AIBU to think that many other single parents of >2 children will decide not to cohabit with a new partner?

[pinkglittergirl]

This is something pertinent to my life right now.

I am a professional. I earn in relative terms, a good wage. However, I was left, on my own, with 3 children (whose father chooses to not see them). Now, my income has is made up of wages and tax credits (plus CM dragged out of my ex). My tax credits are half my income in fact (mostly due to childcare costs - I claim the maximum £300 a week).

I've been dating a man for a couple of months now. But I have made the decision that financially, we will be unable to live together.

Why? It isn't the loss of income (me and my boyfriend earn well, and would have a very good standard of living together).

However, if the relationship was to breakdown, and I found myself single again, I would no longer be able to claim tax credits for my already existing 3rd child. This isn't a well known fact, but none the less, it's true. If you have a 6 month gap in claiming, your 3rd child (4th/5th etc too) can no longer be claimed for (from April 2017).

AIBU to think that this policy will discourage other single parents with more than 2 children from forming new households with new partners?

Financially, I'd be screwed without tax credits for one of my children.

It also discourages people from moving into employment. I'm going to have a 4th child after the cut off so we're going to be skint anyway but if I was to go to work and get us off tax credits completely (dp does work) then was to lose my job we would only get tax credits for 2.
I don't understand their logic tbh it's not like you can send them back is it? Especially for single parents it's not like you chose to be in that situation.

Posted before I'd finished!

As a couple, we'd not be eligible for tax credits, or child benefit. Surely the government should be encouraging people to cohabit and create new families, where they won't be reliant on the state.

But not taking away that safety net if the relationship should fail - where there are children already existing (it isn't like I can hand one back!)

Eh, you've been dating him a few months and are already thinking about tax credits for #3 if you break up? Slow down a bit, even if you were to move in together there is no law that you have to have another baby.

If you head over to Step parenting you will probably discover that "forming a new household" is a lot of work. I think Child Tax is the least of the worries really.

Slow down a bit, even if you were to move in together there is no law that you have to have another baby.

OP already has the third child. That's the point of her post!

The government are surely likely to make further changes to tax credits/universal credit in the years to come anyway. If you rely on these you are at their mercy anyway. Though starting a new job/moving in with new partner do at least give you potentially more options to change your life so that you're not reliant on them.

Slow down a bit, even if you were to move in together there is no law that you have to have another baby.

She already has 3 - hence the post. If she stops claiming for 3, she won't be able to restart.

I'm not sure that's a bad thing. Increases stability for the kids.

OP already has the third child. That's the point of her post!

Apologies, not sure how i missed that

Anyway I agree with the PP, it might make people think twice before rushing into a blended family and possibly creating further instability for the children. I still think 3 months is very early to be thinking of moving into together though.

Hi i wouldnt be thinking of cohabiting if i ever had a partner again and ive only two children but my reasonings are different to yours after what my ex put me and the kids through i couldnt fully trust another man again and i wouldnt want to put myself in a position where i wasnt fully independent. I dont see why you cant have a relationship and not move in together - although for benefits purposes i think you might be classed as living together if he stays over alot. So even though you dont live together you might still lose out iyswim.

although for benefits purposes i think you might be classed as living together if he stays over alot. devasted is there any evidence for that anywhere? I always thought that unless it could be shown that he DID actually live there, staying over didn't count?

My DP stays with me about 3 nights a week, but it certainly isn't his home, he doesn't contribute towards the running costs, isn't named on any bills etc and has his own home with it's own running costs, bills, council tax etc to pay, where he stays with his DCs the rest of the time.

If anyone decided to report that he was living here because they see his car here a lot I would be happy for someone to sit and stake out my house and see him arriving at 10pm and going home at 1am or leaving his car here for a week while he is elsewhere on business etc.

How often a partner spends at your house is completely irrelevant if he also has his own home elsewhere and you are not actually living as a couple, surely?

OP I would agree that really, the loss of tax credits is the least of your worries if you decide to live together.

Enjoy your independence, your DCs and your relationship but keep them separate as much as you can! I have no intention of moving in with my DP until all of our DCs are grown up.

We haven't really discussed the future. Definitely not discussing moving in yet. It's only been mentioned in the things we would both like one day.
But, it would be something I'd like in couple of years if the relationship works out.
But I'm no longer in the position to make that choice. Not until my oldest child is out of education!
Would I willingly disadvantage my children by losing out on several hundred pounds a month? No. I wouldn't.

I don't think many people rush in to new relationships when they have children though. At least the people I know don't.

But everyone is entitled to move on with their lives, and establish new relationships, get married, move in, have children, if that's what they want. It just seems the government is taking that option away for many single parents with care of the children.

You can't rely on them continuing as they are anyway, the rules will change again. There are extra expenses in running 2 households instead of one bigger one; at some point the balance may favour pooling resources.

YANBU to point out the absurdity, but I would be more concerned about them withdrawing 3rd child allowance anyway - not that I know of any plans to do that.

How old are you kids op? You say most of the tax credits are because of high childcare costs but that doesn't last forever ( not generally past the age of 11 or thereabouts).

Anyone know how they would work it out which child they would pay out for if op had to reclaim? Would it be the 3rd child that op didn't get tax credits for? If you are paying out childcare costs for the 2 youngest but not the eldest would you continue to get it for the 2 youngest? Sounds like it will be a nightmare !! And does this tax credits for 2 kids only rule actually apply to childcare costs or just 'normal' child tax credits.

well hopefully this will make people think twice before having children they can't afford

Having children is a lifestyle choice - so live within your means.

YANBU

I wouldn't be surprised if they stop people claiming for more than 2 at all in the next few years (as in regardless of when they were born)

I would worry more about the effects of potential relationship breakdown on the children if you were living together than tax credits which may or may not be relevant at that future Unknown date anyway

Plus, not sure anyone with kids rushes into cohabiting with new partner?

Well maybe people should consider the costs of children and not expect the state to pick up the tab.
I don't understand having four kids if you can't afford it-take some responsibility. Some people would love to have children but have don't because of the cost.
I also find the idea that potentially losing tax credits is more important than stability for the children (I'm divorced btw) an odd one.

Oh FFS! Here we go. Read the thread idiots.

'But everyone is entitled to move on with their lives, and establish new relationships, get married, move in, have children, if that's what they want. It just seems the government is taking that option away for many single parents with care of the children.'

For real? The state is not there to provide anyone with the lifestyle they desire - that's not an entitlement. They're there to provide a safety net. You can to 'move on' and set up with someone, you just have to pay for it yourself.

OP isn't expecting the state to pay for her new relationship/life. She's objecting to the fact the safety net is removed permanently for those that do move on and then find themselves a single parent again.

Look at it another way .

If your relationship works out for the longterm (fair few years maybe) you and kids will have the extra stability ( help with childcare , 2nd wage , settled life in general) to maybe progress your career and wage yourself so that wouldn't be factor if incase you did split up .

Stop thinking so far ahead , you could be doing yourself out of a lovely happy life on what ifs .

The worse might not happen