User:Bubblyian/Winner takes all (benefits)

The phrase, Winner Takes All, could be used to describe the situation in the UK, where whoever is the main or primary parent or primary carer for children after separation (normally the mother) gets everything and the other parent, who could be called the secondary parent or secondary carer (normally the father), gets nothing. Evidence to support this assertion of direct and institutionalised anti-secondary carer discrimination (and hence institutionalised indirect anti-male discrimination)(based on the legal position in England and Wales) is listed below:

Child Benefit is currently a non-means-tested benefit and is paid to all parents on the birth of their child. The claim pack ("bounty pack") is normally handed to new mothers in the maternity hospital immediately after birth. It is currently paid only to the primary carer, 93% of the time this is to the mother According to the Benefits agency, by law it can only be paid to one parent, regardless of how the parenting time is shared between the parents. Even when parents equally share the time with the children, and even when the child stays with the secondary parent for a whole week, the child benefit cannot be paid to them. HMRC state an order of considering who should receive the benefit in the event of duplicate claims - 1) the person your child lives with 2) the wife, when the husband and wife live together 3) a parent ahead of a non-parent 4) a mother, when parents who aren't married live together. Disputed claims can take many months to resolve. There is evidence of 12 weeks being a minimum time for a transfer of child benefit, even where parents agree to the transfer. Since the first recipient after birth is normally the mother, the delays in transfer would disproportionately affect fathers.

From January 2013, the Government has introduced a form of means-testing for Child Benefit. The proposal is for the Child Benefit to be paid to the primary carer, as normal, and then recovered through the tax system from either parent earning over £50,000/year. This is likely to disproportionately affect fathers. It is not clear how this would work in broken families or short-term relationships. Having raised a question with my MP, it has been confirmed to me that the definition of 'partner' for recovery will be as defined elsewhere in the benefit system. This means that a separated dad, for example, would not have to pay back the child benefit paid to his ex-partner, but her new partner would have to do so.

Child Tax Credit is a means tested benefit, introduced in April 2003 and payable at the same rate for each and every child to the primary carer. Even if parenting time is shared equally, child tax credit is paid 100% to the main carer, 85% of the time this is to the mother Previously, a maximum of one child's tax credit was paid to each parent. According to Gordon Brown, this change resulted in a huge transfer of wealth from fathers to mothers.

Working Tax Credit is a means tested benefit payable to people that work, but are on low wages. Primary carers only need to work a minimum of 16 hours to be eligible, secondary carers, normally have to work 30 hours to be eligible. Eligibility for this benefit entitles the claimant to additional payments of up to 80% of their child care costs, if the child is cared for by a registered child minder. However, only the primary carer can be considered as the single parent for the purpose of eligibility for working tax credit. Even if care is shared equally, only one parent, normally the mother, can receive this benefit.

Parents of younger children are treated differently when unemployed. The Primary Parent does not have to be actively seeking work in order to claim benefits for being unemployed, she can simply claim Income Support. The secondary parent is required to claim either Jobseekers Allowance (JSA)or if he has health-related difficulties in working, he can claim Employment and Support Allowance (ESA). Whilst they are typically paid at the same rate, no further proof of continuing entitlement is required for Income Support, simply being the Primary parent of a child under the age limit (currently 7 but soon to be reduced to 5) is sufficient. However, to continue to claim Jobseekers Allowance, a claimant must demonstrate he is seriously available and looking for work and attend regular appointments at the Jobcentre. A Claimant of ESA must submit regular sick notes signed by his GP and then submit to regular Work Capability Assessments.

The Child Support laws led to the creation of the Child Support Agency (CSA), which has now changed its name to the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission (CMEC). However, only the primary carer can claim child support from the secondary carer. Even if parenting time is shared equally, the parent in receipt of Child Benefit is considered as the primary carer and is the only parent entitled to claim. The formula for calculating maintenance makes no mention of the needs of the child, but is based entirely on the income of the secondary carer. It is therefore the equivalent of an Income Tax on the earnings of the secondary carer. If the primary carer agrees, the amount paid can be reduced by one-seventh for every night contact between the children and the secondary carer. Since the primary carer has complete control over how much contact that the secondary carer has with the children, she is rewarded financially for cutting contact. It is further discrimination basing this reduction on 'nights' of contact, rather than days of contact, owing to the further direct discrimination against secondary carers in the provision of accommodation and Housing Benefit (see below). Payments by the secondary carer directly on behalf of the children (eg the costs of buying new clothes/prams/carrycot because the primary carer refuses to share them) can be deducted from the maintenance payments only if the primary carer agrees. Lump sum payments from secondary carer to primary carer made before csa/cmec case is opened are not included in assessments of future maintenance. From 2011, cmec now 'charge' an additional application fee for conducting their assessment and maintenance collection resulting in the bizarre situation of primary carers having to pay a supplemental charge on top of the maintenance costs. However, the primary carer can waive the £20 application fee if she simply claims she is a victim of domestic abuse. Future proposals are for the assessment formula to be based on the primary carer's gross income (before deductions for tax, national insurance) rather than the net income, as at present.

Failure to make payments in accordance with the maintenance calculated by csa/cmec can result in an automatic attachment of earnings order resulting in direct deductions from wages, without the need for further court action. In addition, csa/cmec have draconian powers to seize driving licences/passports and imprison perceived non-paying secondary carers. Given that csa/cmec accept (using their own figures) that the majority of assessments are incorrect, that they have 20% staff turnover figures and their computer system is widely regarded as one of the most incompetent in the UK, giving them draconian powers to enforce incorrect assessments of what is basically an arbitrary additional private transfer of wealth from secondary carers to primary carers, without any requirement that one penny is actually spent on the children is utterly incomprehensible.

For the first time in history, a Court has ruled against the csa - that the procedures leading to imprisonment were 'flawed'.

Csa/cmec is also widely credited with being the direct cause of at least 100 male suicides. The Government is effectively operating a debt collection service on behalf of primary carers. Punishment for non-payment of the debt can result in imprisonment - debtors prisons have returned.

Csa payments are not treated as income and not included in the primary carer's means testing for benefits or for legal aid calculations.

Home Responsibilities Protection was introduced to provide National Insurance Contributions towards the state pension fund for people that did not work because they had full-time caring responsibilities for the whole, or the majority, of any tax year. It is normally credited to the person who is in receipt of Child Benefit for the majority of the tax year. It cannot be credited to two parents in the same tax year, but is normally only paid to the person in receipt of Child Benefit, even if care is shared equally.

Legal Aid is provided by the Legal Services Commission to people in need of advice from Solicitors and/or Mediation services if they satisfy both the means test and the merits test. As part of the means test, claimants are assessed on their income from both earned and unearned sources. Allowable deductions are then made from this gross income, including Income Tax, National Insurance]] and payments actually made for rent or mortgage payments and for child support. Allowances are then deducted for each child that the claimant is responsible for - (for 2009-10 this figure is around £243/month). If the net figure is below the threshold (for 2009-10 this figure is £733/month), then the claimant will be eligible for Legal Aid under the Legal help scheme. . From April 1st 2013, Legal Aid for family matters will only be available for applicants who allege they are victims of domestic abuse. One method of demonstrating this is being accepted into a women's refuge. Most men apply to court to reinstate contact and this will no longer be eligible for legal aid funding.

When care is shared or residence/custody is in dispute, the Legal Services Commission will only allow the parent in receipt of child benefit to claim the allowances for the children. This contrasts with the method of treating equity in shared property, which, when in dispute, is not included for either claimant. In the absence of a dispute over finances, however, the parent remaining in the former matrimonial home would be eligible for Legal Aid if their share of the equity in the property net of mortgage (max £100,000) was less than £100,000 under the rules on capital, but the person leaving the property would only be eligible for Legal Aid if their share of the equity in the property was less than £8000 under the rules on savings.

Homelessness provision is handled by Local Authorities for people who are eligible. There are five tests to be passed to be accepted as homeless. Test 3 is priority need and only applicants that can satisfy this test as well as the previous two will be granted emergency accommodation while tests 4 and 5 are considered. Claimants will be considered as in Priority Need amongst other reasons, if they are parents of dependent children, typically under the age of 18 and in non-advanced education. However, when parents separate, only one of them is considered to be a parent for the purpose of being treated as in priority need, even if the parents share care equally. This would normally be the parent in receipt of Child Benefit.

Housing Benefit is payable to tenants on low income, but the threshold at which full Housing Benefit is paid also depends on whether a claimant is a primary parent or a secondary parent. Only the primary parent is allowed to earn an additional amount for being a family and an additional amount per child (currently around £56/week). From April 1st 2013, Tenants of Local Authorities and Housing Associations will be subject to the 'bedroom tax'. If they are living in accommodation deemed to be larger than they 'need', they will lose 14% of their Housing Benefit for one bedroom and 25% of their Housing Benefit for two or more 'extra' bedrooms. The government claims this will 'force' tenants to downsize when their children leave home so that 'families' will be housed more quickly. Clearly, this will disproportionately penalise secondary carers as they will be deemed not to 'need' their extra bedroom. In South Cambridgeshire District Council (SCDC)area, they only have 50 1-bedroom properties, so there is nowhere for the displaced people to downsize to. I have raised this with Cllr Ray manning (head of SCDC) and await his response (Feb 2013). Cambridge City Council also have a policy of demolishing 1-bedroom properties and building 2, 3 and 4 bedroom properties on the site. Cllr Smart argues that the stock needs 'rebalancing' more like SCDC. Given that as of November 2012 there were 190 1-bedroom households in the top priority banding (A) on the housing register and on average 5/fortnight become available, it will take 76 weeks to rehouse the existing priority A applicants. Failure to downsize before being evicted for rent arrears will likely mean that the tenant is intentionally homeless and the local authority will have no duty to rehouse them.

Council Tax Benefit is also changing on 1st April 2013. Local Authorities are being given 'discretion' as to who they give 'discounts' to instead of council tax benefit. Other than protected categories (primary carers with children under 5, as usual, mainly women), but secondary carers are not parents according to local authorities and hence will have to pay at least 8.5% of the council tax assessment.

Local Housing Allowance is the equivalent of Housing Benefit and paid either to the tenant or the Landlord when a claimant is living in private rented accommodation. The Local Housing Allowance (LHA)is capped at the point at which 30% of private rented properties in the 'locality' are cheaper. It is also limited to the number of bedrooms actually required by the Claimant, not those that the Claimant actually rents. A Primary Carer of 2 children (a boy and a girl) would be able to claim LHA up to the 3-bedroom rate, a secondary carer aged over 25 (35 from January 2012) would only be able to claim LHA up to the 1-bedroom rate. Secondary carers under 25 (35 from January 2012) are only allowed to claim LHA up to the rent limit for a room in a shared house. It would therefore be illegal (due to over-crowding) for a secondary carer under 25 (35 from January 2012) to maintain overnight staying contact with his children. The government has announced that from 2013 LHA rates will not keep pace with rents but will be limited (in most cases) to 1% rises, and hence even fewer private sector properties will be covered by the limits. In Cambridge, there are NO properties within the LHA rates.

Local Authorities also accept ordinary applications from claimants wishing to apply to join the housing register for social housing. Claimants apply for accommodation based on the size of their family. For example, a parent of two children (one boy and one girl) would normally be able to apply for a 3-bedroom property, as above a certain age, children of different sexes would not be expected to share. However, when parents separate, in the above example, only the primary carer would be able to apply for a 3-bedroom property and be considered as a parent, the other parent would only be treated as a single person and only be allowed to apply for a bed-sit or one-bedroom property. When care is shared equally, the Local Authority would normally treat only the person in receipt of Child Benefit as being a parent.

In reality, when parents separate, normally only one of them would need new accommodation as they would probably be leaving the former matrimonial home, but the Local Authority would normally stick to the above rule. In addition, the parent leaving a jointly owned property would not normally be treated as homeless as there would be somewhere he could legally occupy (test 2 of the homeless assessment). Unless he could prove he was a victim of domestic violence and fleeing for that reason, it is unlikely that the Local Authority would consider him eligible for homeless services.

If a secondary carer applies to court for sole residence, he will be unlikely to succeed until he has suitable accommodation for overnight staying contact with his children. If he applies to the local authority for housing, he will be unlikely to succeed in obtaining suitable accommodation for overnight staying contact with his children until he has a sole residence order.

Domestic violence services and treatment is also directly discriminatory against fathers in particular and men in general. There are approximately 600 Refuges for women in the UK and about 5 for men. Women's prisons can accommodate their children up to 18 months' old, but men cannot have their children in prison at all. The United Nations has produced a charter and funds significant work to eliminate all forms of violence against women, but does nothing to stop violence against men. Many articles by leading supposedly impartial organisations (eg Law Society ) imply that domestic abuse is only a problem for female victims, in spite of numerous statistics indicating the number of victims is probably similar, given the massive under-reporting by male victims. Anecdotal evidence from individual men confirms that organisations such as the police do not treat men as victims of domestic abuse and will ask them to leave the family home for their own safety, thereby leaving the children with the alleged abuser. The proposed changes in legal aid funding for family cases from 2013 are being opposed on the grounds that female victims of domestic abuse will be left without legal assistance as a result. No mention is made of male victims of domestic abuse at all. The latest Welsh Government proposals are to teach children that (only) men are violent and to beware in relationships.

The payment by the Government on behalf of certain children into the Child Trust Fund, is only payable to the parent in receipt of Child Benefit.

Following divorce, the financial assets of the family are divided in accordance with rules developed through case law. In the absence of children, the starting point is likely to be equal division, regardless of who earned the money, particularly in longer marriages. If children are involved, then it is likely that the primary parent will get a significantly larger share of the family assets. In addition, the primary parent may also receive spousal maintenance by way of periodic payments.

Education is normally provided through schools and it is common for schools to give children letters and other information to take home at the end of the school day. This would normally be handed to the primary parent, thereby restricting the information a secondary parent would receive about their children and restricting their ability to participate in parents evenings or attend other school functions involving their child. Some schools use a variation of parentmail, but this is by no means widespread and even where present is not used for all communication between schools and parents.

When schools accept applications for children to be enrolled at school, only the primary carer is required to sign the enrolment form and provide her details. There is no obligation on the part of the school to ask for contact details for the secondary carer and unless the primary carer agrees to provide this information, the secondary carer may not discover which school his children are attending. There are similar discriminatory rules and processes for dentists and doctors.

When a child is born, its birth must be registered within 6 weeks at a register office. When parents are married, either parent can register the birth alone. When parents are unmarried, the mother can register the birth on her own, but the father cannot. If a mother wishes to allow the father to be named on the birth certificate, then he must be present at the time the mother registers the birth, or supply a statutory declaration of paternity for her to take with her. Otherwise the space for father will remain blank. In a recent Court decision, a child's birth was registered by two lesbians, and the non-biological mother was allowed to insert her name where that of the father should have been. The Government is currently consulting on compulsory joint registration of births, but it is not clear how this would work when a mother refuses to name the father, if she even is certain who it is. Surveys have suggested between 5 and 15% of fathers are bringing up children that are not their biological child, although it is not known how many of them are aware of this.

According to the Children Act 1989, all the rights and responsibilities of being a parent are contained in the phrase parental responsibility. This is acquired automatically by both married couples on the birth of their child. Unmarried mothers automatically acquire PR on birth, but unmarried fathers can acquire PR in one of 3 ways - a) by marrying the mother; by both parents signing a parental responsibility agreement and having this witnessed by the court and registered, or c) by an application to court for a parental responsibility order. This is direct discrimination on the grounds of gender - one rule for women and a different rule for men.

A case on the discrimination between married and unmarried fathers was taken to the European Court of Human Rights but lost as the judges felt it was reasonable to distinguish between meritorious and non-meritorious fathers in this way, as they said a meritorious father would have married the mother. They made no comment about why there was no equivalent way to distinguish between meritorious and non-meritorious mothers.

The current system of parental leave directly discriminates against fathers. A mother can have up to 12 months' maternity leave following the birth of the child. A father can have a maximum of 2 weeks' paternity leave. The Government has proposed introducing a form of 'transferable' parental leave. The proposal is for the last three months of the mother's leave to be transferred to the father, if the mother agrees and if the mother does not use it. It is not clear what would happen in cases where the mother does not use the leave, but refuses to allow the transfer, or in cases of broken families where either the father is uncertain or the father does not know whether the mother has used her leave. I have raised this question with my local MP and await a response.

There are many other grants payable only to the mother during the pregnancy (maternity grants/allowances). Discrimination in favour of women on the grounds of maternity/pregnancy is specifically protected from gender discrimination challenges by men in the Equality Act. Education establishments are also specifically excluded from the Equality Act legislation and hence teaching feminist-dominated propaganda is protected from legal challenge, as Tom Martin discovered to his cost.

Discrimination against fathers starts before birth and has been accepted by the Royal College of Midwives, which is trying to 'encourage' midwives to include fathers in their assistance.

Pension Credit was specifically introduced to make up for the perceived discrimination in the state retirement pension (SRP)system, whereby SRP payments were based on the number of years working and paying national insurance contributions and hence women who did not work received less or no SRP when they retired. Since women retire at 60 and men at 65 (although there is a slow progression towards 'equality' over the next 10 years), there was further discrimination against men in having to pay an extra 5 years' of national insurance to receive a full SRP. Pension Credit provides a 'minimum income guarantee' (MIG) of around £140/week for single people and £200/week for couples (2011 figures). Since this is significantly above the SRP figures (£97/week), it completely makes up for a shortfall or no national insurance contributions. It is therefore pointless for (mainly) men to pay into small private pension funds (up to around £50,000) or even to work full-time for the maximum number of years (mainly men) since all the above people end up with exactly the same income at the end. Most older people's organisations are calling for the SRP to increased to (at least) the MIG figure for SRP and to be paid to all retired people regardless of national insurance contributions. This proposal, if enacted, would be extremely expensive to introduce and entirely counter-productive as it would be a huge disincentive to ever undertake paid work.

When parents separate and cannot agree who will be the primary parents, unlike for financial division, there is no presumption of equal sharing, shared care or shared parenting. One parent would have to apply to Court for a decision on residence by applying for a residence order. In only a tiny percentage of cases, is the result of this application a shared residence order. Organisations such as Families Need Fathers are campaigning for this to be the presumption on separation, as it is with finances. It need not mean 50-50 equal parenting time, but a recognition that both parents should be fully involved in all decisions relating to the children. There are proposals for a watered-down presumption to be included in the Children and Families Bill 2013.

According to the Government, only around 10% of separating families resort to Court action (para 4.3 p135). They claim this as a 'success' implying that the other 90% obviously are 'happy' with their own arrangements. Given the Winner Takes All system, as stated here, and the institutional prejudice against fathers in all areas of society (only the benefit system is directly summarised here), it is not surprising that so many fathers simply 'give up' rather than try to fight against the almost insurmountable odds of obtaining what should be theirs (and their children) by right - equal shared care.

In 2013, the government propose amending the Children Act to include a presumption of shared parenting. Given that this does not say 50-50, any time with the dad would constitute sharing of parenting. The proposal also includes the justification for stopping contact in the event of 'evidence of harm'. Therefore an implacably hostile mother could simply say she thinks there would be harm, and this would constitute evidence for the purpose of stopping contact. This is hardly 'progress' towards 50-50 shared parenting.

Another often quoted statistic is that 99% of contact applications result in a contact order, so there is nothing wrong with the system. (For example - mother's fear more important than child's relationship with paternal family) However, the contact order could simply be just the right to send as little as one letter per year. No right-minded person could really believe that this was contact with the children, by any definition of the word, even though one judge stated that it was possible to develop a relationship with the children by writing one 'good letter per year (as if the mother would have passed it on anyway).