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.....

NotADisney - If you care about it VERY much, you could always marry. That aside, it's revolting if your DSS's mother would really want you to disappear if you have been a meaningful part of his life. Horrid.

swed I think you've missed my point. Why is it that when it comes to financial support, a SM (married or unmarried) is considered equal to a biological parent, but when it comes to a DCs emotional welfare, the SM is considered less significant, both legally and by society as a whole?

Why does the state expect the OP to financially support her DSC, but fails to acknowledge in any way the emotional significance she has in their lives ?

that's what angers me about the current policies

NotADisneyMum - The state doesn't expect you to financially support your DSC. They expect the father to do so, and because he is in a cohabiting relationship, they look to his cohabitee to understand his financial circumstances. You only contribute by virtue of your relationship with the child's father. If your relationship ended tomorrow, the state would cease to consider your finances with regard to the need of your DSC.

NADM I sort of see your point, although it is not just SM's that this affects but SD's too. My DH is SD to my eldest DC's. He is the main income provider in our household.
My exH (DC's father) is also married. His wife is the main income provider in his household, in fact he gave up his job so they could move away for his wife's work as they would be much better off with her income alone than to stay put with both of their incomes. So now exH doesn't have to pay any maintenance.

How come my DH has financial responsibility for my DC's yet exH's wife doesn't?

And can I just add that DH loves my eldest 2DC as if they were his own (we have a DD together) and if something happened to me he would be totally devestated that they would probably have to go and live with their father and wouldn't get to see them everyday. Seems odd doesn't it that he is financially responsible now but if something happened to me he'd probably have to go to court to get access to them.

mampam would you be happy to do a 50:50 arrangement and for no one party to pay the other maintenance?

Unfortunately now that DC's dad has move away that wouldn't be possible.

Sorry moved away!

Mampam - you are quite right, it equally applies to stepdads and I tend to use SM and SP interchangeably - sorry!

It is a sobering thought that there are step parents all over the country who are supporting their DCs both financially and emotionally but that it the emotional value is not automatically recognised in law

ladydeedy we were discussing this at work, the view is that people in your situation, should use a different address for your PAYE notices. Maybe your parents, or siblings, assuming they earn less than 50K a year. It is madness that you have to support a child that is not biologically yours, to the tune of £20 a week. Yet even if you supported the child you have no legal standing to attend a parents evening even though you could in theory have contributed to the school fees.

Not sure it's that simple Lasvegas - I presume they'll put some bit on the tax return that will ask people earning over £50,000 to confirm if they are living with anyone in receipt of CB (though how you would know for certain if your partner was claiming it, I'm not sure, assuming you kept your finances separate) - but simply using another address would, whilst unlikely to be picked up, probably amount to fraud.

mampan's point is really valid though - why should people who marry absent parents have no financial responsibility for supporting their spouse's children, but those who marry (or even just live with) parents with residence have to take it on?

My other half is not our older children's birth father. I was miffed that he would loose income for having married someone with children already - on top of supporting us financially. I looked into it a bit and understand that you don't have to be the resident parent to claim CB. So if relations are okay with the birth mother and she is in a lower income house could she claim your resident ss CB and hand it over on top of maintenance payments?

Fortunately, or not DH, is quite a long way off being a higher rate tax payer so we're no longer in the worry zone.

But doesn't that argument ignore the fact that NRPs and their partners do indeed pay for the children when in their home. Yet obviously get no child benefit or tax credits which recognise the contribution. And that an NRP's maintenance is on taxed income, yet no tax is paid on that maintenance by the PWC. And then that that maintenance is ignored for the purpose of determining tax credits and now child benefit.

I certainly pay for my DSCs in our home - do you think I go shopping and ask DH for money for 2/5 of it?

Maintenance is based on 7ths so if the children are resident with you 2/5 of the time then that should be deducted from maintenance paid.

Scrap that I've retread and see where you're coming from

Wow, just got back to this thread where I posted originally yesterday and seen how it's all gone a bit mad! Great to have so many different views on here.
In our case, no maintenance changes hands as my DH and his ex earn (roughly) the same amount. They also have a child "each" (one with us, the other with her). So they are quits in effect. She gets tax credits though and CB due to the child living with her.
Of course I help fund the DSC who lives with us - plus his brother when he comes to us every other weekend and also our family holidays. DH's ex though refuses to have "our"/her son overnight (has never done so since he left) and rarely sees him. It's all rather sad.
For me, it's not about the money as such but the other pieces that people have commented on. DH's ex would rather poke her own eyes out than recognise that I have any role to play in bringing up her child. She refuses to have any contact with us (apart from vitriolic letters and emails). I applied for PR when DSS came to live with us but she refused to agree.

As I said, it's all rather sad. Not that I care about what she thinks (as I dont) but that the role of stepmother (or stepfather for that matter) is viewed with such dual standards. EXW thinks we should pay her maintenance for "her" child as "we" (i.e. I) earn more and she wants some of it!! Sigh..!!

The simple answer is that if you dont want to take on any responsibility for another parents children then dont marry or live with them. It isnt compulsory. Me and my partner have 4 children between us and keep seperate houses. It works for us.

If you do want to marry or move in with someone who has responsibilities for children then sit down and work out the effect on you before you do it. Better that you know what you are getting yourself into.

elastamum - v well said. I'm glad your arrangement works well. It sounds very civilised.

If you do want to marry or move in with someone who has responsibilities for children then sit down and work out the effect on you before you do it. Better that you know what you are getting yourself into.

.......and hope that the government doesn't move the goalposts, like they have with CB, which has been universal since the 1940's

Yes, your right, if I had wanted or expected the kind of recognition that a stepdad often gets when he "takes on" another mans DC's then I was bound to be disappointed in my role as live-in StepMum.

It is often once you have grown to love your DSC that you begin to wonder whether your contact with them is guaranteed and only then discover the inequalities in legislation that exist between financial & emotional responsibilities

NotADisneyMum - Perhaps the step-dad thing works better in general, because bio mums are better at defining very firm boundaries and not allowing the step too much in the way of influence. Whereas bio-dads just leave everything to their new wimminz.

I think step-mums' biggest mistake is that they take it all on themselves, very probably because they are female and care.

Perhaps we should dose all new stepmums up with Testosterone, so they do stuff in the shed.

Perhaps the step-dad thing works better in general, because bio mums are better at defining very firm boundaries and not allowing the step too much in the way of influence. Whereas bio-dads just leave everything to their new wimminz.

My DH does not leave everything to me, but he does understand that both adults in a household have equal influence over household decisions.

Tired generalizations. Yawn.

Swed - I'd be right in saying though that you're not a step mum so you actually have no first hand experience of what step mums do or why they do it?

You are a biomum though, aren't you?

And you believe that biomums restrict and limit their DHs influence on their DCs lives?

Interesting.

Chelen - I'm not a step-mother, no.

NotADisneyMum - I am a mother to 4 children. We've lived v happily in a step household for nigh on 10 years. I don't restrict and limit my DH's relationship with his DSSs but right from the beginning I was v v clear about certain things. For example, I told him he must never discipline my sons. It works v well apart from occasionally it's been frustrating (for me only) because it's exhausting parenting alone. But those feelings of frustration are preferable to a potential loss of trust and/or hostility between DH and my two elder sons. Their relationship is pure and uncomplicated and not confined to fufilling predefined roles. DH has spent more time living with them than their own dad, but he is not their dad, he will never be their dad. He plays tennis with them, he mends their bikes, he teaches them about the solar system, he helps them with their homework, he cooks for them, he pays their school fees but he does not go to parents' evening at school or do anything else that might be in any way hurtful to the boys' bio father, my ex husband. My ex husband doesn't come to parents' evening either by the way because he is v busy. I'm certain my sons view their stepdad as a v positive and enriching influence on their lives. We've been v careful to leave space for my ex to fulfil his role as dad, even when he doesn't fill that space.

The only step problem we have is that DD (6) gets upset sometimes when her big brothers go overnight to their dad's. She sometimes asks them: Can I come with you to your dad's?

I think NADM raises a valid point (disclaimer, I am not a step parent but I am a lone parent. I lurk here sometimes for a bit of perspective and an alternative viewpoint :))

With tax credits for example, say you have a mother with resident children living with her new partner. Both work full time and get tax credits for childcare. If the partner was made redundant, they would lose their childcare tax credits because you can only get them if both adults are in work, it's considered that if one doesn't work, they can care for the children while the other adult works. So in that scenario, the new partner is expected by the benefit system to care full time for the children, but is not their parents and has no parental responsibility or automatic right to see them should the relationship end or the mother die. If the mother did die, residency would (I presume) pass to the bio father, despite the step father having such a big part in the children's lives, possibly a larger part than the father himself. How is that "the system" considers that step parents can and should be able to look after their step children full time if needs be, yet not recognise that relationship in law?

Anyone else in a step family family in our situation?

DH earns around the threshold levels so we will be impacted by the loss of CB, not sure to what degree as it depends on bonus etc however as a large chunk of that flows out of the house immediately for child maintenance (which I have no issue with) our actual household income is reduced by 15%..So I will lose CB but our income post CM is well under the threshold.

Not sure what DH & I will do but we will have to rebalance our work, perhaps I work full time and he goes part time so that we actually get a higher net income into the house. Like everyone else we are struggling massively to keep afloat and this change just tips us over. DH can't afford to contribute to our dc so CB was used directly for the dc's.

Financially speaking I don't think most step families are advantaged from living together but I don't think both people realise the true impact until much further down the line and circumstances do change.

Swed, I'm on both sides, a bio mum and step mum. My dd has a sm also. I actually think the issue for us women is that bio mums are more possessive over their dc's then bio dads.

When do you hear of bio dad's ranting about stepdads over stepping the line. Can you imagine the post - he taught my son about the solar system, how dare he, that's my job!!! but you get many many mums saying...wicked evil step mum painted my girls toenails what an abusive cow, that's my role!!

Us mums can take positive steps to ensure a harmonious step family or we can make the situation a nightmare for everyone. Some mums choose a position at the outset and never change it. I have sadly learnt that from experience.

My ex doesn't get jealous of the role my dh has with his dd, he is secure and grateful of the positive support. However I am very, very aware that as a stepmum I walk a delicate line, which I have done for many years and do successfully but it's very stressful.