Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

help and advice

206 replies

FondantFancie · 26/08/2011 11:26

My husband thinks he is entitled to half my child tax credits. We have three children together which we share contact exactly half and half. we have been separated for 3 years now. I have just recently had a new baby so am not working and just claiming the benefits I am entitled to. He is a full time teacher.

He feels that he is entitled to the tax credit money while I do not as he is working. He puts the children into childcare which costs him a lot each month. He claims not to have any money to spend on himself or the children. What should I do?

OP posts:
FondantFancie · 26/08/2011 13:15

I am not sure how much he would get, he has said about £350.

The children go to childcare when he has them, we live about 50 minutes apart from each other so I would not be able to collect them from school every day. No tax credit is given for the childcare as this is a part of the working tax credit.

I am sorry I am coming across as 'entitled' I am sure he gets more money than me from his wages, than I get in my benefits. So I am struggling to see why I should give him more. Surely we should have equal money to support the children?

OP posts:
jugglingwiththreeshoes · 26/08/2011 13:16

I don't really agree with most posters suggesting that the tax credits should be split. I think the OP claims them and receives them, probably buys more things for her children than her partner, and has a new baby to look after, and is not working while partner is. I think OP should keep her benefits ( for her children)
Surely though there is advice available on who is entitled to claim and spend the benefit, as I can't imagine this is the first case where it has been disputed.
If the OP and ex get on well enough of course they could discuss it based on who provides most materially for the children.

magicmummy1 · 26/08/2011 13:18

Grin at Delilah - interesting!

magicmummy1 · 26/08/2011 13:20

Juggling, why do you say that she probably buys more for the children than their dad?

jugglingwiththreeshoes · 26/08/2011 13:21

Because she's their Mum ! It's just a wild guess Grin

delilahbelle · 26/08/2011 13:23

Magicmummy - I spend too much time on different forums. :)

I think that the money you receive is for the benefit of the children. As you care for them equally, but he has greater costs due to childcare, it would be fair to share the money equally.

Look at it is way - If you make him struggle for cash, you are essentially depriving your own children half the week.

magicmummy1 · 26/08/2011 13:23

But he's their dad. Confused

glitterkitten · 26/08/2011 13:25

OP if you don't like the fact he gets more money than you do GET A JOB. Don't steal from your children's money to try and redress the balance.

Once again- it's money to help raise the KIDS. You raise the kids 50/50, you split the money 50/50.

It's not money for you.

magicmummy1 · 26/08/2011 13:25

Looking at the thread on TES, he seems to be quite reasonable in his approach. I suspect this one may end up in court.

glitterkitten · 26/08/2011 13:32

If the TES thread is indeed OP's ex, and if OP has suggested she would reduce the time the kids spend with dad if he pursues a division of money then OP is a knoblet of royal proportions.

Could anyone of reasonable mind actually think that OP is right?

delilahbelle · 26/08/2011 13:33

Just goes to show how self centred some people can be... I feel sorry for the children.

magicmummy1 · 26/08/2011 13:35

All the details seem identical, so I'm willing to bet that the TES poster is OP's ex. And I know which of them seems the more reasonable in my eyes!

whostolemyname · 26/08/2011 13:37

YABU. Greedy and selfish. I hope you do the right thing or that karma comes to get you.

glitterkitten · 26/08/2011 13:39

If that's OPS genuine mindset, karma will get her in the form of the kids realising what kind of woman their mother is- putting her own needs above theirs

ApocalypseCheeseToastie · 26/08/2011 13:42

I'd be very surprised if he has more money than you after paying his own housing costs etc. Unbelieveable !

Dialsmavis · 26/08/2011 13:43

But your ex has to pay for childcare, you should definitely split it. You also have your new partners wages and your benefits, does ex have a new live in partner or wife? How do you get benefits and which ones? This is a genuine question as I am in a similar situation (except ex doesn't pay a penny towards DS and only sees him once a week) and i am entitled to bugger all!

OrganicFreeRangeBoys · 26/08/2011 13:43

He claims not to have any money to spend on himself or the children

So you would rather your children go without than give up half of "your" money, which lets face it IS for the children anyway?

Selfish much?

jugglingwiththreeshoes · 26/08/2011 13:43

I'm really surprised that opinion isn't more divided on this one. Like the OP I feel she perhaps might keep the child tax credit so that overall the money is more evenly shared. It would be difficult for OP to work as she has a new baby.
I think the ex partner is being a bit petty asking for this money to be shared. I wouldn't think it will be that much really compared with what he earns.
If the rule is one person can claim it then I don't see why that person shouldn't spend it on their children's behalf/ for their DC's benefit.
Does no-one agree with me ?

Dialsmavis · 26/08/2011 13:48

But the Ex has childcare to pay or should he give up his job and go on benefits too? If the OP isn't working she should have the DC in the week.

Poweredbypepsi · 26/08/2011 13:48

If the children are looked after 50/50 then tax credits for those children should be 50/50 - if your new baby is not your ex husbands then you would still get the full amount for that baby plus hopefully you would get some sort of contribution from that father. If he pays for childcare he maybe actually worse off than you at the moment it seem very unfair you claim 100% just because you are the mother. If the new baby isnt his and you dont work then thats not his problem imo.

Dialsmavis · 26/08/2011 13:48

Just seen that she moved away from her children so that wouldn't be possible... it seems like she has it all her own way.

gapants · 26/08/2011 13:52

I would assume that some of the tax credit would be spent on utilities/housing maybe too, so in that sense the money should not be an even split?

Maybe you and your ex need to sit down, look at both incomes and out goings and try and work out what would be fair to the children as care is 50/50.

Earlybird · 26/08/2011 14:29

OP - does your new dp (father of baby) support you and/or pay all or some housing/utility/etc costs? If so, your living expenses are reduced compared to those of your ex. So, while your ex may receive 'more' money per month because he is paid to do a job - he has childcare costs, and must pay all of his own living expenses.

Therefore - his 'life' probably costs more than yours.

bubblesincoffee · 26/08/2011 14:29

You could be working too if you hadn't chosen to have another baby. It's not his fault that you chose to do that.

If you only have the children that you have together 50% of the time, do they take a suicase full of stuff from your house to his with them, or do that basically have two homes and two lots of stuff?

I think you are being unreasonable. The tax credit people did not choose you over him. They can only give to one parent, and if you are entitled to more, it makes sense that you claim it.

It is for your children! They should have bedrooms and belongings of their own at their other home too you know! You are being very very self centred, and you shouldn't have recently had another baby when can't provide for the children you already have without taking money from the rest of us that can be bothered to go to work.

onemoreminute · 26/08/2011 14:34

I think you sound really greedy. Its not his fault you don't work so have less money without the credits.