Childcare benefit when children split their time between 2 different houses

freezspirit

I remember reading a story in one of the weekly magazines on a child that split their time with both parents after they divorced. The child would carry a sort of log book between the two homes so that the other parent could see what was needed or what money was spent on. They setup an account where they could put money in from their own accounts when they didn't have the child and the child benefit also went in, the money was solely to be used on the child. Both parents had to be present and sign to take money out. It made me laugh to think the handover of the child was done in the bank.

seven-day-weekend

nannytone wrote: »

it would also be equally unfair for the taxpayer to fund a child twice ... once at its mothers and again at its fathers.
surely the 2 reasonable parents should be able to come to an arrangement between themselves?

Or one parent claim for one child and one for the other?

Mojisola

gilbutre wrote: »

If somehow the mother receives the full childcare benefit (because supposedly children DO LIVE in her house) and the father receives nothing (because supposedly children DO NOT live in his house), while in reality children live half of the time in mother house and the other half in father house, then the mother clearly receives 50% too much benefit and the father 50% too little.

Some parents in this situation have one parent claim for one child and the other for the other child.

Others come to a personal arrangement whereby one parent claims all the benefits but shares them with the other parent.

But there aren't many separated families where the children genuinely split their time 50/50 between the two parents.

gilbutre

Ok, thanks all for the input.

Morlock

Simple answer, the man gets screwed.

Caroline_a

Morlock wrote: »

Simple answer, the man gets screwed.

Bit of a generalisation there. My ex expected to not pay a penny for his daughter for the 9 years remaining of her primary and secondary education, never mind when she was at uni. He got away with it through lying and misleading the CSA, giving up jobs at opportune moments, etc. I kept her by working up to 3 jobs at a time sometimes, and always working fulltime.

He saw her for half the holidays, and now that she is an adult rarely sees her, mostly because he never gets in touch with her - she used to text him and call him, but he rarely responded, so eventually she gave up. His loss.

DevilsAdvocate1

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Or one parent claim for one child and one for the other?

You get more child benefit for the oldest child.

As there is 7 nights in a week, surely the child will spend 3 at one parents and 4 at the other? Or do you work it over a fortnight or month? How does this then sit with activities. Say child does Cubs on a Wednesday, does he go with mam one week and dad the next. Sounds a bit unsettling to me.

Mojisola

DevilsAdvocate1 wrote: »

You get more child benefit for the oldest child.

You get more child benefit for the oldest child that you claim for. If Mum claimed for one child and Dad for the other, they would both get the higher rate.

racon

Mojisola wrote: »

You get more child benefit for the oldest child that you claim for. If Mum claimed for one child and Dad for the other, they would both get the higher rate.

Hey. That's how it should be done, I agree. That way you can maximise both parent's benefit entitlement.
It is a while ago, I know of a mum that arranged that all cash gifts that were given to her children from various family members for Christmas and birthdays came with a HMRC form, R185. This showed that the gift was net of tax. As the children were not liable to income tax, they, with mum's help, claimed the tax that had been 'deducted' from the gifts.
eg Total gifts in the year were £500, the tax deducted would have been £125. This would make the gift worth £625 to the child. A 40% taxpayer would see that refund go from £125 to £333. Obviously the donors had to be taxpayers. Also none of those gifts effected any benefits that mum received.

DevilsAdvocate1

Mojisola wrote: »

You get more child benefit for the oldest child that you claim for. If Mum claimed for one child and Dad for the other, they would both get the higher rate.

I didn't know that.

We have a few sets of twins in the family (none are mine though!) and I always thought it odd that they got less for the younger twin when there's only 10 minutes difference in age!

So should the parents have claimed child benefit so that mum claimed twin 1 and dad twin 2? Or do the parents have to be living separately?