Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To ask for £900 per month

179 replies

Mumom0 · 17/09/2013 11:10

I had a 3.5 year relationship with a man with whom I have now split. I was a single parent working earning about 20 k and as I have 4 kids, also received £970 pm in WFTC. When he moved in I had to inform tax credits of his £35k earnings, therefore losing that money. I said he should pay me £900 per month so my family did not lose out ( this is after all what the govt consider I need to keep my family in basics ) .
He thought this was a lot, as with a previous partner they split the bills so only payed about £600 each towards outgoings.

Since we split he has implied that he kept us, which made me feel cross as I was independent before (admittedly relying on tax credits).

Was I unreasonable to expect him to make up the difference in lost benefits to support kids which are not his, or right to make sure I had money to provide for them?

Has anyone else been in this situation - what did you do?

OP posts:
SaucyJack · 17/09/2013 20:28

Because thems the breaks when you choose to move in with a woman with four children Stranger. If you don't want thefinancial and social resonsibility of raising four children, then just don't do it.

Nothing wrong with wanting to be a single man with no more pressing concerns financially than what to spend your massive disposible income on. Just don't expect your girlfriend's kids to go without. Because that makes you a cunt.

It's really very simple.

jacks365 · 17/09/2013 20:28

My objection to the way it was done was because it wasn't a fair look at what both could afford but the op not wanting to be out of pocket irrespective of the effect on him. Yes he needed to contribute but I don't agree with the way it was gone about ie you need to give me this to replace what I lose. That is not about team work or partnerships and it should be or both parties end up feeling hard done by because it wasn't a joint decision.

Consider the scenario that the op lost her job, would she have expected him to pay over what she would get in benefits, tax credits etc in that situation or would it be family money to make the most of jointly. It's not him contributing I feel is unfair nor the amount if anything he could have done more but the manner that the op dictated the amount.

QuintessentialShadows · 17/09/2013 20:31

ILikeBirds, I am responding to those saying he should not have to pay.

ALittleStranger · 17/09/2013 20:33

Well yes Jack and he clearly decided he didn't want to do it! I don't think it's fair to call him a cunt. The OP moved him in, we don't know if they discussed him taking on a full-on stepfather role.

westergille · 17/09/2013 21:10

Does anyone really imagine that they can MOVE IN with a partner who has children living with them and then just stay at arms-length from the children? It's nothing to do with the amount of money - every couple decides for themselves how they want to share household expenses -but if you're not prepared to contribute your time, emotions and, yes, money to your step-children then don't move in. If, as a single parent, you don't want your partner to contribute in this way, don't move in together.

Bogeyface · 17/09/2013 21:21

The OP moved him in, we don't know if they discussed him taking on a full-on stepfather role.

You make it sound like she had his arm up his back! He had a choice you know!

As a live-in partner to a parent you a de facto step parent with all the rights and responsibilities that entails. The day you move in you become part of a family, and if you are not happy to do that then dont move in. Simple as.

I think what has caused confusion is the way the OP worded it. If she had laid out her financial situation before they moved in and asked WSSD, I am willing to bet that 90% of respondents would say that he should contribute a proportional amount to bills etc as should she. Which is what they have in fact done, the fact that she worded it as a replacement for her TC is unfortunate but not really the issue.

EhricLovesTeamQhuay · 17/09/2013 21:27

why should he have coughed up extra because you had four kids with someone else?

Because presumably he loved her and wanted to live with her! Honestly. I do wonder what goes through some women's heads. Nobody forced him, and if he moved in without having these conversations then he's a fool and deserves no sympathy.

ITCouldBeWorse · 17/09/2013 21:30

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

fabergeegg · 17/09/2013 21:33

You should have looked honestly at the outgoings and agreed what proportion he should have paid. If you were out of pocket regarding WFTC, it might have been nice for him to offer to pay half of this - but as a gesture, rather than something to which you were entitled.

There's something wrong with our society today. If we lose out, we assume that (a) this means something had gone wrong, and (b) someone else should give us what is 'only fair'. In this life, we're not 'entitled' to anything beyond freedom from oppression! If you starting a relationship and enjoying a partner in the house led to your being out of pocket, that's just the way it goes! Your new partner had nothing to do with the arrangement you were benefitting from before and he is only responsible for paying his way - not making sure that the world treats you fairly!

I can understand why he could have agreed to this at the time, wanting to please you, but feels it was a bit steep looking back.

HopeS01 · 17/09/2013 21:39

I don't think YWBU, OP. If that is how much it "cost" you to have him living with you, and you were relying on the money to support your family, then how could he possibly justify not giving it to you?
I don't think I fully understand....

If I were you, I'd have asked him to pay £900 PLUS any extra I had to pay out in food and water etc to have him living with me...

ModeratelyObvious · 17/09/2013 21:48

Once again, they were together 3.5 years.

I imagine it was an either/or situation for the OP - either his contribution was £900 or they stayed living apart as that was best for her children. He also had a free choice to keep doing that, if that gave him more disposable income and that income mattered to him more than co-habiting.

ModeratelyObvious · 17/09/2013 21:51

For those saying "why should he have coughed up extra?", how did they expect OP to cope with £200-£300 less per month of income?

Some would be judging her for letting her desire to live with her DP trump money available to spend on her family's needs, no doubt.

LynetteScavo · 17/09/2013 21:51

I agree with BruthasTortoise.

Moving in to a family home, but staying at arms length financially isn't really realistic. Are such partners expected to actually interact with children they are living with, or is it all left to the children's parents? I genuinely don't know, as I've never lived in a step family.

You are either living as a family, or not, IMO, but obviously what I think happens in step families, and what actually does according to MN, are two very different things.

Bogeyface · 17/09/2013 21:53

I am amazed at the advocate for cock lodging on this thread, as a pp mentioned!

Doesnt pay his way....cocklodger
Pays his way.....OP is a scheming money grabber!

And yes, with a low income and 4 children you can easily receive £900 a month. I currently receive more than that thanks to redundancy and a subsequent minimum wage job that wouldnt cover even half of the bills on its own. It is called National Minimum Wage, not National Living Wage for a reason :( A large portion of it is probably help with childcare, so the OP can "get a job and support your family yourself" as a charmer posted above Hmm

LynetteScavo · 17/09/2013 21:54

So many times on MN I've heard that couples combine all income...does that only happen if couples are married and step children aren't involved?

Retroformica · 17/09/2013 22:08

If 900 per month was half the cost of bills/rent/food etc then that's fine.

Bogeyface · 17/09/2013 22:34

It was half, adjusted for differing incomes as is suggested by MN on almost every "how to split the bills" thread.

ITCouldBeWorse · 17/09/2013 22:39

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

BruthasTortoise · 17/09/2013 22:44

If the OP had all 4 children in childcare while she worked then £900 is not an excessive figure for tax credits. After school care for one child could amount to £300 per month depending on the area you live in and tax credits will help with up to 75% of the cost.

birdybear · 17/09/2013 22:46

I agree with saucyjack.

But in relation to the op s subsequent post. Why Will it be relevant again? How many people are you planning on having move in and out of your children's home ? If you decide to make a relationship with someone, make sure they Will take your children on without resenting and make sure you are financially responsible for them, not your partner. If he offers to pay more, then he is a good guy and treating your children well.

BruthasTortoise · 17/09/2013 22:52

birdy you do understand that the OP can't claim help with childcare costs for her 4 children based solely on her income if she has a working partner living with her? The state expects the adults in a household, whether they be biological parents or not, to financially support the children in the household and calculates tax credits entitlement based on both incomes.

Bogeyface · 17/09/2013 23:45

I had no idea people received that much.

Why wouldnt they?

They have jobs, pay their way, pay their taxes, support themselves and have the family they can afford (in my case, 6 children) then.......

redundancy
marital breakdown
illness
disability
death
any of these can happen at any time and leave any family on their knees financially.

The bills still need paying, the kids still need feeding, thats why it is based on the number of children in the home as it is the best indicator as to outgoings.

AnyFucker · 18/09/2013 00:04

< falls over in shock >

I can't get past the work PT, earn 20K and still get 900 smackers in benefits ?

People get this much ? Really ?

AnyFucker · 18/09/2013 00:07

MN is certainly an education Shock . As you were, OP. Your exP should have paid his way. He took you all on as a package.

QuintessentialShadows · 18/09/2013 00:18

"I can't get past the work PT, earn 20K and still get 900 smackers in benefits ?"

I guess that is what was the Child care element of the good old Working Tax credits? If the op has 4 children, they would all need child care so that she could go out and earn a living. Better than sitting on her arse receiving unemployment benefit, surely?