ExHs wife's income and child maintenance

[shoppingtrolley]

Does her income get taken into account when calculating child maintenance?

[FrustratedSycamoresRocks]

I don't believe so.

[ratbagcatbag]

Nope - I answered on your other post :)
Hers doesn't get considered at all.

[Piecesofmyheart]

No.

[SoWhatIfImWorkingClass]

No. And rightly so.

[5madthings]

Err no why should it?!!

[sanityseeker75]

I don't think it is just children together any children that live in the house?

[Xalla]

No and nor should it.

[Theydeserve]

No her income is irrelevant and so it should be. Likewise, my income should be irrelevant to his new OW and he should pay properly for his own offspring. It is irrelevant what I can or cannot afford - they are his kids.

I do find the whole - her DCS, mean that your Ex gets to reduce his payment fairly galling. Means my 2 DCS lose out - they are still his, the costs do not go down, he just gets to spend more money on her DCs than his own. The irony does not escape me.

I mean we are averaging £166 pcm for 2 DCs, one with major health issues. Eldest at 6yrs old is already figuring out that Daddy bought xxx clothes at the weekend and they went to xxxx and he pays for xxxx. He asked me if he paid for everything in our house aswell ,I explained as gently as I could that he did not need to worry WE had enough money to go round. when he gets older - he will know, his father spent more on her children than his own. Does not bode well.

It just makes me sad.

[AmIthatWintry]

Sorry, this is a bit of a bugbear of mine.

My ExP pays towards our DD. When his new partner (now his DW) and her daughter moved in, our DD got 7% less. No account taken of his new partner's income, or the fact her DD got maintenance from her own father.

My DD gets less, even though her father's family income is more

No-one can argue that is fair.

If my ex's conribution is reduced based on who is living with him, then it is only fair to include their income.

They are rolling in it.

he is smug because he pays less to me

Yeah

[Peterpan101]

His payment doesn't go down when and if you move a new partner in, no matter how well off you'll become.

Swings and roundabouts.

[fridaymorning]

The rules are rather inconsistent though when you compare them with means tested benefits. A new partner of the RP becomes financially responsible for the dc of the RP, if CTC/HB etc are claimed. When DP moved in, his wage was expected to contribute towards my existing children as it took the household over the tax credit limits, despite the fact they are not his children.

Rather unfair that the NRP's new partner is considered to have no financial responsibility to the NRP's dc, whereas the RP's new partner suddenly becomes fully responsible for the RP's dc! And, in our case, even CB will be clawed back.

[SoWhatIfImWorkingClass]

But the NRP's partner IS financially responsible as they are contributin towards NRP's household costs: rent/mortgage, gas/electricity, food expenses, etc... which the NRP's children all benefit from. She doesn't just move in and not put towards living costs.

Additionally, she will be putting her earnings together with NRP's after his tax, NI and maintenance reductions, and the is their family pot of money- so clothes, additional expenses for NRP's children, clubs, anything else they will need. That money after all essentials are paid for is also their disposable income to do what they want with. Her earnings are not to be used as a top up of maintenance her partner has to pay. Why should she subsidise TWO households?

And the benefits thing. That's just how it works. If you choose to have a new partner it can have pros and cons. The partner of the nrp could have her own children and then her benefits get cut due to meeting a man with children. Similarly, an rp's benefits get cut when she meets a man who works.

I have never agreed with maintenance being reduced for stepchildren. I.e. the amount a nrp has to pay shouldn't go down when he meets a partner with children. And just as strongly, I believe maintenance shouldn't be increased if the nrp has a new partner as her earnings are completely irrelevant for maintenance purposes- just as RP's partner's earnings are completely irrelevant.

[DoubleYew]

SoWhatIfImWorkingClass, Family pot of money only matters if the NRP has overnights or pays for clothes, clubs etc on top of maintenance. Plenty don't unfortunately.

[SoWhatIfImWorkingClass]

That's exactly what I mean. A lot of NRPs do pay for their children and their partners aren't top ups.

[SoWhatIfImWorkingClass]

When I say top ups, I mean their earnings shouldn't top up the amount of maintenance the nrp has to pay. Nothing wrong with helping nrp pay for extras, but his partner isn't a source of income for the ex.

[ratbagcatbag]

I'd've been furious if my money was taken into account for DSS as I earn more than DH, that said we share finances and all extras come out the joint account.
Slightly different for us is that DH has private arrangement with his ex and he pays more than CSA guidelines, plus half to everything and even though we are due a baby in six weeks we've already discussed not touching DSS's maintenance as we don't think he should get less as see decided to have another baby. Swings and roundabouts.

[AmIthatWintry]

I wasn't looking for maintenance to be increased, just disgusted that it was reduced as his new P had a child.

And swing and roundabouts doesn't apply to me. I don't have a DP, so get nothing to make up for the reduction in DD's CSA payments

[ladydeedy]

This is also a bugbear of mine in that one DSS lives with us and I earn substantially more than DH. My income is not taken into account wrt child maintenance, however it means that DH now will not be entitled to child benefit. Also, when DSS wants to go to uni (which is soon) it is our household income (i.e. inc mine), not his parents' income that is used to determine how much/if any grant/assistant he can get.
So whichever the situation, it's very hard to view it as fair really, you just have to get on with it.