Living together - does he become liable for her children?

deedee71

JSB43 wrote: »

I dont agree their situation is down to culpable idiocy by a parent.

I am a professional person, software engineer, middle class income of £105,000 last year and pay over £3000 in tax plus maintenance to a former spouse. I have not dealt with civil servants dealing in benefits until now and that experience shows this is nothing to do with culpable idiocy of the clamant. I found it impossible to get a cohesive answer to the simple question - how much?

This is where you said £105,000 was your income. I then said now you have given this info....etc. i didn't say you were changing your story.

Ok, I misunderstood about you being a relative, citing paying for them, something garbled about knowing the grandparents. etc but fair enough.

You still haven't answered me though, what do you want from the people of this forum?

AnxiousMum

JSB43 wrote: »

Yes, I expect he should get at least something in tax credits.

The alternative is M can leave taking his daughter with him which leaves a family of four on social security.

Actually, as he works and she is the main care giver, he probably couldn't! However, he would then however have to fork out 15% of his income in child support to F, the main carer, and very likely, the parent with custody.

icklejulez

AnxiousMum wrote: »

Actually, as he works and she is the main care giver, he probably couldn't! However, he would then however have to fork out 15% of his income in child support to F, the main carer, and very likely, the parent with custody.

Which to me sounds like a much more tempting offer to F if I was in her shoes!

Alleycat

Tax Credit regulations - Section 3 Rule 1.

Housing Benefit regulations - Part IV, s.19 - 21

Council Tax Benefit regulations - Part II, S.9 - 11

And assuming she was previously claiming Income Support

Income Support Regulations - Part III, S.14 - 16

I agree that this thread is a strange one. If you move in with someone and especially go on to have a baby together then you would assume surely that you would become a family unit "for better and for worse" so to speak. To be talking about M taking "his" daughter away from her mother because they are struggling financially seems crazy. I also find it incredibly hard to believe that every benefit agency has given incorrect or misleading information regarding what they would be entitled to.

Also just a personal observation, but there are many, many household who cannot afford holidays or cars or PS3s who aren't seen as poor so why are these things being bought if they are causing hardship and resentment for those buying them? As long as there is food on the table, decent clothes on their backs and a loving family that is most important isn't it??

JSB43

icklejulez wrote: »

Well if this is how he feels I think F should get rid of him straight away sounds like a complete loser.!

Its nothing about being a loser, M has approached me several times in confidence and been at his wits end. I think he was very brave to take them on and still continues to do so despite the problems they get from the authorities.

To be honest, I dont think your opinion of him really helps.

DaisyFlower

JSB43 wrote: »

F has three children from a previous relationship when ended on the death of the childrens father in 2007. The children are now aged 6, 8 and 9. She also has an infant girl with her present boyfriend who has since moved in.

F was on benefits and looked after the children alone until she met M. He moved in and F had all her benefits stopped. F then relied on M’s income of about £1000 a month as a lorry driver. This arrangement is causing severe hardship on the family unit because most of M’s income is absorbed in rent and council tax, they turn to profuse borrowing from loan sharks well beyond their means.

We, as extended family along F’s grandmother collectively helped all we can since the children’s father died, we paid for their car and its running costs, their family holidays, we taken them all on days out with my own kids, PS3s, lend money etc.. and its all taking a toll on everyone – especially M because its leaving him with no money for his own daughter. M also has to work excessive overtime which gives him minimal family life.

There are also notable problems with Fs 6 year old, she is in trouble at school, wetting the bed and showing disregard for adult authority. Social services arent interested, everywhere F turns for help, she is passed from pillar to post.

M can claim tax credits, but is persistently fobbed off with delays and amount awarded will make little significance to their current situation. My concern is M appears to have been given de-facto liability for F's three children from a previous relationship. He hasn’t adopted them, but in kind, he does treat them as his own but its causing serious hardship and their finances are in a tailspin of ever-increasing debt. Its causing serious strain on their relationship and M has been very close to leaving and taking his daughter with him.

What are their options?

For a start, funding PS3's, holidays etc is down to that persons choice - they are luxuries and not needed so have nothing to do with the situation.

Benefits are based on household income and it matters not one jot whether he is the actual parent or not. The criteria for all benefits can be found on the web very easily. The legal "loophole" you are looking for does not exist.

If they cannot afford to live on his wage then why bring another chidl into the equation? Her children were all school age until then so both could have easily worked to increase the household income.

As for him leaving, courts rarely give custody to the father and do you think the mother will let him take the child that easily?

DX2

JSB43 wrote: »

I think your comment has a large degree of assumption.

If you read my OP I am exploring the legal position. Its nothing about wanting to increase his own income, its about providing for the whole family under his own means. Its something he cannot do on his own and I am eexploring the legal position.

But you have been told numerous times as a family unit they should be claiming working tax credits/child tax credits and possibly housing benefit and council tax benefit.

Legal position M lives with F he has no PR regarding the children, except for the child M&F created but he is liable under benefit rules to support everyone.

icklejulez

JSB43 wrote: »

Its nothing about being a loser, M has approached me several times in confidence and been at his wits end. I think he was very brave to take them on and still continues to do so despite the problems they get from the authorities.

To be honest, I dont think your opinion of him really helps.

Of course it doesnt help, Im no expert in benefits either but its easy to get the information you require. I have 2 children aged 6 and 4 and work full time, so does my partner. We are both on minimum wages, get no help towards the house as I have a mortgage and yet we make ends meet. It sounds like you are encouraging him to leave his partner. In my opinion a good man is one that would stand by his family (not just his own blood child) no matter what they had. And a man that would rather support his own child rather than 3 others he'd took on (his own decision remember) that's dad has passed away is a loser. Whether you like it or not and Im sure the majority of readers on this site would agree.

JSB43

Alleycat wrote: »

As long as there is food on the table, decent clothes on their backs and a loving family that is most important isn't it??

Its us that is providing it while M is fending off debt collectors and council tax bailiffs etc.

I am already dragging one council tax bailiff through the civil courts for fraud after I caught him charging a staggering £175 fee just for turning up on their doorstep. The law says its £24.50 and the council even tried to cover for their bailiff.

There will always be food on the table while I am around, but having a loving family with all these men in vans banging at their door at 6 in the morning really doesnt help matters.

JSB43

icklejulez wrote: »

It sounds like you are encouraging him to leave his partner.

I think we have too much element of assumption. If that was my intention, he would have left long ago. Trust me!

I am trying to work the problem.