Living together - does he become liable for her children?

JSB43

mummyroysof3 wrote: »

so do you mean he wants to know if he can still live with her but only pay for his own upkeep and 1/2 his daughters and leave his girlfriend to pay for the rest?

No, he just wants to be able to afford a stable family life and spend more time with hsi daughter.

He currently, with help from us supports all of them on just £1000 a month, and of which most of that is asbsorbed by rent and council tax.

julie03

entiltledto is normally a rough estimate and mine is normally about £10 out

glad i could help and hope they get everything sorted

pelirocco

JSB43 wrote: »

No, he just wants to be able to afford a stable family life and spend more time with hsi daughter.

He currently, with help from us supports all of them on just £1000 a month, and of which most of that is asbsorbed by rent and council tax.

If he doesnt pay the rent , bills and food what will happen to them ?

JSB43

If he leaves and takes his daughter with him, it probably all goes on state benefits - as it was before M moved in.

Cant see how your question is any way contructive to the topic being discussed.

DX2

What a carry on.

Whether M is the biological father or not he entered into a relationship with F and as such yes he becomes liable for her children, they are classed as a family unit, they even went on to have a child together.

They need to claim:
working tax credits/child tax credits
Housing benefit (LHA)
Council tax benefit.

F surely knew about these as she was getting them previously, she knows whom to contact about them. What's the problem here? Did she just automatically assume that when M moved in they wouldn't be entitled to anything?

Peanuckle

As a mother who was left widowed with 3 young children I can tell you that their mother is solely liable for their upkeep at that point. When she does move on and another man moves in she remains liable for the children, but as a couple any income or benefits is calculated on the partnership, there is no extra money because they're not his children. The state does not care whose children they are when benefits are calculated, only that they will involve the CSA (or whatever it's called now) for any single parent claim if the other parent is still alive.

The question of who the biological father is is therefore moot, they should make their claim as a family unit and work together to bring up all the children as a team. IMHO

DX2

Peanuckle wrote: »

The state does not care whose children they are when benefits are calculated, only that they will involve the CSA (or whatever it's called now) for any single parent claim if the other parent is still alive.

I know it's off topic but this isn't the case any longer.

Oldernotwiser

JSB43 wrote: »

M made the choice out of love for F and vague advice from the benefits office, that advice turned out to totally baseless and Tax credits just said contact them after he has moved in.

So why hasn't he done so? Same with claiming rent etc; is he waiting for someone to knock on his door and hand it to him on a plate?

Oldernotwiser

"especially M because its leaving him with no money for his own daughter"

This is the comment I don't understand. Why would he want to spend money on his daughter and not the other children?

viktory

The whole thread makes me uneasy.

Why is it so difficult to understand that once a couple declare they are together their joint income is considered in relation to benefits?
Why does the OP constantly keep referring to M's daughter?
Does he not consider that the other children have needs such as food and clothing?
Why has no one investigated why tax credits are being delayed?