Can you help me see how this is fair

nannytone_2

my grandson was left severly disabled ( full body cerebral palsy and epilepsy) after getting viral encephalitis at 18 months. he received hrc/hrm .
he was provided with a walking frame ( one that he had to be strapped into, because he couldnt sit unaided) it was as near walking as sitting on a computer chair and scooting yourself around.
my daughter took him to an exhibition for disabled kids, and found a walker there. all the 'workings' of it were behind him (so he could get as close to the tables as the 'normal' kids. it had suspension, so it 'rose and fell' with him as he walked, just like a normal gait. the company allowed him to trial it for 3 months. the difference in his ability to walk ( even trying to run!) was amazing.

the problem was the cost. £1200. even though it was fully adjustable and would have been used by him until the age of about 10 ( and after he couldnt use it any more, another kiddie could have benefitted from it), social services refused to fund it. so we went into overdrive on the fundraising ( we usually fund raise for the charity that did so much for him in the early days, providing physio when he wasnt a priority for the community team) he loved the independance the frame gave him. before he had it he spent most of his time either strapped in his chair or rolling around on the floor ( he was an expert roller!)

he sadly died unexpectedly last may.........and social services had the nerve to phome y daughter and offer her £200 for it! ( she gave it away to someone the physio knew)

but i think we all know people, kids and adults alike, who claim disability benefits that they arent entitled to. all this does is make it harder for people in genuine need!

missbunbury

1.) I agree with the people who have said the maintenance disregard for benefit entitlement is unfair - in my opinion it would make more sense with all the current cuts to go back to offsetting maintenance to help pay benefit bills, but with a higher limit before that started happening (say, fifty quid a week?)

2.) Unfortunately OP, whilst I can see where you're coming from, the fact is it wouldn't work if benefit entitlement were worked out after maintenance payments. If this were the case, an NRP could hand over 90% of his wages as maintenance and then expect to get topped up by tax credits, essentially meaning the state pays the maintenance bill. Given that a high proportion of couples are already entitled to tax credits, this would bankrupt the system, surely? Still though OP, if you already know that he is paying this amount every month, you can plan accordingly in terms of having your child - for example, since your own income isn't taken into account, you can save like mad before having the baby. Also, once you have yours, you may well want his other kids to spend more nights with you (as you will be at home anyway and it'll be nice for all the kids to spend time together) so your maintenance payments will reduce to reflect this.

findingout

Yes totally unfair OP what because you are the second wife you aren't entitled to stay at home for a while with your baby and be helped to do so after working and paying tax, but ex wife (in theroy) be an at home mum get benefits PLUS due to the law change 100% of the CM on top of those benefits.
Yep the world of benefits sure needs rewriting!!

findingout

nannytone wrote: »

my grandson was left severly disabled ( full body cerebral palsy and epilepsy) after getting viral encephalitis at 18 months. he received hrc/hrm .
he was provided with a walking frame ( one that he had to be strapped into, because he couldnt sit unaided) it was as near walking as sitting on a computer chair and scooting yourself around.
my daughter took him to an exhibition for disabled kids, and found a walker there. all the 'workings' of it were behind him (so he could get as close to the tables as the 'normal' kids. it had suspension, so it 'rose and fell' with him as he walked, just like a normal gait. the company allowed him to trial it for 3 months. the difference in his ability to walk ( even trying to run!) was amazing.

the problem was the cost. £1200. even though it was fully adjustable and would have been used by him until the age of about 10 ( and after he couldnt use it any more, another kiddie could have benefitted from it), social services refused to fund it. so we went into overdrive on the fundraising ( we usually fund raise for the charity that did so much for him in the early days, providing physio when he wasnt a priority for the community team) he loved the independance the frame gave him. before he had it he spent most of his time either strapped in his chair or rolling around on the floor ( he was an expert roller!)

he sadly died unexpectedly last may.........and social services had the nerve to phome y daughter and offer her £200 for it! ( she gave it away to someone the physio knew)

but i think we all know people, kids and adults alike, who claim disability benefits that they arent entitled to. all this does is make it harder for people in genuine need!

Thats really sad and what a cheek of social services!!! I've have ripped their heads off and spat them out for the offer of £200, how disgusting and how inappropriate. I know a family both capable of working even had a stairlift fitted for wife though she can run upstairs in high heels... got given a new car, not a benefit they weren't claiming and lying to do so, still are 8 years on from first meeting them, they just watch DVD's all day and drink tea! makes me so sick to come across people like that and then to hear a story like that of your grandson who they wouldn't help Appalling!!

findingout

melly1980 wrote: »

Not only that but when it comes to extracting cash from blokes it is considered that he should pay for the full upkeeps of the kid(s). Doesnt seem to enter anyones head that it is a 50/50 split.

Why dont they calculate how much it costs to bring up a kid then halve it and bill him for that half? Nope....its much more fun to raid him for as much as they can squeeze out.

Completely agree. A good friend of mine pays £75 a week for one child. It doesn't take £150 a week to raise a child.

seven-day-weekend

I do not agree with

a) a parent on benefits not having to declare maintenance as income and
b) a non-resident parent's partner's income being counted when it is calculated what maintenance to pay.

However, those are the rules, pretty silly ones I might add. I do not understand the rationale of either of them.

If I was a NRPP I would not expect to pay for his other children. That's between him and their mother to sort out.

As far as the OP's situation goes, I can see both sides but can understand why they feel it is not fair.

AnxiousMum

missbunbury wrote: »

1.) I agree with the people who have said the maintenance disregard for benefit entitlement is unfair - in my opinion it would make more sense with all the current cuts to go back to offsetting maintenance to help pay benefit bills, but with a higher limit before that started happening (say, fifty quid a week?)

2.) Unfortunately OP, whilst I can see where you're coming from, the fact is it wouldn't work if benefit entitlement were worked out after maintenance payments. If this were the case, an NRP could hand over 90% of his wages as maintenance and then expect to get topped up by tax credits, essentially meaning the state pays the maintenance bill. Given that a high proportion of couples are already entitled to tax credits, this would bankrupt the system, surely? Still though OP, if you already know that he is paying this amount every month, you can plan accordingly in terms of having your child - for example, since your own income isn't taken into account, you can save like mad before having the baby. Also, once you have yours, you may well want his other kids to spend more nights with you (as you will be at home anyway and it'll be nice for all the kids to spend time together) so your maintenance payments will reduce to reflect this.

That scenario could be avoided quite simply by ensuring that the highest amount of child support that could be used as a deductions to earnings, was in line with a CSA assessment and no more. Arrears, as they were payable in previous years, should be used in the year they are actually payable.

Morglin

FBaby wrote: »

Agree with you but for the DLA allocated to children and carer element their parents get. I now know well three single mums with a 'disable' child who goes to mainstream school and have no extra financial need than a non disabled child and use the hundreds they get every month that should be spending specifically on the child in relation to his disability on luxuries for the whole family. Some could actually do with more just to cope with their disability.

It has been the policy for many years to send any child that can attend mainstream school to one.

It's cheaper and thought better that disabled kids and able kids learn to mix and treat each other as 'normal'. Segregating kids bought it's own problems, although a few children will always need to be in a more supported school environment.

DLA is to pay for ALL the extra costs of disability, which can be many and varied - you cannot possibly know what these families have to spend on what, as I wouldn't imagine they will provide a list for all 'interested parties' to look at! :wall:

Lin

pinkpig08

Actually the NRP partners income is not counted to pay maintenance.

GobbledyGook

Whilst an NRPP's income shouldn't be counted to actually pay towards a child's maintenance I strongly believe it should be counted towards working out the costs that the NRP is allowed to deduct for things like housing (if that's still allowed).

Why on earth should an NRP be allowed to claim 100% of housing costs if they are actually only responsible for half of it?