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

Or is this a little strange for a "separated" couple

152 replies

FrancescaP · 15/10/2015 17:43

Top and bottom, my cousin who I don't really see often and aren't particularly close with, well I think she and her ex partner have some dodgy set up going on. So i'd just like some perspective as maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree, but to me it's a little weird.

Anyway, her and her ex partner have four children, they own there own house and they seemed very happy and have been together for years. A couple of years back she announced that her and her partner were splitting up. Instead of one of them staying in the family home and one moving out they both moved out. She got to the top of the council list and got a house very quickly and he moved back home to his father's house despite being in full time work and wing able to afford a place of his own, and they got a tenant in to rent their home. This was about two years ago and for a separated couple they still live like they are very much together and are even going on holiday together to Spain at half term, now all I want to know is this usual for couples who separate?

The thing is my cousin doesn't work so gets full benefits and I fear if the counci/Dwp/hmrc found out about their unique set up then they'd be in a lot of trouble. Don't get me wrong it's great if parents can stay amicable for the sake of the children but my cousin has her ex round almost daily, he stays over some nights, they still go on days out etc and I just think it's a little odd, AIBU here?

OP posts:
Original poster
FrancescaP · 15/10/2015 19:07

I'm not at all talking about maintencace, every father should pay towards his kids when possible. I'm taking about him paying for meals for his ex partner (kids mother) paying towards bills/holidays/phone contracts etc as that is what it's like for my cousin, that's worlds apart from paying your bog standard maintenace

OP posts:
SurlyCue · 15/10/2015 19:09

A single parent who is being supported by a partner or in this case an ex partner is not single, sorry.

The clue is in the name, its child support. Not ex partner support. He is supporting his children. The state is supporting her (and her share of the children's support) Or were you mistaken when you claimed she was "on full benefits"?

ghostspirit · 15/10/2015 19:12

op how do you know that she does not buy in return or its a loan. hes paying towards the holiday because hes going to. and its his kids she could be paying for herself

Original poster
FrancescaP · 15/10/2015 19:13

Sorry Ghostspiit I can't agree that its ok to go on holiday with an ex partner and children when said children have been told that mum and dad are no longer together. I don't know of anyone who has a similar set up and find it rather bizzare and can't understand why a separated couple (so who have agreed that they can't stand to live together anymore or along those lines) would actually want to holiday together, what's so wrong with mum taking them on holiday and then dad taking them on holiday somewhere else?

OP posts:
ElsaAintAsColdAsMe · 15/10/2015 19:15

I'm going to go on a limb here, are you just a little bit jealous op?

ghostspirit · 15/10/2015 19:16

maybe between them they can afford one holiday. but cant afford 2 seperatly. nd this is a way they can give the kids a holiday.

Original poster
FrancescaP · 15/10/2015 19:16

But it begs the question WHY would a separated couple WANT to holiday together. You can still be grown up and remain amicable for the sake of the kids and make it work without the need for holidaying together.

OP posts:
SurlyCue · 15/10/2015 19:16

Sorry Ghostspiit I can't agree that its ok to go on holiday with an ex partner and children when said children have been told that mum and dad are no longer together

You dont have to agree. It being sweet fuck all to do with you and all that. Hmm

what's so wrong with mum taking them on holiday and then dad taking them on holiday somewhere else?

nothing. Thats an option too.

Original poster
FrancescaP · 15/10/2015 19:18

Oh here we go i'm jealous, ofcourse I am, I must be right?.....I'm actually not, me and my dh are in a stable position financially, we are happy with each other, our kids are happy and whilst we aren't rich we don't go without much including holidays so what's to be jealous about?

OP posts:
ghostspirit · 15/10/2015 19:18

but why does it matter so much if they go on holiday together with the kids. could be seperat rooms for all you know.

Booyaka · 15/10/2015 19:19

SurlyCue, full benefits are when people do not work at all and claim the full range of benefits available. As opposed to people who work part time or are low wages who only receive partial housing benefits, tax credits etc.

SurlyCue · 15/10/2015 19:19

I think OP is jealous that she isnt as emotionally developed as her cousin so she couldnt see fit to being so amicable with an ex. Its ok OP, some people just mature better than others. I'm sure youre good at other stuff. Like writing stories maybe?

Eva50 · 15/10/2015 19:19

But, if they have three houses, a new mini, 4 kids and a handbag in one house (+ 1 cousin), a dad and his dad in another house and tenants in the third house paying the mortgage, where do they keep the goat?

ghostspirit · 15/10/2015 19:21

hahahaah eva made me laugh :)

Stratter5 · 15/10/2015 19:22

My XH paid maintenance, my mortgage, the pets' insurance, and for the extension on my house. His parents also gave me their 'old 'car as a second run around. He stayed here whenever he saw the DDs too.

We got back together. It is entirely possible to get divorced/separated in a civil fashion, despite everything one reads on MN

ElsaAintAsColdAsMe · 15/10/2015 19:22

You tell me what you are jealous about op, you're the one coming across like the green eyed monster is getting the better of you Grin I bet it's the handbag

Booyaka · 15/10/2015 19:23

They are going to, at some point, cash in a huge lump sum on that house that will have been paid for by them having a council house they don't need so they can rent it out.

And that will be done entirely at the expense of genuinely homeless families who can't live in that house because someone who doesn't need it has it. And the majority of Mumsnet seem to think that's just dandy.

SurlyCue · 15/10/2015 19:24

SurlyCue, full benefits are when people do not work at all and claim the full range of benefits available

The full range? Thats a massive list. Carers allowance, pip, DLA, income support? There are loads more. You get them all for having no job do you?

Arfarfanarf · 15/10/2015 19:25

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Original poster
FrancescaP · 15/10/2015 19:25

Because they are both getting their CHOICE of lifestyle subsidised by the government, and whilst I'm not against people getting help when they need it they are not in need of help, they're really not. If they could manage before on just her partner's wage and a small amount in tax credits then why the hell does she NEED to claim housing/council tax/income support/free school meals etc? Surely if they're so amicable, so much so that they're holidaying together AND he's living rent free at his father's then why doesn't he continue to support her solely without the need for claiming more in benefits?......

OP posts:
ghostspirit · 15/10/2015 19:25

just thinking for her to get council house she would have had to proove she was homeless. which would be paper work etc. so for her to get council place she must have done what they asked?

Optimist1 · 15/10/2015 19:25

Her sister doesn't by any chance work in the benefits fraud office, does she? Hmm

Arfarfanarf · 15/10/2015 19:33

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Original poster
FrancescaP · 15/10/2015 19:38

She proved that her house was in negativity equity which it was at the time, but the house that she rented well landlord decided after six months to sell the house so she got him to write her a letter saying that he was evicting her even though he wasn't technically evicting her and the house didn't actually sell until a year later.

OP posts:
SurlyCue · 15/10/2015 19:43

she got him to write her a letter saying that he was evicting her even though he wasn't technically evicting her and the house didn't actually sell until a year later.

Well unless there is an abundance o empty council homes in your area that isnt how she got a house. You have to actually be evicted. As in, refuse to leave and wait for the court to order the baliffs to come round, then you have to actually wait for them to come and physically evict you. A letter just doesnt cut it. So youve got your info wrong.

Swipe left for the next trending thread