Who is the Resident Parrent ?

flowerpots

Wondered is anyone here could answer this question. This has happened to a couple of guys I know currently. Mother leaves the family home & sets up a flat of her own. Child then spends one week with Dad & one at Mums. First Dad is paying Mother some child support which he agreed only now he is wondering why on earth he is doing so as child care is 50/50. Second Dad has just been asked for maint & just refused. Said that he is not asking her for 50% of his keep when he is living with her for the week. My question is without a Court Agreement who is the resident parent when care is split 50/50 & the mother has moved out of the family home. Does it make a difference who claims the Child Benefit etc.

duchy

Yes exactly that.

flowerpots

duchy wrote: »

Yes exactly that.

So the parent in receipt of the child benefit is the resident parent ?

clearingout

technically, yes. the parent claiming child benefit as it stands would be able to claim maintenance through the CSA, albeit with a hefty reduction for the time that is spent with the other parent.

flowerpots

clearingout wrote: »

technically, yes. the parent claiming child benefit as it stands would be able to claim maintenance through the CSA, albeit with a hefty reduction for the time that is spent with the other parent.

Thanks I had a feeling about the Child Benefit. Guessing that if a Court gave Joint Custody it would make a difference or if the Dad challenged the Child Benefit.

clearingout

if it's 50/50, one of the parents has to have the child benefit, don't they? the DWP looks, I believe, at issues such as the address where the child is registered for school, the doctor, dentist etc. The child benefit can't be split between parents if only one child is involved - with more children, it is possible to award the benefit for one child to each parent for example which evens things up a bit.

It can be easy to get caught up in the principle of the thing rather than whether or not the money is really needed in either/or/both households to support the child concerned. 50/50 split of time doesn't necessarily mean an even split of cost - one parent may be paying for activities and childcare, for example. What is the expectation when a child is ill - which parent is taking time off work? who takes the child to the doctor or dentist?

kevin137

This is one of those ridiculous situations when the government just get it so wrong...!

If there are 2 children it should be easy you claim for one each, but it is never that simple...!

What is the right way of doing it, well, you have to be a little fair, the chances are that the Mother is likely to be earning less than the father, so it SHOULD be that the mother is eligible to claim the CB and CTC WTC etc, but that maintenance should not be allowed. As they already benefit from the financial benefit of having the extra even though they already have them half the time...

I'm sure there would be situations where they are BOTH eligible to claim WTC and CTC due to low income, if that is the case should they be allowed to claim as one child each and have the government pay out what is effectively twice...?

It is never going to be fair in this instance

Orville

kevin137 wrote: »

This is one of those ridiculous situations when the government just get it so wrong...!

If there are 2 children it should be easy you claim for one each, but it is never that simple...!

I don't agree with the "if there are 2 children you should be able to claim for one each" comment. That way it costs the goverment more in payments as each parent would get the single child rate of tax credits and chb which if you add togther is more then one parent claiming for two children.

HappyMJ

Orville wrote: »

I don't agree with the "if there are 2 children you should be able to claim for one each" comment. That way it costs the goverment more in payments as each parent would get the single child rate of tax credits and chb which if you add togther is more then one parent claiming for two children.

Probably but it makes the family better off as a result so look after the family and forget about the cost to government. Normally with exactly 50/50 shared care the lower earner would be the one to claim the benefits so the family (the children) get more in benefits. If they earn almost the same then one kid each and no child support as each would pay the other cancelling out the liability.

It's a private agreement they can do whatever they feel is best for them and their housing situation. If they are both on housing benefits they would both only ever be entitled to a 2 bedroom property rather than a 3 bedroom property depending on ages and sexes of the children.

Orville

HappyMJ wrote: »

Probably but it makes the family better off as a result so look after the family and forget about the cost to government. Normally with exactly 50/50 shared care the lower earner would be the one to claim the benefits so the family (the children) get more in benefits. If they earn almost the same then one kid each and no child support as each would pay the other cancelling out the liability.

It's a private agreement they can do whatever they feel is best for them.

I would still do the payments based on one claiming for two and then split the payments. if it's a 50 / 50 share. Personally i think that is the fairest way.

clearingout

Orville wrote: »

I would still do the payments based on one claiming for two and then split the payments. if it's a 50 / 50 share. Personally i think that is the fairest way.

it's not necessarily fair. It can only be fair if parents are earning roughly the same and there is a commitment to sharing the costs of bringing up the children. I have yet to come across a pair of separated parents where this is the case - usually one of them is trying incredibly hard to get one over the other. I shared care for an 18 month period - I paid for everything for 2 children, including childcare on my ex's days/nights. I only had part-time work and was pregnant with our youngest child/had a baby in tow and even if I'd been working full time, my ex was earning more than 4 times what I was. He also had a new partner and was running £20k through her on top (she also had a full time job elsewhere) so there is no way on earth it would have been 'fair' to share the tax credits in that situation.