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?

I know that! But personally, I wouldn't spend it on anyone / anything other than the child.

No, he isn’t. Her child is not his financial responsibility regardless of whether they live together or not. He can choose to, but he is equally free to refuse.

So you put it in a separate account?

personally I spend so much on my kids in excess of child benefit (imagine that everyone does) so why’s it matter if that particular cash instead goes on the food shop/mortgage/holiday. It all just blends together jn the bank account

The son is.
The OP is not a high earner and would have got universal credit. When they moved in together his income is included in the calculation because the state says he should be supporting the child.
This is why some single mums are better off living alone, rather than living with a partner who only cares about maximising their monies.

Men who do what though ? DP is effectively contributing more than this child’s own father. Both partners should be putting their whole incomes into the joint account including child maintenance and child benefit. Then all of the child’s expenses come out of that joint account. When the bills are paid, whatever is left is split proportionately. Anything else doesn’t work.

And again, no, he isn’t. Not at all. That the state decreases the benefits a single parent receives if they move in with a partner, but that isn’t the same thing as the partner being held legally responsible for the child. The child remains the sole legal responsibility of the parent.

The partner can point blank refuse to take on any financial responsibility for the child, and they are totally within their rights to do so.

The state does not specifically say he should be supporting the child though. What the state is actually saying is that OP doesn’t need benefit because there is another income in the household to cover other expenses, so that she can provide for her child. It works on the same principle as the CSA and now CMS. If the live in partner is not the childs’ biological father they can not be expected to support the child financially, but there is an expectation that they will contribute to feeding and housing the child, so realistically the effect is the same.

His income is included because they are living together, not because he is expected to support the child. They live together in the romantic sense so if they were to make a claim for UC it would need to be a joint claim as a couple The calculation would include a contribution to rent, an extra amount for the child and a work allowance.

The partners income is included in the calculation because the state expects them to share money.
If you live with a housemate the state only includes what the housemate pays towards rent and council tax. It does not care about the housemates overall income and does not need to know this.

The difference is that OP is living with her partner in a romantic relationship so the assumption is that they would pool resources.

But the OPs partner wants to treat the money as if they are house mates rather than in a romantic relationship

Benefits are reduced because the costs associated with a single person household are assumed to be higher than that of a joint household. The state does not consider the child to be a joint expense.

The child is solely the responsibility of the parents. The state does not hold anyone but the parents financially responsible. OP’s partner is absolutely free to refuse to contribute towards her child, and the state will merely shrug if she brings a complaint about that to them.

Being in a romantic relationship with someone doesn’t necessitate sharing their individual responsibilities. It
is indeed very common for blended and even nuclear families to operate separate finances to a greater or lesser degree.

You are wrong. Incredibly wrong.

Why do you think partners are tested differently to housemates?

It's not just rent, if the partners income is high the mum will get no benefits even if she is not working. Because the partners income is supposed to help support op and the child.

I mean people keep saying it's not how the benefits system works based on how they think it should be, rather than reality.

No. Child Benefit is intended to be used on things for real children. Not a bratty man child.

Lol, no, i’m not. I worked in this area, and had to disabuse more than one client of this particular notion.

The partner does not have to financially contribute towards the child. That the single parent loses out on benefits does not mean the partner is obliged to compensate for this loss. They aren’t. The state assumes =/ the state recognizes and legally enforces this responsibility.

If that doesn’t suit the parent then they can decline to move in with their partner, move out again, or suck it up. That’s it. They have no legal recourse to hold the partner financially liable for the child.

Presumably the majority of the things bought from the joint account benefit all 3 of them in the household including the son. Children need housing, water, heating/electricity, food, internet etc

You are right the state assumes the partner contributes financially towards the child but does not enforce it.
It's why mums should never move in with a partner whose concern is keeping as much money as they can for themselves under the guise of fairness.

Like housing, food, someone to collect them from school whether childcare or a parent on reduced working hours. That sort of stuff.

This!

Does dp have additional costs that you don't? You mention paying into a joint account for household costs and your own personal costs for your child. Does dp also have additional costs- car loan, car for example?
There's been assumptions made that your dp just wants to line his own pockets with the child benefit. Could it be that he's actually skint because of his higher contribution to the joint account and then his own costs.

Of course the state won’t enforce something that runs counter to established legal precedent.

The state assuming something will happen is not the same as the state legislating that it must happen.

OP’s partner has been more than fair to her and her son, because he’s chosen to provide financially when he didn’t and doesn’t have to. It’s hardly ‘fair’ to
him that OP hasn’t recognized this generosity, and is instead treating it as something she is entitled to.

They each have cars that they pay out of their personal money. OP has explained all of this.

@InterIgnis no the partner has not provided. He is paying towards rent, bills and food. He would have to do that if single.