should I feel a bit peed off about new Child Benefit rules in the budget...

[ladydeedy]

I am the main earner and DH and I are very happy with our arrangement and have been for the past 12 years. 2 years ago DSS2 came to live with us, slightly unexpectedly. Obviously I fund a lot of of the cost of his upkeep (and before that, basically subsidised DH's payments to his ex following his drop in income a few years ago).

Since DSS2 came to live with us we have eased the change in our home set up a bit by DH being able to claim CB. Bit peed off (probably need to rethink it all!) that because I (not his mum or dad) earn more than the new limit that will come into effect, DH will no longer be able to claim CB from next year ....
am probably being a bit unreasonable but still.....

YABU

I have mixed feelings about this one. Whilst I agree that low earners shouldn't be funding high earners to claim child benefit, this form of means testing creates a lot of unfairness. It also assumes that finances are shared in all families, which is not the case. In your situation, your tax will probably increase because they will carry on paying your partner the child benefit and clawback the payment from you.

It creates another barrier to creating seconds families as yet again it means that often single parents will be better off living apart from their partners claiming child benefit and possibly tax credits, housing benefit, free dental care etc etc or expecting their new partner to cover the loss in income.

yeah I feel a bit disappointed. I am not sure why (have not really analysed feelings as yet) but think, hang on, I have married this guy, have supported him and his kids without question and now you've decided to take something away... I dont have kids of my own (never wanted to) and now it's like this new law is saying if you marry someone with kids, and you earn a bit, you MUST contribute (I do, but I know others who dont and who keep their financies completely separate when it comes to the OH's kids).

I think it is unfair on step-parents - they have no rights at all over their step-children, yet are expected to help support them financially. Money isn't necessarily shared in a household - especially if you get together when one or both of you has DCs already, and you're not necessarily married. As a parent, it's nice to have some money in your own name in recognition of the job you are doing bringing up your kids - especially if your partner is not your DC's other parent.

My and my ex earn under £50,000 between us. But when I move in with DP, he will have to pay back the child benefit that I receive (unless I stop claiming). He earns good money so whilst I'm sure he can afford it, I would much rather see him taxed as much as the government wants in his own right, rather than feeling I am causing the additional tax.

Have wondered though whether I could stop claiming child benefit and allow my ex to claim it instead. I think either parent can claim it, regardless of who the DCs live with, if they agree between them. Does anyone know if this is correct? (I'm obviously hoping that I'd then be able to persuade my ex to hand over at least some of it to me in the form of increased child support). Not sure whether that would work for you, OP? Would only be any use if your DH's ex was amicable about things I would imagine.

Purple, I think you can only claim the child benefit if you are the main carer. It would also mean you're ex could claim other benefits for your kids and you would have to pay maintenance.

purpleroses, I don't know how old your DC are, but in schools admissions, primary and secondary, CB is often used as the main proof of a child's address, so your choice of school catchment could be affected.

I agree with you about unfairness to step-parents and think ladydeedy is in a difficult position. It's one thing to marry one one set of understandings but then to find out that you will be poorer due to a change in the obligation you have no choice but to accept is unfair.

Surely this has always been the case with tax credits though? Tax credits are mainly paid as a result of resident children just as CB is. If the main carer has his/her new partner move in, the new partner's income is used in the tax credit assessment, so presumably as a step parent they are expected to cover any drop in tax credits.

Yes, it's always been the same with tax credits, but I suppose the child benefit is just another thing that a non biological parent will have to cover if he/she wants to be with someone with kids. I'm not saying the tax payer should have to cover it, but you can see real disincentives for single high earners to want to set up home with people with kids.

I've always thought that the meantesting of child related benefits based on 'household' income is at odds with the lack of recognition of Step parents in other aspects of law

As an unmarried stepmum, I have no automatic right to contact with my DSC should anything happen to my DP - I have to apply to the court for permission to seek a contact order - it is not automatically considered in the DCs best interests to maintain contact with me. But at the same time, my income is considered good enough to support them all the while they are a part of our family.

It is very contradictory and totally understandable that step parents get frustrated when they are told to 'butt out' of their DSC lives by well meaning friends and relatives because the DC's 'already have two parents'. If that's the case - why is the step parents financial circumstances relevant?

I dont think this is new. Many stepparents take on the raising and maintenance of their new partners kids cos the non resident parent refuses to pay.
It might feel unfair but there was a lot of unfairness in yesterdays budget.

Oh, and of course it doesn't apply to other family members - DSC's grandmother shares their home with their mum but her income isn't relevant to the child-based benefits like tax credits and CB that their mum gets

It is fair that a household that contains a worker earning more than £60K receives no Child Benefit. And especially if there is a second adult working in that household.

The increase in the personal allowance is worth about £20pm EACH, won't that go some way to making up for the lost CB?

Swed - but it's not one member of the household - it is restricted to adults in the household who are married, or live together as if they are married.

A step parent is treated less favourably in this situation than a co-habiting blood relative, such as an aunt or adult half-sibling

So step-family couples are still cohabiting couples aren't they? Mothers living with their sons aren't a cohabiting couple.

YABU. The country is in a financial mess and it is fair that those who earn a high salary give up state handouts (myself included). CB should be for those families who really need the money. The administration of the idea isnt great ( I am a single parent and will lose more than 2 parents earning smaller salaries, but with a bigger joint income). But the principle is fair.

swed EXACTLY! Why should a stepmum like the OP be penalised for her choice of partner, when other adults who choose to co-habit with a friend or relative who has children are not equally considered financially responsible for the DCs?

Step parents have less legal responsibility relating to DCs who they live with than a blood relative, but it's only step-parents who are expected to financially contribute

But step-parents aren't being treated less favourably. The OP shares finances with her OH. So surely it's fair that her income is taken into account when working out who will and will not get CB?

It works exactly the same for couples with step-children as it does for all other cohabiting couples.

The vast majority of step-parents have chosen to enter a relationship that comes with the responsibility for a child.

Not all couples share finances - even when there are no DSC involved. My DP and his ex didn't - she overclaimed tax benefits as a result (she didn't check his income when she completed the form) which came to light when they separated.

It might work for you - but other people might just do things differently

and as you have reminded me daily - I am not the DSC biomum - so why am I considered in the same way as a biomum would be when it comes to cohabitation and money?

NotADisneyMum - But the OP has already said she does share finances. It is a bit weird to live as a couple and not share finances. Especially if one of you earns over £60K and the other is going to struggle without CB.

Weird because it's not what you do, presumably ?

Your assertion that SM should be considered in the same way as biomums when it comes to co-habiting and finances is somewhat at odds with your opinion about a SM's emotional role in her DSC's life, isn't it?

"Your assertion that SM should be considered in the same way as biomums when it comes to co-habiting and finances is somewhat at odds with your opinion about a SM's emotional role in her DSC's life, isn't it?"

Whoa. I'm a little worried for you if you don't understand that the practical facts of your living arrangements are entirely separate from your step-children's emotions.

The only reason you are in any way contributing to the financial health of your step-children, is by virtue of your relationship with their father. Shoud he (or you) decide to end the relationship, your financial responsibility would cease. I would hope your emotional relationship would continue, but you would no longer be assessed for CB, or university fees or whatever.

swed - you've made my point for me again - there is no legislation to protect that emotional responsibility; if my relationship with DP ends, then the court decides if it is in the DCs best interest for me to apply for contact before contact can even be considered.
Legally, I an expected to financially support my DSC while they live with me, but avoid a close emotional relationship with them because it cannot be protected

NotADisney - I don't know how old your stepchildren are. But the courts will seek the opinion and wishes of the child, where he's old enough. In any case, court is only necessary as a last resort. Lots of people continue contact with their young step-children without any involvement of court. Do you think your step-children's parents would want to stop you seeing your children?

Yes, if anything happens to DP, then DSS mum would expect me to disappear and for DSS to be unaffected.

The issue is that as an unmarried SM I don't have the automatic right to apply to the court for contact to continue. The DCs won't be asked their opinion unless a court grants me that right. By which time, contact will have been withheld for some months

But, I am expected to financially support my DCs.