to get cross at this

[needmorecoffee]

my eldest lives with the wealthy in-laws. She's 16. They want us to claim EMA for her based on our income cos our income is under 20K so we qualify but there's is way over 30K so they don't.
Surely that money is for poor families?
And they are demanding various P60's that we have lost to fill in the damn forms.
We already give them the Child benefit.

Needmore - On a formal note, if you have Parental Responsibility then its you who should apply for the EMA, not them and it would be paid directly in your DD's account, not theirs. Hope this helps.

Unfortunately we cant choose our family, sounds like MIL is still living in the middle ages!

On the plus side, i suppose she is doing a good job of taking care of DD.

claw3 - not sure thats correct. What if two people hold PR (ie divorced parents)?

Its to do with residence afaik.

NMC Why am I not surprised?!!!! I did think that after I had posted it.
My friend has 2 dcs at college and at present one is recieving ema twice and the other isn't getting any !!!She's been trying to sort it out for weeks

I'll call the EMA again for the 4th time. sigh.
Would be a whole nother thread on what I think of the nonesense she is filling dd's head with including her appalling views on disabled people. (she wont acknowledge dd2 and says in dd2's hearing that disabled people are better off dead)
ho de hum
fetching chocolate and coffee for lengthy wait session on EMA phone

she sounds vile, why on earth is dd staying there?

its too complicated to explain Compo but it wasn't my choice.

AA - If parents are divorced they both would automatically have PR, only then would it be based on who the child lives with.

families eh?
{{{{{{{{{hugs}}}}}}}}

Its based on household income - the household being the one in which she lives, ie the GPs.

Nothing to do with PR as far as I can work out. It certainly doesn't mention it on the website.

Yes it is based on the household income of the adults that have parental responsibility for you.

AA - the person who has PR is responsible for maintaining that child financially regardless of where they live.

What, even if they are in care for example?

Sorry but I can't believe that. If a child is residing with GPs, who have income of over £30k, who are claimimg the child benefit, then how on earth can it be the responsibility of the parents to claim means-tested benefits for her?

She is living in a household that is not eligible for EMA. Her parents' income can't be relevant - she doesn't live there!

Here - the official guidance states it is dependent on the household income of "parent, guardian, or carer".

GPs in this case being the guardians/carers I assume, if they are getting the Child Benefit.

so it is fraud then. sigh. haven't got theourhg to EMA yet. I think half the country is ringing them. Their first guy told me she could claim on our income even tthough she was living with GP's. the second said she couldn't. the third didn't know. 4th time lucky i reckon.
ffs

AA - Parental responsibility is shared between the child's parents and the local authority when a child is in care. So foster carer could claim EMA on the authorities behalf.

To claim child benefit, the GP's would have to have PR. I think what NMC said was that she gave this to GP, dont think there was a mention of them claiming it (sorry NMC if im putting words into your mouth)

To be a legal Guardian/carer PR would have been signed over to you or in the case of foster as above.

Basically if DD is living with GP, legally they do not have to provide her with anything if they do not have PR. It is the responsiblity of the adult with PR, to make sure she has a roof over her head (whether that be their roof or someone elses) food, clothes etc, etc.

For example if DD got taken to Court and had to pay a fine, it would the person with PR who the court would hold responsible for paying it, not the person they live with.

Needmore - It isnt fraud. Its your duty to provide for DD and if you cant afford to give her £30 to help with her studies etc, why shouldnt you claim what youre entitled to.

"There was [some] confusion with the CB and we gave it to in-laws, now they get it direct."

If the GPs receive the child benefit directly that means that the child is recognised as living with them, surely? Its paid for a child you have responsibility for, and I don't see how the GPs can get the child benefit claiming she lives there, yet ask OP to make the claim for EMA.

AA - As far as i am aware you have to have legal responsibility to claim child benefit for a child.

I cant really speculate as to what that statement could imply or what NMC circumstances are in that respect.

you can claim CB for a child living with you even if you don't have legal parental responsbility once the child has been there 8 weeks.

I think you should be grateful they are looking after your daughter and do everything that you can to support them, including doing what you can financially. Why should they spend ANY of their income on her?

thankyou chocho for leaping in without knowing anything.