Child Benefit Rival Claim Ex Partner Earning Loads!!!!!

[ProlongedAffair]

Me and my ex share 50/50 of our two children, it’s not court ordered but has been in place for the past few years. A few months ago I put in a claim for CMS and was awarded it, they see me as the primary carer because I get both children’s child benefits. I also discovered my ex is earning a 6 figure salary.

Last week I got a letter from child benefit saying that he is challenging my claim. I said to the lady that he earns too much to claim and I suspect he’s only claiming so he can try to get out of CMS. She told me that because he has the children for half the time and child benefit isn’t means tested, the likelihood is they will award child benefit one each! Surely that can’t be correct, can anyone advise who has been through their rival claims process?? He will then be able to claim CMS from me!!

@GeorgeA12 Wrong again I'm afraid.

I think you need to stop giving poor advice now as it's not helpful. Go onto the CMS calculator. I just have as an example. I put in equal care and earning £50000 a year. I was due to pay the other parent £48 a week. This can be challenged but only through a court I believe as I said.

The calculator is not accurate for true shared care. The calculator maxes out, I think, at 175 nights a year and that gives a 50% reduction plus a bit extra off. Something like that. But, that’s an estimate and when you actually call them and set up a case and they look into it, for true 50/50 care, it can be found that nothing is owed. The paying parent (the ex) can sort that out. They will sometimes decide that payment is still due, they sometimes don’t. But often with 50/50, nothing is due even though the online guidance calculator will initially say that it is.

*If they do make the decision that one parent has to pay the other, then the paying parent can seek to reduce that by doing what this man has done by going for the CB for one child and then reducing his liability for maintenance.

@GeorgeA12 Supposing then this was actually what happens (which it isn't btw), then the ex can go to court then to challenge.
I don't even think OP works...

He's contributing 50% towards his children's upkeep by virtue of him having custody 50% of the time. Actually, given the OP is currently in receipt of CB for both children, he's contributing more than she is. Is that not enough? How much should the OP be contributing towards the upkeep of her children, and why do you think it's justified that she should be contributing less than her ex?

@Quinlan Again you are correct and @GeorgeA12 is incorrect.

There is an option on the calculator for equal care.

Good on him! op serves you right for feeling entitled to someone else’s money. Hope he wins and lodges a cms claim against you as he is also the primary parent based on 50/50

The crux of it is, he can claim and then not take the payment, my sister does this as her husband is too high an earner to get the payment however by claiming it she doesn't miss national insurance contributions while off work looking after their children. That's the purpose of claiming and then refusing payment.

Your ex has done this as a retaliatory gesture bevause although he has the children 50% of the time, you are claiming money from him. This may be legit, such as he isn't contributing enough to school fees/you're finding that on your 50% of time you buy uniforms or clothes and he doesn't etc etc. Or, its not a legitimate claim and simply because he earns alot, you want some parity but you are not entitled to that now as separated partners.

His salary is by the by regarding child benefit claim. He can claim it and refuse payment but still be on the books as the claimant for that benefit.

Don’t be a snob

And it is not accurate. Their equal care caps out at 175 nights. When you open a case with them, and it is true 50:50, the often find that no money is due. If they do still decide that a payment is due, the paying parent can do as the OP’s ex has done and put in a competing claim for child benefit for lessen their liability.

Thats the second time I’ve said the exact same thing to you. Do you need a third?

I'm still curious to know if the OP is working at all?

Nobody here has sufficient information to know what's fair.

It could be that they're a divorced couple where they shared care from the start, she got a fair settlement, and is now being greedy, as the assumption seems to be from most.

Or they could be an unmarried couple where her far lower earning capacity stems from her having been primary carer for the earlier years of their children's lives, before he left her for someone else, and she wasn't entitled to any share of any family assets because domestic contributions aren't deemed relevant, and house, savings and pension are all in his sole name.

In the first scenario, she's being unfair in seeking CM and this is a reasonable step to block it. In the second, she's been screwed over financially and this continues.

It's not as simple as people claim. In contested 50/50 care cases the decision is likely to rest on what is best for the children, and fair in all the circumstances. That would include who stands to lose most from the decision - as the leading case determined. Whether people here think that's fair or not, that's the law.

And while courts don't generally determine this - a Tribunal hears benefit appeals, and then an Upper Tribunal would provide binding precedents, if taken far enough - rarely, some cases can indeed reach the High Court via Judicial Review.

I can't say what would happen here; none of us can, because none of us are experts on this area, and even if we were, none of us have the actual facts. I do know that in the absence of facts, a bunch of women are eagerly reaching for the version of events that puts the woman in the worst light, and the man in the best. None of us know if that's fair or not, so I find the assumption an interesting one.

C'mon you can just tell. Sole focus is the money

Where are your own legal qualifications from?

@ProlongedAffair you had better listen to this and rethink your steps

She has claimed and been awarded CMS which was way more than the child benefit. So he’s having to respond in a way that will fairly redistribute the amount of money she’s paying. Why would you expect him to pay her a large chunk of money when he has them 50/50? He has been given no other choice but to go after the benefit, but she’s still going to be getting the CMS for one child so likely still have more money in her pocket for the kids. So children are not losing out. Dad is already paying more than his 50% share

If he claims it, they’ll pay it but then his tax code will be altered to pay it back by reducing his personal allowance. £60-80k sees a 10% reduction in benefit paid for every £2k earned over £60k, where it fizzles out totally over £80k.

@Anchorage56 I do tend to agree with you, as OP hasn't said anywhere that she works.
If it's 50/50 then why should the ex-partner have to pay CMS and CB for both of the kids whilst the OP (potentially) doesn't work?
If she's working hard to provide for her kids as her ex is then of course fair enough.

I’m not defending OP but just don’t like the stereotype

@perfectstorm Lived experience of over a decade of 50/50 and unfortunately also a huge amount of time spent in family courts.

Ah.

Mine are LLB/LLM Cantab, LLM USYD.

The 2nd masters was a comparative research study into family law.

I trust that meets your stringent standards.

@perfectstorm I'm afraid not if you believe OP can claim all of the CB for both kids as well as CM.
Which country do you work in?

Ok it was a bit stereotypey but it's just something you see a lot

I have zero legal qualifications, but worked with in mental health support for a long time. Part of that, is attending these things with people who need the support. So I’ve been on the side of meetings, phone calls, mediation settings. Not involve, just sitting listening and ready to support when needed. I’ve seen it all.

The CMS calculator maxes out at 175 night, for this shared care, they then look further and decide often that no payment is needed. Or they will still decide that a payment is needed but then the CB counter claims starts and with equal number of children, they just split it. Never in my experience did fighting that get anywhere; it was always split.