AIBU to think that maintenance SHOULD affect benefit entitlement?

[IJustCantBelieveIt]

Don't want to drip feed, but don't want to go on and on.

My dh and I have been together for 4 years (married for 2) he has a 7 year old ds from a previous relationship. He has always paid maintenance, even though his ex is very difficult with contact. When we met, it was £53 a week. It is now £78 a week (these are based off of the statutory amounts, but elevated a little) We don't have a problem with paying. It is after all his ds.

His ex has had 2 more dc since they split, both have different fathers, who she is also no longer with. She works part time (well 24 hours a week) at weekends when her dc are at respective fathers' or with her mother. Both other fathers pay maintenance for their respective dc.

Now what has got me thinking is that we have just reviewed payment amount and increased it. I said to dh to make sure she lets her benefits' offices know as we don't want her getting stung. She got back to us saying that maintenance has no impact on her benefits.

How can this be? Out of curiosity, we did a benefit calculation with her circumstances and it shows as eligible for almost £500 a week. Plus her weekly earnings and maintenance payments from dh (haven't a clue what the other fathers pay, so we didn't include it) she is getting over £3000pcm.

Surely, maintenance payments should be counted as an income for her dc if nothing else. I thought benefits were calculated to make sure that families had enough money to live on. I don't begrudge that we pay maintenance, but she shouldn't also be receiving money to pay for her children from the govt, as I believe over £10 per day is sufficient for keeping a child? I don't know what to think. Anyone understand why this is like it is? Or am I just BU?

My ex pays £140 a month for ds who is almost 12, we split up 10 years ago and the amount has never changed, he is very tight with regard to our ds.
I don't claim benefits now but when I was a lone parent I did and always mentioned this money, just to cover myself.
The general consensus from job centre staff etc was always along the lines of "well at least it's regular" as to be fair he's never missed a payment but it seems rare that he's kept to his (2005) agreement.
It's a hard one as I've been in this position but maybe an upper limit would be a better approach, as in thousands a month.

It may be a good idea to get his contribution checked, foreverton. Circumstances change, people move into higher paid jobs etc so this could be a tiny percentage of his income now. I did the same thing so he was thousands better off while I couldn't afford to get ds to school.

It's a hard one as I've been in this position but maybe an upper limit would be a better approach, as in thousands a month

Why? If my children lived elsewhere I would expect to be paying in excess of 100k a year towards there upkeep regardless of the other parents income source

arsenic no I don't think spousal maintenance is currently taken into account for CTC purposes?

Don't you hold? Why not?

www.entitledto.co.uk/help/benefits-maintenance-children

rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/2357/

Anyone who hasn't been declaring spousal maintainence for TC or HB purposes would do well to seek legal advice.

I'm not sure arsenic as the first link there seems to be an MoD one and the second refers to UC?

I think its CTC only rather than TC or HB but the article I referred to would suggest spousal maintenance currently not taken into account for CTC?

In any case it might be useful if people double checked if in that situation as you say. But it would seem anyway that this will all change when UC comes in.

yabu. If I left my high earning dh I would shock horror receive 800 in maintenance. This would cover the mortgage. I would than have to cover everything else from benefits until I was able to find work. Although realistically we would have to sell the house and my situation would be even worse as I would be paying 900 per month rent. So bye bye maintenance and than some.
That is of course assuming he paid up regularly. If he didn't I would be up the creek.

why's that homealone if you're married surely you'd get spousal maintenance if he's a high earner?

Hold are you on actual glue?

MoD? It's entitledto.co.uk

didn't think spousal maintenance was so common these days. The basic problem is running two households is more expensive than one.

arsenic is there any need to be so rude
anyway, irrelevant to me I shall flounce off this thread. Although homealone I don't know where you got that information I think spousal maintenance still exists? Maybe someone arsenic will be along to correct me though..

Do try to flounce to somewhere your consistent misinformation will do less damage hold. Baby names?

You've been repeatedly, patiently, politely corrected for some time now.

www.gov.uk/tax-credits-working-out-income

www.findlaw.co.uk/law/family/divorce_and_dissolution/maintenance/500181.html

Home I think you have a point that spousal maintainence is so rare these days, it is harder to find the detailled guidance (there being a general expectation that healthy adults support themselves).

In general terms, reliable, not-for-profit sources of info are;

www.entitledto.co.uk

DWP and HMRC technical guidance and Decision makers guides.

www.adviceguide.org.uk (CAB)

Gingerbread

Contact a family

(Of course people can still misread and misinterpret that)

Lady Sybil -thanks, I will do:)

Spousal maintenance is very common where one person doesn't work and looks after the children. It's the norm although after 3 - 5 years you might be expected to get back into full time work. Sometimes IF and only if a lump sum is paid to you instead which is quite large (as my ex got) the higher earner can buy out the lower earners maintenance claims what is called a clean break. Clean breaks on divorce are psychologically better on both sides although if you think your lower earner spouse will remarry or cohabit quite soon we higher earners can feel on going maintenance is cheaper as that stops when the lower earner finds another sucker to pick up their tab whereas the clean break lump sum might in fact be higher so it's a difficult decision for those few who have enough capital to offer a clean break one off settlement of future spousal maintenance claims.

Aha

If you're talking about me loletta that's utterly bizarre Have you actually read my posts and links? I only said it might be useful if people double checked if in that situation.

I wouldn't assume someone posting on MN would be a national expert in that subject

I am sure most people write in good faith and no one expects to get 100% accuracy. I just was corrected on a tax thread, checked back (I had remembered the Government in a recent budget had abolished "sideways relief" of new trading losses against earned income in same year which had indeed been announced in a budget but someone else did not think so. I have checked and we are both half right - there are new limitations and restrictions on it.) People should always check what any of us say on line as indeed even if you are paying an accountant or lawyer it does no harm to do.