spend. Perhaps they should just be chipped so their exs can follow their every move and control them.

 

I know some men get a raw deal and there are bad mothers, but for goodness sake, provide receipts! What a silly idea.

 

What about all the fathers that don't pay a bean?

 

 

Just a reply after reading the first page of this thread regarding fairness, ie the mum shouldn't be spending the money the dads paying out.

 

They should simply make a law for accountability, ie receipts for what money is spent.

If any left over it should, by law, go into savings account for the child/childrens future, withdrawable only by them & for when they become officially of adult status & have left school.

 

Easy enough really, if the government pulled it's proverbial finger out & applied it to this.

Edited August 23, 2014 by citizenB
restored quote box

[Ros1609]

All these poor men who don't want to pay for their children and object to their exs having a life. Eskimoman wants the mothers to account for every penny they spend. Perhaps they should just be chipped so their exs can follow their every move and control them.

 

I know some men get a raw deal and there are bad mothers, but for goodness sake, provide receipts! What a silly idea.

 

What about all the fathers that don't pay a bean?

 

 

 

 

I quite agree

[eskimoman]

I quite agree

 

Oh yeh, having savings put in for a childs future, dumbest idea ever, what the heck was i thinking of!

 

All i can say to you is I am glad I think this way and not your way, I would be glad for accountabilty by law if my childs future was all the better for it.

 

Isn't accounting for the benefits/payments part & parcel of nearly every thread or argument to do with this subject?

 

All I was suggesting was that it would be better that it was accounted for rather than argued over all the time. I Will not add any more to this topic.

[goodatresearch]

Providing for children is not just about clothes and food. Its rent/mortgage, heating and lighting, TV, school trips, spending money, etc, etc. You cannot provide receipts for all these.

 

Until you've actually brought a child up I.e. one that lives with you, quite frankly you don't know what your talking about.

 

My daughter doesn't get a penny for her 2 children from their father, despite the fact he has a good wage, runs an expensive petrol guzzling car, lives rent free with mummy.

 

Doesn't think he should pay anything because that's what her WTC is for apparently. Where's his accountability.

 

Like I said, some fathers have a raw deal, but there's many more single parent mothers in my daughters position.

 

 

Oh yeh, having savings put in for a childs future, dumbest idea ever, what the heck was i thinking of!

 

All i can say to you is I am glad I think this way and not your way, I would be glad for accountabilty by law if my childs future was all the better for it.Isn't accounting for the benefits/payments part & parcel of nearly every thread or argument to do with this subject?

 

All I was suggesting was that it would be better that it was accounted for rather than argued over all the time. I Will not add any more to this topic.

Edited August 23, 2014 by citizenB
restored quote box

[Ros1609]

I didn't disagree that saving for your kids future was a dumb thing to do. I think its quite admirable because many absent parents out there refuse to contribute at all. What I disagreed with was having to provide receipts for what I spend my CSA money on. Every penny of my CSA benefits my children in some way whether its a trip out, a new toy or paying the gas bill. I don't ask my ex husband how he spends his wages, I don't see why he should see how I spend mine

[goodatresearch]

I agree. Unfortunately many fathers won't agree. They see their exs getting on with their life and don't like it because their bitter. Many think that because their exs have a social life and aren't on the breadline, that they are personally paying for their social life and the children aren't receiving the benefit of maintenance. Of course, as I've said previously there are some bad mothers, but the existence of a social life isn't evidence of neglect.

 

If you read eskimomans own thread you will see that he wasn't happy to contribute to school uniforms because he thinks that's what child benefit for. He is happy to pay for "nice things" for them and save for their future which is good, but according to his thread he has decided to pay maintenance to "stop arguments". The legal position is that the parent without care should pay regular maintenance, it is not by choice (unless their income is below a certain level).

 

Again this is unfortunately something some fathers think I.e. contributing occasionally and saving up for their future is all the responsibility they should have. Maintenance should be paid weekly/monthly if finances allow and this argument about benefits is rubbish. Benefits do not excuse parents from their financial contributions.

 

 

 

I didn't disagree that saving for your kids future was a dumb thing to do. I think its quite admirable because many absent parents out there refuse to contribute at all. What I disagreed with was having to provide receipts for what I spend my CSA money on. Every penny of my CSA benefits my children in some way whether its a trip out, a new toy or paying the gas bill. I don't ask my ex husband how he spends his wages, I don't see why he should see how I spend mine

[Rachie1973]

Just a reply after reading the first page of this thread regarding fairness, ie the mum shouldn't be spending the money the dads paying out.

 

They should simply make a law for accountability, ie receipts for what money is spent.

If any left over it should, by law, go into savings account for the child/childrens future, withdrawable only by them & for when they become officially of adult status & have left school.

 

Easy enough really, if the government pulled it's proverbial finger out & applied it to this.

 

Then I would want my ex husbands receipts to make sure he's not wasting money he could be spending on our children in that case.

[Myfamily]

Hello,

 

I don't know if anyone will be able to answer this. My husband has a son from his previous marriage, they were divorced when the he was 3 and when it went to court it was decided that my husband would pay maintenance till he was 16, apparently all documented (i don't have a copy unfortunately) but he is now 17, my husband has paid religiously every month, never missing a payment. He carried on past 16 as the law changed, so he told his ex that payments would stop when he is 18.

 

He is going to uni next sept and will already be 18 by then.

 

So I wanted to check that this was correct as she is threatening to take myhusband to court over it. But I wondered, as the original court order was till 16, has he already paid more than he was supposed to? or does the change in law overide this or does the court order overide the change in law?

 

My husband obviously doesn't want to go to court, but he has paid more than the csa would tell him to. The ex say that he neds to pay till he's 19 and while he's at uni, my husband will no doubt want to help him in uni anyway, but rather pay money direct to his son to help him rather than to his ex, but he also wants his son to support himself i.e with grants etc and maybe a part time job.

 

Can anyone advise??