Child maintenance and ESA (IR)

FBaby

On the other hand one of the reasons it was changed was to protect the families of non-payers

That doesn't hold with me. Benefits for children are provided on the basis that children shouldn't be in poverty, so why should maintenance be expected to always be provided on top.

Surely if benefits are considered not enough, then why isn't there a top up for pwcs who gets nothing because even with csa, no maintenance is paid (father nowhere to be found, not working, ill, working as self-employed and playing up his income or deceased).

We all know that this rule was relaxed not on the basis that it was too tedious and costly to administer. What this has done is left huge differences between the income of those who don't get any maintenance and those who get plenty.

GobbledyGook

FBaby wrote: »

That doesn't hold with me. Benefits for children are provided on the basis that children shouldn't be in poverty, so why should maintenance be expected to always be provided on top.

Surely if benefits are considered not enough, then why isn't there a top up for pwcs who gets nothing because even with csa, no maintenance is paid (father nowhere to be found, not working, ill, working as self-employed and playing up his income or deceased).

We all know that this rule was relaxed not on the basis that it was too tedious and costly to administer. What this has done is left huge differences between the income of those who don't get any maintenance and those who get plenty.

It's not about benefits not being enough. Benefits are deemed as just what you need to live on.

Sadly there is no link between the CSA and the DWP so the DWP may know what Parent 1 is supposed to pay Parent 2, but actually has no idea what Parent 2 actually receives.

What changing it back means is that if they have to claim benefits Parent 2 has to tell the DWP that Parent 1 is 'obliged' to pay them X per week. The DWP will then take this in account and deduct from their benefits (set at just the level to keep children out of poverty) regardless if they actually get it or not. This will, in turn, leave Parent 2 absolutely pratted if Parent 1 doesn't bother their shirt to pay up.


In an ideal world maintenance would always be paid which would then mean the benefits could be reduced accordingly without any concerns. However we don't live in an ideal world and the only thing the change in this rule does is play into the hands of those who seem to thing there are millions of women sat at home raking it in from 5 Dads and benefits.

It does absolutely nothing to help those who will be completely shafted by the double whammy of an ineffectual CSA not getting anything from the NRP, but the benefits system completely failing to grasp that what someone should get in income isn't always what they do get.