Mothers income invisible? Child maintenance

[CocoEnglishChanel91]

Advice please. My boyfriend and I have no children. His son lives with his mum, who earns £20k a year, plus WFT Credits, Child Benefit - and is living with her new partner, a police detective sergeant who earns £50k. Combined household income (including benefits) pushing £80k.

My boyfriend earns £28k per annum, sees his son every week, has great relationship with him. He has to pay over £200 per month to his ex, and has the Child Maintenance people crawling over and vetting his income.

Yet the £80k going into his ex''s household is classed as not being relative. Surely it is?

He's not trying to escape responsibility for paying for his son. Far from it. He's paid consistently from the off (over 15 years ) but it seems ludicrous to me that his ex can have whatever household income she likes and that's not a factor.

It just feels very unfair to be, with everything seemingly weighted on his ex's side.

Why is the parent with care's income not relevant? Doesn't the child have two patents?

From people with experience is what I say about patents with care correct? And could it impact on me if we move in together?

Thanks

J

3cheeky How you can come on to a site with millions of users and decide there are "double standards"... If you don't like MN or it's users opinions on any given thread, you are free to leave and post your questions elsewhere on the world wide web.

I'd love to see actual statistics on how many NRP's go on to have more children and how many RP's do. I'd hedge my bets that the NRP go on to have many more than the RP. Far easier for them to leave and have fewer responsibilities enabling them to go on and do it again and again.

So you agree that the right thing to do is to continue providing for previous children. Well done!

What you appear to be saying is that the NRP should be able to have as many kids as they want, knowingly impacting on previous children. So unless NRP is getting a hefty pay rise every single year, eventually the money will run out.
The only way the state can look after children of fathers who don't live with the parents, unless maintenance is directly agreed, is by using CMS to ensure that they pay a fair amount of their wage. You appear to be agreeing with the OP that new partners on either side of the split should have their income used for children that are not their own rather than having the NRP pay for their own child.

And so would the new partner of the NRP.
Just because the first partner earns more than the new partner doesn't mean the NRP should have to pay less for previous children than they do with the children they have anywhere else. The information is out there for NRP's to look up and decide before they run off and do these things. If they don't look into it before they have more kids then they only have themselves to blame.

Eh, Jeffrey cheeky was agreeing with you also it was me that pointed out the double standards of 'some' posters. Cheeky was merely agreeing with me. Just because you don't agree with her even though she was actually saying the same as youshe should leave MN? Didn't realise it was a dictatorship with you in charge

Just some people cheeky

Don't know about you Janet but I work to pay for my lifestyle because if I didn't life would be pretty shit.

Being a tax payer making a contribution toward those less fortunate than me is just a by product of that

There are some strange assumptions in the last couple of pages

That it's easy to get certain benefits in fact any benefits
That being on full benefits means you're getting a good or even appropriate amount of money in relation to living costs
That being a sahm while in a relationship is always a choice (it wasn't for me and I suspect that's true for many others)
That parents always behave reasonably
That posters are always being genuine/honest
That nrp's paying maintenance also contribute in other ways or that those that don't, don't contribute anything.

Every situation has its nuances

BUT neither parent should be having more kids without considering the impact on existing children, and neither step parent is financially responsible for the children of the original relationship.