Partner says my Child Benefit should go towards his bills as well

[PrimeCrush]

Been arguing about this since yesterday and wondering if im being unreasonable.

Me and my partner have been together 3 years and living together about 18 months. I have a ds who is 7 from a previous relationship, he lives with us full time and sees his dad alternate Saturdays. My partner has no children of his own.

We have a joint account for rent, bills, food etc but dont put all our wages in there. He earns more than me so he puts in £1000 a month and I put in £650. We agreed this when we moved in and its been fine up until now. We both keep the rest of our money in our own accounts.

I get child benefit for ds and it goes into my account. I use it for his school stuff, clothes, shoes, trips and all the little things that seem to come up constantly when you have a child. His dad pays £180 maintenance a month which helps but it doesnt cover everything and he buys him presents separately as well. Ive never really thought about putting the child benefit into our joint account because its for ds.

Anyway our joint account was a bit lower than usual this month because a few bills came out close together and my partner said I should start paying my child benefit into it. His argument is that ds lives here and uses the heating, eats the food etc so its not fair that I keep that money to myself when we’re supposed to be a family.

I said I already pay £650 a month towards the bills and food and he earns more than me so thats why we agreed on different amounts in the first place. He said thats not the point and if we had a child together the benefit would go into the joint account so he doesnt see why it should be different just because ds isnt biologically his.

I do get what he means to a point. Obviously ds uses things in the house and my partner does buy food he eats and things like that. Im not saying he should have to pay for everything for my child. But I also dont think the answer is that money I get to help bring up ds should automatically be used to cover bills when we already have an arrangement.

He reckons Im keeping it separate because I dont see us as a proper family. Thats not how I see it at all, but now Im wondering if Im being unfair.

Should child benefit go into a joint account when you’re living with someone who isnt the child’s parent?

@TheBlueKoala she is better off with the partner purely because she dies not have to pay the rent and bills herself. A two bedroom place is usually not that much cheaper.
The partner on the other hand is much better off in this set up than he would be living alone.

If you understand that then why say “Housing and bills are obviously things children need”? These are costs being paid regardless of a child.

Yes, not in the same amounts. Children do tend to require a bedroom, food and water of their own.

I do. And clearly the symbiosis of this relationship is dependent upon whether the OP can see she is being financially unfair and needs to rebalance the relationship a little. I don’t understand English, clearly, as I am not understanding of the inequality here. And we as women want equality, surely?

Again, negligible extra cost for one primary age child. Rent and bills are being paid anyway.

@Theresawaytobehonestandkind lolol op said she does more housework and cooking during the week and you translate that into fifty fifty??
You have a very clear agenda in this thread.

This!!

You said “I probably do more” = 50/50. That’s a lack of understanding right there.

just spotted your title

“His bills”

if you were treating this as a family it would be “our bills “

No it’s an understanding when someone says “probably” it usually means the opposite. I “probably” didn’t eat a dessert, a packet of biscuits, a cake…I have no idea why I put on a stone in a week. If it was a definite I do 90% and he nothing, then I would understand that English.

You don't understand how the benefits system works in the UK. When a parent with a child moves in with a partner, the benefits system assumes all money is shared and the live in partner is contributing towards the child.

If OPs did not work and her partner was a high earner, the state assumes the partner is meeting all costs.

The state does not care that the child is not biologically the partners child. Living together means you take on financial responsibility. And it extends to loans for university when that child is 18.

Sk talking about fifty fifty is irrelevant and financially illiterate. It is not how our system is set up.

@Imseriouslyyouguys your very obvious agenda here is tiresome. Twisting OPs words to suit your age da. It's not cool,

She never said she does all the housework, just that she does more. The examples she gave relate to her son- I would expect her to do more there.

Are you saying @PrimeCrush that out of the 650 you pay none of that goes on food for your child -packed lunches, dinner etc ?

She's said that she uses the joint account for her DS's food and also said that her partner pays for DS's food. So pretty clear that she's not using the child benefit money for this.

This isn’t a partnership. You’re being an idiot to allow him to have far more spending money than you, especially as you’re doing the lions share of housework, cooking, cleaning, planning etc. You’re not his skivvy!

Tell him you’ve thought about it a bit more and you’re happy to put your CB into the joint account but from now on he needs to put more money in too and you both get to have equal amounts spending money! If he moans, point out that you’re doing all the house work which more than makes up for his extra income.

You’re obviously quite young and not thinking ahead to the future. Don’t have any more kids until you ensure you’re getting 50/50 spending money. The money your ex is paying is solely for his son. That doesn’t go in the joint pot.

Honestly, why do so many women settle for being treated like 1950’s housewives?

I am sure you would also expect her to do more cooking and laundry as well which she does?

Partner has a pretty good deal. Most housework, cooking and laundry done for him. Only helping with child pickups in emergencies and a high personal spending budget on a modest income.
This relationship clearly benefits him more.

She doesn't have less income to pay for two people - she's being subsidised massively. If you want fairness then she should be paying two thirds of all living costs. She's barely paying 40%.

I think this relationship is on its way out anyway.
This fight isn’t about the child benefit payment, it’s a deeper issue of him feeling (whether you believe it to be true or not) financially taken for granted. Resentment has already started and financial incompatibility is a major factor for break ups. OP can either watch it disintegrate or start contributing more.

He seems to be getting a lot of comments from posters for having lots of personal money to spend - that’s what happens when you don’t have a child! And don’t say that he has one… because it is evident in the way OP speaks that she considers her child to be hers, not theirs. OP probably does more housework? I’d also argue that there’s significantly more tidying/cleaning/washing to do with a child in the house than a man working full time. OP does all the school runs? As she should, it’s her child and any babysitting is a gift not an expectation.

Yes I didn't expect her to say she keeps track of what each meal costs for her child. That would be ridiculous. In effect then her partner is paying for keeping her child. Chase the Dad!

You are wrong. If the partner was not there the state would give her benefits. The state expects the partner to subsidise the child.

He does not hav3 a child. He is not the father and has not been round enough, or from the sound of it, involved enough to be considered a non biological father.
But the state does consider him financially responsible for the child while they live together. So he can't just act as if the child does not exist.

And if you really love someone you want the best for them. You don't operate on the grounds that I want to keep as much money for my personal spends as possible, while my partner and their child has way less. That isn't real love.

Do you include all your income (child allowance, maintenance?) To arrive at £1000/£650?

I’d say if you wanted to be a proper family then all the money goes into one account and all the bills get paid from that account, including DS things, and then you get an equal amount of fun money.

On the face of it I can see where he’s coming from. You get £380 a month you’re effectively ‘not declaring’ so your income is higher that your relative % contribution, all the while your DP is contributing more to DS housing/energy/food bills.

OP has already said she doesn’t spend the full amount each month on things for her son, it’s there to be used when it’s needed