Bizzare situation - Moving in with partner

zagfles

elisebutt65 wrote: »

Those sums don't make sense? I'm on similar money - just over £200 a week and I only get £6/wk HB, no CTB, £190 WTC for a 3 bed council house + kids. Entitled to shows me that I could possibly get another fiver more HB, but not too bothered about that.

How the heck is she getting that amount of HB & CTB?

Rents, and so HB/LHA, vary massively depending on area. LHA rate for a 3 bed in central London is £800 per week! (until the cap is introduced). In some areas it's below £100pw.

Blitz01

Nuclear_Tom wrote: »

I have no problems paying my way, but why should I stump up for someone else's children?

No!
Why should WE pay for someone else's children so you can keep your pocket money to yourself?

Christ.....she already get subsidised housing at cost to me and many like me......

FBaby

eyeinthesky wrote: »

We had met in January and were married in December, and her little boy became my little boy too! They were a family, so I never gave it a second thought, and now we were a family too.

But that's differerent to some other situations. You became this child dad, first by heart, then legally, of course you should take on the full responsibility. In my case, my children's dad has always been present -albeit when it suited him-. He sees them once/twice a week and they have a very close relationship. When my partner and i met, they were 6 and 9, so at an age when they were no confusion as to who their dad was. My partner and children get along brilliantly and are attached to each other, but he is not their dad and never will be. Their dad gets all the enjoyment of being their dad, surely he should be the one contributing to them financially, not my partner.

custardy

FBaby wrote: »

But that's differerent to some other situations. You became this child dad, first by heart, then legally, of course you should take on the full responsibility. In my case, my children's dad has always been present -albeit when it suited him-. He sees them once/twice a week and they have a very close relationship. When my partner and i met, they were 6 and 9, so at an age when they were no confusion as to who their dad was. My partner and children get along brilliantly and are attached to each other, but he is not their dad and never will be. Their dad gets all the enjoyment of being their dad, surely he should be the one contributing to them financially, not my partner.

but your partner contributes to the house,shopping,bills etc?
so by default is paying into the 'pot'
as a couple i think most would agree the lines of who pays what gets blurred
I have bills i pay,my oh pays some others
the rest is just covered as required eg shopping and the likes
The op is treating it like the money his OH gewts from the state is purely paying for the kids
if he moves in then he should be liable for costs like housing etc

shellsuit

If you don't want to help support your GF's children, then you're not ready to move in with her.

When I met my husband, I already had 2 children. He knew we were a package and this didn't bother him one little bit. If he loved me and wanted to be with me, he had to love my children and want to be with them too.

We got married last year (8 years since we met) and this is something my daughter (she was 12 then) put on facebook on the night of the wedding (she was playing with her phone), which says it all really...

hey offical step dad! just wanted to post this on your wall . . .
thankyou for everything,we may have arguements but you know i love you and mum more than anything! please just remember that! am very happy that i have a second real daddy! enjoy your night tonight, love you dad sweet dreams with hugs and kisses from your offical daughter xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

When my husband saw it (the day after once we'd got home and he'd checked his emails) he was sobbing like a baby.




eyeinthesky, your post made my eyes leak what a beautiful, yet moving and sad story x

FBaby

custardy wrote: »

but your partner contributes to the house,shopping,bills etc?
so by default is paying into the 'pot'
as a couple i think most would agree the lines of who pays what gets blurred
I have bills i pay,my oh pays some others
the rest is just covered as required eg shopping and the likes
The op is treating it like the money his OH gewts from the state is purely paying for the kids
if he moves in then he should be liable for costs like housing etc

Yes, I do agree with that. My partner and I earn about the same and bills are divided in two, so in essence, he does contribute towards my children on this basis, but at the same time, by operating one household rather than two both are making a saving so he is in theory benefiting too. I think what I am trying to say is that I wouldn't expect him to pay extra, like school trips, their clothes, childcare etc... I should add that this is more my position than his! When there was a good chance I could be made redundant after Christmas, he made it very clear that he would have supported all of us until I found another job. It is just a question of principle and expectations.

I am not sure the OP has that much issue with sharing the cost of living, more the fact that he would be expected to contribute a significant sum that do go purely on the children (WTC). We don't know all the details, I have assumed as his partner works full-time that it is to cover childcare costs, if not, I really don't understand how she can get so much income from them.

elvis86

Assuming the OP isn't a troll and that the figures/calculations stated are correct...:cool:

What's really scandalous is that this lady can work full time on minimum wage (massive respect for this, but regardless) and end up with a net income falling just £300 short of the combined income of two people, one of whom earns £30k+!:mad:

Supernatural

I notice the OP hasn't been back to defend his opinion!

Ziggazee

Hopefully his gf read his posts and dumped him :-D

missbunbury

To the OP - I can understand how the figures in your particular case stack up to make you feel hard-done-by, but on a wider scale, how else could you do things? If all step-families were treated as single-parent families for benefit purposes, the country would be in a much worse state than it is now.

I don't know the exact figures, but I would think that families where both partners are not necessarily biologically related to all the kids in the household must represent a huge proportion of homes - should all these people get single-parent benefits so that stepparents weren't expected to support the kids? That's just not feasible.

Maybe a system where the couple are only treated as such if they go on to have a child together? But then you have a system where a family's income would drastically reduce just as they had another child.

Maybe a means-tested system where the new partner's income is only considered if it goes above a certain level? But then you are dis-incentivising working hard and progressing up the career ladder.

Maybe if the new partner is only expected to pay for the kids once he genuinely loves them and cares for them as if they were his own? That way he can ease into the household gently...if we only had some kind of brain-reader to allow such a thing! Cos actually OP, I think if you're a real man, you will find that once you are in the family properly you will stop resenting the idea of supporting these kids - I'm sure this will be the case and in a year's time I think you may well read all this thread back and understand why people got so vehement about it all. Please post that day if that does turn out to be how it goes!