Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think stepparents should not be financially responsible for other people's children?

608 replies

Mrsnothingthanks · 01/12/2025 22:00

That's just it really. I'm married. My husband is only financially responsible for our daughter, not my other children. Why should he be? Not his kids!
Surprises me on MN that others think stepparents should assume financial responsibility for kids that aren't theirs!

OP posts:
Original poster
Mrsnothingthanks · 02/12/2025 01:32

@BrokenWingsCantFly Apparently it's not reduced by much? Hope that's true because it doesn't seem fair.

OP posts:
BrokenWingsCantFly · 02/12/2025 01:31

Mrsnothingthanks · 02/12/2025 01:18

@BrokenWingsCantFly I still dont think is quite right - it is based solely on earnings. There is no financial link or responsibility for stepchildren re CMS. Spousal Maintenance is different.

It is right. The link the PP put up shows it is right. I experienced this in the past too when my ex moved pretty much straight in with a new child following our break up. They have it clear on the calculation. Something along the lines of what is owned for 1 child based on an income of xxxx, followed by reduction for the child he was living with. Same as with student loans. If someone lives with a child they are seen as now financially responsible for providing towards the household.

If the paying parent now lives with 2 children then they don't leave that house short so he can pay out the max to his actual children. Doesn't seem very fare leaving the bio child short, but at the same time they can't leave the children he loves with at risk of poverty either so they apply the blanket reduction for having extra costs of living with children.

And yes I know that the receiving parents new partners income will not be calculated in what she is to recieve. Her income isn't either. If she was a millionaire and he was on minimum wage he would still have to pay the same as he would if she was on benefits. CMS don't consider the hoyse receiving the maintenance at all, only the paying house

Original poster
Mrsnothingthanks · 02/12/2025 01:30

@Missey85 I wouldn't want my husband to take financial responsibility for my bio children - that's on me.

OP posts:
CombatBarbie · 02/12/2025 01:26

Yup even if the child is no blood relation!!! See my comment above about my ex being reassessed due to a foster child.

Missey85 · 02/12/2025 01:26

If you marry someone with kids they come as a package deal 😊 if you don't want the financial responsibility don't get with a parent ❤️

Original poster
Mrsnothingthanks · 02/12/2025 01:25

@CombatBarbie Even if the children are not biologically theirs? I've never received any CMS so don't know the rules for sure.

OP posts:
CombatBarbie · 02/12/2025 01:22

Ive screenshot the parliament paragraph but will need to be approved as a pic.

Very clearly states

Allowances are applicable if the non-resident has other children living within their household.

I dont agree with it.....my ex got his payments reduced because he had a foster child!!! A child they were being paid to care for.

To think stepparents should not be financially responsible for other people's children?
Original poster
Mrsnothingthanks · 02/12/2025 01:18

@BrokenWingsCantFly I still dont think is quite right - it is based solely on earnings. There is no financial link or responsibility for stepchildren re CMS. Spousal Maintenance is different.

OP posts:
BlossomLeaves · 02/12/2025 01:15

It’s not some random ‘other peoples’ children though is it? It’s their step children who surely they are committing to as a family when choosing to marry their parent. Otherwise what is the point?
That doesn’t absolve either bio parent of their responsibilities, but this delineation between different parts of a family you’ve decided to create seems weirdly cold and transactional to me.

BrokenWingsCantFly · 02/12/2025 01:15

Mrsnothingthanks · 02/12/2025 01:09

@CombatBarbie According to the CMS contributions do not change (see above guidance).

It does change in the situation the PP was talking about. If the paying person moves in a household with step children then there is a reduction in the calculation of what is owed. As the paying parent is now deemed as a financial contributer to the household where he lives with the step children.

The PP is not saying that she will get less off her ex if she herself has someone move in with her

Original poster
Mrsnothingthanks · 02/12/2025 01:09

@CombatBarbie According to the CMS contributions do not change (see above guidance).

OP posts:
CombatBarbie · 02/12/2025 01:07

Mrsnothingthanks · 02/12/2025 01:04

So this is incorrect, @CombatBarbie?
Your child maintenance payments generally will not change if you move in with a new partner, as payments are based on the paying parent's income and are separate from the receiving parent's new relationship status.

Thats the resident parent moving in with someone. If the non resident parent moves in with someone they can be asked to be reassessed. Unless the rules have changed since last summer?

Original poster
Mrsnothingthanks · 02/12/2025 01:06

The Child Maintenance Service (CMS) determines child maintenance payments based solely on the income of the paying parent. The earnings, savings, or financial contributions of their new partner are not factored into the formula used by the CMS. This ensures that child maintenance remains the responsibility of the legal parent, rather than shifting any financial burden to a step-parent or new partner. Even if the new partner has a significantly higher income, this does not reduce or increase the paying parent’s financial obligations to their child.

What Legal Action Can I Take Against The CMS?

You could consider going to court, especially if your right to a private and family life has been affected, though this is likely to be costly

https://www.wiselaw.co.uk/legal-action-child-maintenance-service/

OP posts:
CombatBarbie · 02/12/2025 01:06

But back to your point lol does it make more sense now why some women expect, well not expect, thats the wrong word, any partner coming into the family unit is in part financially responsible for step children.

Original poster
Mrsnothingthanks · 02/12/2025 01:04

So this is incorrect, @CombatBarbie?
Your child maintenance payments generally will not change if you move in with a new partner, as payments are based on the paying parent's income and are separate from the receiving parent's new relationship status.

OP posts:
CombatBarbie · 02/12/2025 01:03

Yeah but its still a household income of 50k. Anyway I dont make the rules lol

Original poster
Mrsnothingthanks · 02/12/2025 01:02

@CombatBarbie £50k if both working is not much tbf when you think about it - £25k each.

OP posts:
CombatBarbie · 02/12/2025 01:02

Mrsnothingthanks · 02/12/2025 01:00

@CombatBarbie No that's not correct. He still has to pay the same amount of maintenance regardless as it's based on his earnings. If he moves in with another woman he is not deemed automatically as being financially responsible for her children. The lady needs to challenge this.

I can assure you its true. I had it with my own DD when I was getting CMS. They get a reduction if they live with other children.

Original poster
Mrsnothingthanks · 02/12/2025 01:00

@CombatBarbie No that's not correct. He still has to pay the same amount of maintenance regardless as it's based on his earnings. If he moves in with another woman he is not deemed automatically as being financially responsible for her children. The lady needs to challenge this.

OP posts:
CombatBarbie · 02/12/2025 00:58

Mrsnothingthanks · 02/12/2025 00:55

@CombatBarbie That's absolutely shocking if so!

I can only assume a disabled child or childcare costs.

But theres plenty family's combined incomes of 50k getting UC top ups too.

CombatBarbie · 02/12/2025 00:56

Mrsnothingthanks · 02/12/2025 00:33

@ButWhysTheRumGone Why does he have to pay less?

Because he is living with other children so os deemed to be partly financially responsible for them 🤣🤣

Original poster
Mrsnothingthanks · 02/12/2025 00:55

@CombatBarbie That's absolutely shocking if so!

OP posts:
CombatBarbie · 02/12/2025 00:54

Mrsnothingthanks · 02/12/2025 00:29

@CombatBarbie Genuinely...someone can earn 70k and still get UC?! Is that true?

Apparently, it was on one of the benefit bashing threads.....I wss quite shocked when I read it.

Swipe left for the next trending thread