Can seperated parents split tax credits/child benefit?

[wrongagain]

Eg. Can dad get child benefit while mum gets tax credits? Or vice versa?
Or do both payments have to be in one parents name and address?
Many thanks

I don't think you wouls be able too,because you have to claim child benefit to be able to claim tax credits.
Has soon as you stop getting CB your tax credits stop without you having to tell them.So they are both connected somewhere.iykwim

Ok thanks, was hoping we'd be able to split it and have one each, we'll have to sort something out privately then!

Agree but consider writing to your MP. This has needed reviewing for years.

I might just do that, it's ridiculous that when both parties are in agreement that they want it split that it can't be done. Understand when it's one parent trying to take it from the other just to be malicious but when both parties mutually agree to it... Can't see the problem!

I think the problem is that the parties may not be genuinely in agreement. There is a lot of potential for coercion in broken-down relationships and some people may feel obliged to agree to splitting payments against their will, simply to avoid trouble. Administratively, it also makes a lot of sense to have a designated primary carer.

Obviously I agree that sometimes for some relationship break-downs it wouldn't work, but when it's in agreement from both parties I think it should be ok to be able to allocate one to each in certain situations, the primary carer should always get all of it but what if there isn't really a primary carer? 50/50 access for example?

We split ours 50-50, it goes into an account and is then divided.

If you have more than one child parents can claim for a different child.

The system can't cope with shared-care

It's mainly as one parent is about to have another child with the new relationship and if child benefit was claimed by the other parent then the one who has the new child can get a higher amount of child benefit for the new child if the other parent claims the child benefit, especially if they aren't get the child benefit anyway if that makes sense? although I have a feeling it doesn't! I think 50/50 access was probably the wrong way of putting it, doctors is one address, school & dentist is the other it really is complete shared care, therefore no primary carer! Neither parent has set duties, it's a case of whoever has the time/child at the time deals with it.

It is kept like this to protect the children if their mother has left an abusive relationship (according to my MP). It is so that an abusive, controlling ex partner cannot easily take money away from their ex's family - otherwise you would get people like my Ex-P claiming the TC's even though he has our older DS overnight only once a fortnight and has NO overnight stays with our 9mo baby. If he could get TC's for them, he would, even if it left me short to feed them - because I would have to go begging to him for the money.

Also it is because shared care ISN'T always 50-50. With my other Ex, who I have one DS with, our shared care fluctuates around 45-55 in my favour, sometimes 60-40 in my favour - there's no way the DWP / HMRC's computer systems could cope with that.

And also, you have to bear in mind that there are some very unscrupulous people out there - who would have 50-50 care until they GOT the TC's, and would then stop seeing their dc, leaving the primary carer with then 99% of the time, with only 50% of the money!

The way the DWP / HMRC see it, is that if your break-up is amicable, you can come to an amicable arrangement over splitting the TC's and ChB, but because you don't HAVE to, there isn't anywhere near as much risk of financial abuse.

This premis does rather assume men are abusive and women aren't.

Though I DO agree that council housing lists etc should take notice of shared care. My Ex-H has this issue. We are both in Council/ HA accommodation that is too small for our needs, but our DS1 cAN only GO on ONE housing application, which has to be the main carer that claims the ChB - which means that after January, my DS1 may not be able to stay overnight at his dad's because they just will have nowhere for him - unless I am willing to let him sleep on an ARMCHAIR 5 nights out of 14. Their living room is so small that they can't fit a sofa/sofabed in there.

They are in a 2-bed house, with a 6yo boy, a 2yo boy, and in January, a newborn baby GIRL. Right now, their 2yo is in their room, and our DS is sharing with the 6yo. When their new baby is born though - they will HAVE to put the 2yo in the bed that our DS is currently in, thus leaving nowhere for our DS to sleep bar an armchair.

I am in a house that is far too small also - my DD's room is so small you cannot fit anything bigger than a junior bed in it - we should have been moved 3 years ago as she is now 13yo and 5ft2, and still in a JUNIOR BED. DS1 and DS2 share a bedroom that is 10ftx11ft - which is the biggest bedroom in my house, and DS3 shares my bed as we cannot fit a cot in my bedroom.

SO I also need a house, yet the council will ONLY accept DS1 on MY housing application, even though it will have the effect of DS1 not being able to stay overnight at his father's house half as much as he currently does - I feel that a 9yo sleeping in an armchair is not suitable on a school night, which would change the access from 5/14 in term time, to 2/14.

Ex-H and I BOTH feel that is inappropriate, yet the council will not listen to us - all they say is that they can only accept DS1 on ONE housing application.

Thing is, actually dad has the child more out of a yearly period as mum has holidays ect. So contact is more like 60/40 to dad... So does that mean he should get everything? That's not fair on the mother. Fair enough in abusive relationships that the Nrp may play it nasty(be that a women or a man) but if there is courts orders in place and everything is quite amicable why shouldn't it be split? Neither parent should have to pick up the cost time and time again!

I understand - but when my Ex-H WAS paying maintenance and returning DS1's clothes that I had bought and wanted to pass on to my DS2 - I was happily splitting the TC's and ChB.

When he got with his new partner, stopped working, and stopped paying maintenance, and his new partner started keeping DS1's clothes that I had bought out of MY share of the TC's and ChB to put on HER DS when he grew into them - I stopped splitting the TC's.

As I have told them - when they start ensuring that anything I have paid for for our DS1 comes back to MY house for my DS2 to get the use of, I will instantly start splitting the TC's and ChB again. So far it's been 12 months - and I have had to buy my DS1 15 pairs of trousers in one size because my Ex-H's new partner refuses to send them back to my house and I can't leave DS1 naked. When I stop seeing HER 6yo DS in clothes that I paid for - then they can have the money!

It's not always as cut and dried as you think it is - sometimes these things work amicably when the split first happens, but then a new partner comes on the scene and starts making things very difficult to do amicably.

Technically, YES if access is split 60-40 in the Father's favour, then yes, HE should be the one in receipt of the ChB and TC's. Surely it would be no different HIM splitting them with you than YOU splitting them with him? Or is it his new partner you are worried about...

And the worst of it is - my DS2 is 18 months older than her DS - so realistically, she could send the clothes back here, let my DS2 get the use of the clothes that I have paid for - and then I'd pass them BACK to her when they were of no further use to me, and they'd actually fit her ds then, and I wouldn't be pissed off about it all!

But how does a COMPUTER recognise when a split is amicable and when it is the result of an abusive situation? THAT is the problem.

Hunty, your ex's new partner is out of order. Any clothes that either party buy should stay at that persons house. That's how we play it, this includes school uniform the lot. I figured the computer couldn't tell if it was amicable, however signing a form to hand it over happens doesn't it? Obviously both parents would have to sign.

Neither parent should have to pick up the cost time and again - but there are many things that would complicate this kind of situation. Lack of maintenance. Keeping clothes that have been bought by the RP even when the RP is expecting to hand them down despite the splitting of TC's and ChB not leaving the NRP short of money to buy clothes. NRP keeping to 50-50 care UNTIL he has the TC's, then dropping to one overnight a fortnight yet leaving the RP with only 50% of the TC's - thus making her financially dependent on him, having to go begging for money to feed their dc (I KNOW my Ex-P would be like this!). How would a COMPUTER be able to recognise all these different scenarios without possibly leaving an abused woman below the poverty line? Even doing that to ONE woman who has escaped an abusive situation is too many, isn't it? Those who do not understand this have obviously NOT been in an abusive relationship before, and are obviously not having to try to deal with the after-effects of that.

While, yes, I agree that there should be harsher penalties for RP's that refuse their dc contact with the NRP - I don't think that is possible FINANCIALLY because of the situation with abusive ex-partners. Personally my opinion of people who refuse contact for no good reason is that they should have the dc's residency transferred to the parent who was the NRP - and THAT should be a firm enough detterent to contact-blocking.