would i still be classified as a 'single mum' to centrelink?

[Butterfly Child]

"If" down the track i rented a place with a partner, where we would be going half in rent and everything etc, would i still be classified as a single parent to centrelink?

if they weren't supporting me etc.. could someone please help me out?

[Lulu]

ach - you know the answer. If you are in a relationship with them you are partnered.

[Butterfly Child]

oh ok well i know someone who's doing this and still getting single parenting payments this was why i was confused.. as hes apparently not supporting her or anything financially thought it was abit strange.. sorry for the silly question..

[Lulu]

Nope. It's totally irrelevant what you decide to do with how you pay your bills or your home setup. It's the relationship status that is relevant and I'm pretty sure your friend will know that too.
It's too hard to get payments without fudging the truth or outright lying because of the type of questions asked on the forms and the constant review process.

[briggsy's girl]

i agree with Lulu - if you're living in a marriage like relationship, you're partnered and will be deemed partnered. if someone is living like that and still claiming single parenting payment, they are lying/committing fraud. what happens with your money within that relationship is entirely up to you - many married couples have his money and her money but they are definitely partnered.

[Glamourcide]

^ Definitely agree - there was a point in our relationship when DH and I were on similar money and split bills 50/50 so nobody got the short end of the stick... and yep, Centrelink DEFINITELY considered us partnered I think your friend is telling C'Link a few 'fibs' that might get her in a bit of trouble down the track if she gets busted...

[widdly]

You would have to lie on the forms to still get PPS whilst living with your partner, no matter if they help support you adn the child or not. That is the reason my sister pretty much always stays at her bf's place but still keeps renting her own place, otherwise if they moved in together her bf would have to support a child that is not his own and my sister who doesnt work cause she is looking after her child.

[HotI]

You would have to lie on the forms to still get PPS whilst living with your partner, no matter if they help support you adn the child or not. That is the reason my sister pretty much always stays at her bf's place but still keeps renting her own place, otherwise if they moved in together her bf would have to support a child that is not his own and my sister who doesnt work cause she is looking after her child.

That would be part of being in a relationship with someone.

[deletedit]

I was renting a house once as a single parent and I had a male housemate with whom I split the rent and bills but he was NOT my partner. I had to fill out some absolutely phenomenal number of forms and sign declarations and whatnot to 'prove' he wasn't my partner. He had to fill in a lot of the same forms. Very invasive. This was pre gay relationships being recognised, it would have been simpler to get a female housemate.

I did have a boyfriend at the time but it never got past the *ahem* 'casual' stage, and didn't even make Centrelink's minimum number of nights a week to count for anything (yes, they have a minimum number of nights you can sleep over at some else's house). I think he would have run away screaming at the slightest whiff of 'support' of any kind.

[briggsy's girl]

sorry, but there is no "number of nights" at which it goes from a casual BF/GF thing to being "partnered" - if it did, there are a hell of a lot of "couples" that could claim single status based on their partner working away. there is a LOT more taken into account - including, but not limited to, financial interdependence, sexual status, combined household responsibility, how you are perceived in society (are you perceived as living in a marriage like relationship). it's not a simple decision for the assessing officer to make at all. there seems to be a belief out there that if you spend less than 50% of nights sleeping over, you're not considered partnered - that's not the case. there are situations where people "sleep" at another residence but are together all day every day - and would therefore be considered partnered.

[deletedit]

This was like 6 or 7 years ago now so I'm fuzzy on details ... I vaguely recall they were saying more than 2 nights a week counted as a 'relationship' even if you weren't sharing anything financial or anything at all, which struck me as weird at the time. We were sort of together most days - worked at the same place, albeit different departments. But then so did my housemate (I lived very close to work ). No way in hell it came even remotely close to being a 'marriage like relationship' but that silly 2 nights a week thing stuck in my mind for some reason ...

If the pay for singles wasn't close to twice the pay for couples (I get $320 partnered, I'd get $600 single) I think a lot less people would be fudging their relationship status, but I can't see the powers that be changing the legislation any time soon even though it would save a fortune on fraud investigation. I remember it being a huge shock to the system how much less I got paid when I moved in with my current partner.

[~clover~]

If the pay for singles wasn't close to twice the pay for couples (I get $320 partnered, I'd get $600 single) I think a lot less people would be fudging their relationship status, but I can't see the powers that be changing the legislation any time soon even though it would save a fortune on fraud investigation. I remember it being a huge shock to the system how much less I got paid when I moved in with my current partner.

It all depends on your partners income too. If your partner was on the dole you'd get more than if your partner was earning $1000 a week.

[~*familyof3*~]

oh ok well i know someone who's doing this and still getting single parenting payments this was why i was confused.. as hes apparently not supporting her or anything financially thought it was abit strange.. sorry for the silly question..

I would say 99% likely she has lied to c'link. It doesnt matter if they dont support you if they live with you then you are partnered.

I did have a boyfriend at the time but it never got past the *ahem* 'casual' stage, and didn't even make Centrelink's minimum number of nights a week to count for anything (yes, they have a minimum number of nights you can sleep over at some else's house). I think he would have run away screaming at the slightest whiff of 'support' of any kind.

This is also what i was told by c'link

sorry, but there is no "number of nights" at which it goes from a casual BF/GF thing to being "partnered" - if it did, there are a hell of a lot of "couples" that could claim single status based on their partner working away. there is a LOT more taken into account - including, but not limited to, financial interdependence, sexual status, combined household responsibility, how you are perceived in society (are you perceived as living in a marriage like relationship). it's not a simple decision for the assessing officer to make at all. there seems to be a belief out there that if you spend less than 50% of nights sleeping over, you're not considered partnered - that's not the case. there are situations where people "sleep" at another residence but are together all day every day - and would therefore be considered partnered.

Hmm im confused now as i too was told by a c'link officer that there are min night stays. That if it is under so many nights then its not considered partnered.(Not that it matters to me as i am partnered for real and with c'link) Im just curious to know. And this was only in dec last year that i was told this. It seems to me that you get told a diff thing every time you talk to someone there. Can make it hard for people to understand.

But that aside Butterfly child yes if you live with them no matter of them supporting you or not you are partnered and if someone who is and is getting single payments they have clearly lie to c'link somewhere down the line

[~clover~]

fo3 - if that was the case then I would've been able to claim single almost all last year, coz my DH worked 10 hours away & we only saw each other weekends, or for a week at a time every 3 - 6 weeks. That wouldn't really be fair on all the actual single mum's out there.
They probably just said that to you as a guide maybe. Not sure. When we were first classed as partnered it was coz we were 'sleeping' with eachother. I was only 17 & thats how the c'link worker decided we were 'partnered'. We were 17 & 18, she asked if we were defacto, I said I don't know, so she asked if we were sleeping together. I think she kinda tricked me, coz I was so young, but thats how we first ended up partnered.

[briggsy's girl]

as clover mentioned, for a long time i would have been considered single because my DH lived away. the number of sleepovers doesn't really come into it - sooooo much more to it than that! something as simple as combining your PHI to a family, being co-signatory on a bank account - well, there's lots of things - and lots of it can be traced without you telling C'link (social security law allows for contact direct with banking institutions if there is suspicion you're partnered and not declaring)

[~*familyof3*~]

thanks clover and briggsy's. I know what you mean as my ex too worked away. Its just so confusing for people with all the diff things you get told but im sure most people know if they are or not.Some just choose to say there not

[Double Re-Cracker]

you can live separated under the same roof, but that means in separate bedrooms you know what I mean, no advantages of being in a relationship!