To think if you get into a relationship with someone who has children then...

[TheLadyEvenstar]

You accept they are part of the deal in other words you can't have one without the other being involved in some way?

This has come from a discussion I am having on FB where someone has said why should a 2nd wife pay for a 1st wifes offspring. the discussion is about csa charges.

You accept they are part of the relationship, but why should you support them financially?

I think squeakytoy it's about the father (in this case) paying maintenance for his children isn't it? In which case we are all obliged to support our children, emotionally and financially until they become independent, even if they no longer live with us full time. Well, that's my opinion obviously even though I've somewhat written it as fact.

If you're married to the man then all his finances are your finances surely?

Shared finances in theory, but what happens if the parent of the pre-relationship children (for want of a better phrase) endures a long period of unemployment? Is it fair for the non-genetic parent then to pay for the children and wouldn't this cause resentment?

hmm i don't know. i mena, yes of course you accept they are part of the deal, and of course HE should pay maintenence.

but how is it worked out these days? I know a few years back a family friend and her boyfriend would not marry, because then HER income would be used (well, their joint incomes) to work out how much maintenance to pay. which seems really unfair to me

course, it may be different now? i don't know

then again, i guess for me personally it would depend on circumstances. If I married someone who had kids, and we were well off then it wouldn't bother me to use a joint income to pay it. but if we were not well off then i think it might bother me quite a lot

Under the 'rules' of the CSA, it is based on household income, wether that it should be is a completely different arguement.

But then again, you have the choice wether you live with the NR parent, the child has little choice in anything.

The woman who commented says if she doesn't have kids so why should she "pay for the 1st wives offspring".

This is all starting up because apparently the CSA are looking to charge £100 upfront before they open a claim if I am understanding rightly.

I think if you seriously commit to somebody who has children, then you have to accept their responsibilities to them, and this surely includes financial support. If there's an issue, then it should be about how the new couple arrange their finances. I've seen too many instances where the new partner resents the support the children from the old relationship get, and I simply don't understand what they thought was going to happen.

YANBU

My ex wants my new partners income taking into consideration when calculating his level of support which I think is a joke tbh, naturally he doesn't seem to mind his wife's income being included as she doesn't work grrrrr
I think the changes are going to get messy.

OP, she isn't paying for the 'first wife's offspring', the cost of the DC is coming out of the household budget, as it (perhaps?) should do.

so... is the household income of the house the child lives in also taken into consideration?

i mean, if the father and his partner earned £40k between them, and the mother and her new partner earned £500k between them, would the father still pay maintenance? would it be the same as if the mother was on her own and not working?

i guess I would be miffed if MY money that ought to be supporting my own children was being used to pay for my new husbands children, esp if they happened to be in a wealthhy family.

is that awful of me?

Birds, thats what I said.

My understanding is this. If a divorced/separated partners no longer live together and say the kids live with the mum hten the divorced dad remarries/gets a new partner, why should the new partner's income be used to decide how much the dad has to pay his ex.

I believe that the new partner has the right to refuse giving the CSA any information on her/his income which I think is fair enough. I think the CSA should keep new partners out of it. You have kids, you pay, simple as. You don't have kids, you don't pay.

the income of the non-resident parent only is taken into account, and it is a fixed (but can be reduced because of time child spends there, children from new relationship, but not much else) percentage of his/her income; partners' income, tax credits etc are not counted. see csa website.

If you take a look at the CSA website you'll see that a partners income is NOT taken into account.

The maintenance calculation is based solely on the non resident parents net income. There is a reduction if there are other children in the household (even if not biological children) & then maintenance is calculated based on no. of children. There is a further reduction if there is shared care.

In fact have a look

x posts - misty75 tax credits are included if it is child tax credit being paid, and working tax credits are included if the non resident parent is classed as the primary earner.

But things like tax credits take both persons income into account, so in effect, it is household income.

Also the welfare benefit may be paid at the couple rate and it is still taken.

If the NR parent chooses to move in with someone with DC's, why should the first DC's get less money?

It's swings and roundabouts. Nobody is forced to live with someone.

ahhh thank you for explaining! i can stop being outraged now lol
that does make more sense

The theory all sounds fine, but the actual economics for the XH 2nd family often is not good. Assume for example a couple split, XH makes say £30k and XW is a SAHM with DC.

XW and XH then find new partners , so XW is now with new DH who also earns £30K, ditto XH is with new DW and they also have £30k pa

But, XH still has to hand over dosh to keep the DC going - say £10k pa,then the actual income is £40k and £20k.

If new DW works and has no kids, things may seemOK, but then she wants kids and to be a SAHM.

At this point, harsh reality bites.

The new DW of the XH starts to say "So I become a SAHM and we have our own kids but you still have to pay for those kids even though they are richer than us - fuck this for a game of soldiers" and that is where it all goes pear shaped....

I really don't see why the biological parents of a child can't be made to pay for that child until it reaches 18. It should be law actually, money taken out of benefits or whatever and certainly no more children able to be born to feckless parents who won't pay. It's not the child's fault.

If every man paid for the children they fathered, and were made to, they would be a heck of a lot more careful about who they decied to have children with. It doesn't stop a couple splitting up but it would stop the fathering of multiple chilren from various relationships, without proper financial provision for the upkeep of the child.

I think one of the biggest bummers is when [for example] a non resident dad is paying maintenance for his DC/s and he then moves in with a partner who has DCs [not his] and then gets to pay less to his own DCs because of his DPs DCs [still with me?], of course his DPs DCs may also be being supported financially by their own father!

So in those circs the '2nd wifes' family are quids in and deffo not worse off.

Amberleaf yes the XH's best off if they get together with a woman who has DC and another richer man who is paying for them.

The whole idea starts off as simple and fair bu then turns out to be much more complicated .... and unfair.

And that is what then upsets someone in nearly every case.

True, there are so many variables that its never going to be fair for everyone under the current rules.