Can you help me see how this is fair

misssmcc

ryouga wrote: »

How is that benefitting from it? Its his kids and ex partner benefitting from it and not him.

If I give £5 to a homeless person on the street does that mean I benefit knowing I provide for someone else?

Situations like this are pretty impossible to judge as we dont know why the father has little to no access to a kid and time and time again we hear(and I personally know) females living on their own having either broken up with their ex and taken their kids with them or the male fed up with how he is treated and leaves his partner, either way the man has to pay for kids who he has little to do with the upbringing of.

Men should not just be a statistic when it comes to upbringing of a child.

i dont think you can compare giving £5 to a homeless person to paying child support for your children. as someone who has never received a penny in support in the 10 years of my daughters life, i am all for NRP's realising just how important to their kids this financial support is. and i dont understand the comment about having little to do with the upbringing, i didnt read anything about that in the OP's original post.

fannyanna

Just clarifying a few points

dseventy wrote: »

He is "benefitting" from it as he is supporting his children.

He created them and now has an obligation to help raise them, whats so hard to understand.

Just in case anyone starts thinking either myself or my husband have some kind of issue paying maintenance I'd just like to be clear that this is not the case. We have no problem at all.

This is not charity. As he fathered these children, he needs to pay for them. The analogy of giving to a homeless person is incorrect. There is no obligation for you to pay money to them, there is for your children.



Who has mentioned "access". The OP has not (unless I missed it). Access is not the issue here.

There is no access issue.

D70

FBaby

fannyanna wrote: »

If they lived with us the benefits would increase from £60 ish per week to just under £200 so a fair jump. We would also have that 20% of my husbands income available so I think it would be a sizeable difference. I appreciate there would be added expenditure but I'm not sure it would be that much.

You are saying that taking his net income into account, with three children rather than 1, you would be £140 better off a week? Something doesn't sound right here. Still, you'd be surprised how expensive children are especially after a certain age. With three children, especially different sex, you are likely to need a larger home, therefore larger rent/mortgage payment. Add clothes/food/lunch vouchers/school uniforms and shoes/trips/birthday party presents/activities etc...., it quickly comes to a large amount of money.

DaisyFlower

Its totally fair, he has children and needs to support them regardless of where they live.

If you are looking at benefits when deciding to have children, then he and you arent planning at being financially responsible (as you mention further on) for the extra child - the state would be. Unsure as to why you think the state should pay you to stay home though.

fannyanna

FBaby wrote: »

You are saying that taking his net income into account, with three children rather than 1, you would be £140 better off a week? Something doesn't sound right here. Still, you'd be surprised how expensive children are especially after a certain age. With three children, especially different sex, you are likely to need a larger home, therefore larger rent/mortgage payment. Add clothes/food/lunch vouchers/school uniforms and shoes/trips/birthday party presents/activities etc...., it quickly comes to a large amount of money.

Ok either way it's academic as we obviously would not be able to claim for the two other children.

It just seems a bit unfair that you claim benefits based on the number of children you have and your income. But:

• we can't claim benefits for three children even though we're financially responsible for three children - and I think that's how it should be; and
• we'd be assessed on hubbies full income even though the family we'd be claiming benefits for (hubby, me and baby) do not financially benefit from all the income - just 80% of it.

fannyanna

DaisyFlower wrote: »

Its totally fair, he has children and needs to support them regardless of where they live.

If you are looking at benefits when deciding to have children, then he and you arent planning at being financially responsible (as you mention further on) for the extra child - the state would be. Unsure as to why you think the state should pay you to stay home though.

First point - yes I know hence all the comments about him having always paid maintenace, us having no problems with that and the fact that he will continue to pay maintenance.

Second point - I appreciate everyone has their own opinions on claiming benefits but ultimately I wasn't really asking whether it was morally right or wrong to claim benefits.

FBaby

Unfairness affects all walks of life. Is it fair that I am raising two children with no financial help from their dad and no tax credits, pay £250 a month childcare and pay almost £1,000 a month in taxes. My ex earns very little, his partner doesnt work, she has two children, they are expecting another one, and will soon get close to £1,000 a month in benefits.... It's not fair at all, but that's how it is.

fannyanna

FBaby wrote: »

Unfairness affects all walks of life.

I completely agree with this.

I wasn't really looking for sympathy from anyone. I was just trying to understand whether it's fair and if I am just completely missing the point. Let's face it somtimes you feel you're the victim of an injustice and it just takes someone else to throw another point of view into the mix and you realise it's not that bad after all.

To me what would be fair is if we could be assessed on 80% of hubbies income (as that is what we have available to us). But that's obviously not how the system works so not much that we can do about it really. So ultimately whether it's fair or not there's not much that we can do about it

dseventy

fannyanna wrote: »

Just clarifying a few points

Just to be clear and fair to the OP, my comments were not aimed at you, but the "its the same as paying money to the homeless" remark.

D70

HRV

OP- I know exactly what you're saying. We sound like a v similar situation- My OH has 2 DD with ex. We planned to the hilt for a baby- but we're now having (naturally conceived) twins!!!

So I have to go back to work-depite childcare of £1200 a month- no extra allowance other than child benefit and no account of the 20% he pays out. It's not fair, not that he shouldnt pay towards his children, but it does seem unjust- especially as they don't take the maintenance he pays into account for her benefit entitlement

And to those of you who feel we dont have the cost of his 2 DDs we do. We have to provide a bedroom for them (so need a bigger house), we clothe themwhen they're with us (due to inappropriate clothing/ shoes too small when regularly from their mum), a car to fit us all in (so now a 7 seater), we pay fro Rainbows and swimming lessons.