ex partner wants half my benefits for my son???

melly1980

clearingout wrote: »

Having a child from 6:30pm to 8 am the next morning, 3 nights a week is no where near 50/50.

.

what has time got to do with it?

If I was paying maintainance on a child who was at school it wouldnt take into account the time spent at school, would it?

The facts is it is a 3 versus 4 split, so why does anyone owe anything?

looby75

melly1980 wrote: »

what has time got to do with it?

If I was paying maintainance on a child who was at school it wouldnt take into account the time spent at school, would it?

The facts is it is a 3 versus 4 split, so why does anyone owe anything?

but the OP has already said that she does have to care for him through the day quite often as she has to go to school to calm him down and sometimes bring him home.

clearingout

melly1980 wrote: »

what has time got to do with it?

If I was paying maintainance on a child who was at school it wouldnt take into account the time spent at school, would it?

The facts is it is a 3 versus 4 split, so why does anyone owe anything?

well, if you are genuinely 'sharing care' then you have to agree who is going to be available when a child is ill and needs to be picked up early from school, who will do school runs, who will pay for after school clubs, who will make the packed lunch or pay for school dinners, who washes the school uniform etc. etc. For me, if you are having the child overnight, then you should be 'on call' and deal with any child-related emergency without having to resort to the other parent, you should be collecting them from school/after school club and you should be picking up the costs of afterschool club (although this can be complex with tax credits, I recognise, but at least if one parent is getting a percentage of childcare paid by tax credits, you are picking up the remainder on 'your' nights). You should be feeding the child, dealing with washing any clothes, PE kit, doing any homework on 'your' night, putting them to bed, feeding them breakfast and taking them to breakfast club or school the next morning. At that point, the other parent goes 'on call'.

I consider this reasonable because it gives the other parent genuine time off. There is genuinely no cost to them in having the child that day, they can work safe in the knowledge that they can do overtime or attend a meeting at the other end of the country, for example.

The reality is that many NRPs want the child overnight but little else. I am not the only PWC who has been expected to hold down a full-time job, do all school drop offs/pick ups, pay for it childcare, uniform, washing, do homework, feed the children only for the ex to pick them up just in time to put them to bed. I then go to bed and have to be up at exactly the same time the next morning to deal with breakfast and school runs. This is not 'shared care'. My ex will happily tell anyone who will listen that he is self employed and therefore flexible and therefore can 'share the care' of the children. Bollox is my response. Is still did all the pick ups, came out of work early to deal with illness, still covered for his many, many weekends away and holidays (when he wouldn't do the same for me).

If parents earn roughly the same, I am happy with the concept that no child maintenance should be paid and any benefits shared equally with parents both communicating and paying their fair share of child related items/picking up child related expenses. But this is rarely the situation.

Maintenance is reduced by the CSA on an overnight basis - so 1/7th reduction is made to the NRP for every night they have the child stay over. Being in school has nothing to do with it.

AnxiousMum

melly1980 wrote: »

Im sorry but if you look after the child as a 50/50 split then neither parent should owe the other anything. In addition, surely any benefits for that child should be also split 50/50 since the father is providing for the child as well.

In that scenario then, the NRP would get exactly half of the probable zero amount he would be entitled to on his salary then right? Remember - means testing relies on 'household' incomes.

bestpud

duchy wrote: »

Live it up ?

Chance would be a fine thing :rotfl::rotfl:

Do you not have kids by any chance ? If you did you'd realize that most parents single or otherwise don't have that luxury -but don't let that stop you sterotyping all single parents !

I have three children and have been a lone parent too.

Esoog

bored_at_home wrote: »

oh dear thats an awkward one isnt it.
i dont see why you would get a 2bed allowance instead of 3 bed as hes in your home 4 nights a week and of opposite sex to his sister of 5, so you still now need 3 beds. isnt 5 years the cut off age of the youngest child where differant sexed children shouldnt be sharing a room?
.

there’s no law in existence which governs children of different sexes sharing rooms in privately owned homes. It’s up to the home owners/parents to sort out bedrooms and sleeping areas and make sure all children are well catered for in terms of sleeping arrangements. Many children share bedrooms with their siblings and step- brothers and sisters and don’t experience any problems (bar the occasional fall-out, as is normal with children!). If there was a law in place, it could be very difficult for people who are unable to buy a bigger home due to lack of money.

However, if the house is rented and owned by a housing association, sometimes they do have rules and regulations in place concerned with how many children, and which sex of children, can sleep in any one bedroom. For example, they may state that after the age of 10, different sexes of siblings shouldn’t share a room. If this applies in this instance, then it would be best to contact the relevant housing association for information and to discuss the circumstances.

debrag

How old is the 3rd child, is the partner moving in that one's dad & the ex the dad of the 5 & 7 year olds?

cosmic-dust

debrag wrote: »

How old is the 3rd child, is the partner moving in that one's dad & the ex the dad of the 5 & 7 year olds?

From what I understand of this thread the OP has three kids already two different father's another child on way to another father. So child 1 has one father, child 2 & 3 has another father and child 4 (now pregnant) has another father. 4 children, 3 father's.

Dognobs

cosmic-dust wrote: »

from what i understand of this thread the op has three kids already two different father's another child on way to another father. So child 1 has one father, child 2 & 3 has another father and child 4 (now pregnant) has another father. 4 children, 3 father's.

class! Let her keep the money for condoms!