To say we cant take his child full time?

The cap for UC is c£26k PA, no matter how many children you have

I was going to say this. I think you would definitely qualify for a 4-bed even without SS.

Fairly obviously, the house is in OP’s name, what she says goes.

Fine - it's a plural "you". If the boy's father posted I would say the same thing.

Not that it's really relevant to the OP's question, but with six children, you'd have to have exorbitantly high earnings to wipe out any entitlement to UC.

My first thought was how on earth do you manage now? Adding another child fulltime to this mix would be very difficult. I would suggest that you ask him to come up with a plan for covering the extra expense and for the logistics of this. Saying 'it will work itself out' is just not on.

If the partner gets his name on the tenancy then he gets more of a say on the set-up of the house. He is also 50% responsible for the rent etc. There is a reason why the OP says the tenancy is in her name. I think she is telling us that she pays the rent and she “got” the house so she thinks she gets the say on it. I think the government also think she is a single parent in the house. The OP doesnt mention having a job and the responsibilty of working a normal working week to provide for her 5 kids. She just mentions domestic responsibilty.

Yes she created it all on her own so it is all on her.

It is naive to think it makes no difference.

The child must feel unwanted already as the DP leaves all the care to the OP. He is firstly responsible but dumping it on OP.

It shouldn’t be about whose house it is. It should be about the needs of all their children including his son. He must be feeling very unwanted and if you commit to a relationship with somebody who has children, you need to put all their needs first.
Neither of these parents are coming out of this very well.

I think you need to move heaven and earth to make it work OP. You created that family knowing all the children in it need their parents to look after them. You can't treat any child less equally.

Not sure I demanded anything!!

I mentioned that it wasn’t one as a relevant factor.

He contributes financially. We know it’s not 50-50 but we have no idea how much less and it could make sense it’s a bit less given not all children are his.
In terms of what he does around the house, the op says she does more but we don’t really know that for sure and maybe he is doing a lot of other things that she’s not - we can’t really comment.

No, when she decided to have THREE kids with her partner, they created a blended family. Perhaps they should be looking for a larger house anyway as it sounds chaotic already. Yours, mine, his kids... shouldn't matter.

If she feels he isn't financially or otherwise contributing enough, that's a different conversation to have but from I see that doesn't seem to be her issue?

I know council housing is at a premium, but you are a family of 8 (? - sorry, I don't want to go back upthread to check), far too many people for a three-bedroom house. Is there any chance of getting a bigger house? That would seem to be the best solution.

Knowing teenagers, I suspect your DSS will move between homes a bit. If he's not geting on so well with his mum, that will probably change once he's not living with her.

It's a really difficult situation. As you say, your DP has the right to have his son live with him. But as you also say, you have to think about the whole family.

I hope you find a solution, OP.

Huh? The partner moved into her house, where she was living with her children. That's why he 'has her children 24/7' . . . because she is kindly accommodating him. And she says that she does the domestic work as well, so in what sense does he have her children or provide for her children? It obviously wasn't part of the original agreement when the partner moved in that he would also move his son in permanently. The OP cannot put her house and kids in a negative situation because her partner doesn't make decisions that prioritise his son.

That's an awful lot of hyperbole and nonsense to get to the point. The step son isn't a defenceless little boy either, he's a teenager, not a toddler.

It is if she is claiming welfare whilst not declaring an on-off partner for 9 years then it’s everybody’s business to make sure that the welfare state supports those who need it. Welfare state spending is over 10% of GDP. That money should be going to those in need, not those who play the system.
the OP disappeared pretty quick when the issue was raised.

Why should he contribute 50/50... she has two extra teen kids living there and has the audacity to say his teen can't live there?

If I was him I'd stop procreating with her and move out.

She doesn't have to show you anything her financial situation is none of your flipping business.

Husband? There is no husband in this setup.

But nowhere does it say she hasn't declared her partner moving in. If she hasn't then yes she'd be committing fraud as she would be charged more council tax. But nothing here says she hasn't declared him being there. Sounds more like people are assuming that because they have a large family then they simply must be benefit scroungers.

OP’s the one pushing for the sensible solution. DP’s the one who doesn’t give a shit about her and, in many ways, his own DC.

Having said that, too many kids isn’t a nice thing to do. You’re supposed to like them.

@Supersimkin7 and what about women who have children (3 in this case) with crap dads.

Don’t think either adult in this situation have thought about any of the 6 children involved

I’m with OP. DSS gets to stay with his mummy where he has a home.

DSS is getting ideas from Daddy who thinks he can swan from home to home where he’s welcomed with open arms. No bills! Free sex!

We know about daddies like DP.