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

Are you on glue ?

^This

Well said Lunchpack

OP, come back when you have a 15 year old to feed, clothe, entertain and educate, using a £7 a day contribution from the NRP.

Oh and please answer the following question:

if the RP's current partner's income should be taken into account,.shouldn't your income also be taken into account?

Assuming your income is shared as part of the household income?

OP you are getting an absolute hammering on this thread with some posters being really quite unpleasant. You are not a parent so it will be harder for you to understand. As a parent of two whose father buggered off my ex pays maintenance through the CSA. Regardless of my DH income, my ex SHOULD be paying for HIS children. I know it might seem on the face of it unfair to you because of his ex DP's partner and his income but it is not his child so why should he be expected to pay towards him. You are just looking at the household income and nothing else. Equally, you have no idea how they manage their finances IYSWIM.

I have never expressed the opinion that maintenance should be affected by anyones circumstances, other than the parents. So no double standard here.

My boyfriend and I have no children. That isn't true. You have no children. Your boyfriend has a child.

Thing is the rp's partners income IS taken into account when it comes to paying for the household bills and general upkeep of the family. Does your oh have no pride in that he's content for another man not only to take on the role of father but also provider for his son?

You've clearly chosen your partner well op...

Pico she meant biological children between her and her DP as you well know

I'll cut and paste what I posted on your identical other thread..

Well it costs more than £200 a month to feed, clothe, care for and support a teenager. And your boyfriend's son is benefiting from his mother's new partner's income I'm sure, in terms of luxuries, holidays etc.

His mum won't be entitled to tax credits once moved in with her partner and her child benefit may reduce so overall she won't exactly be rolling in it.

Maybe if it bothers you so much have the son come and live with you both? Then you'll see just how much it costs to raise a child and you'll have the satisfaction of knowing she's £280 a month worse off

The way I see it is my husband contributes to the upbringing of my children who live under his/our roof. They are not biologically his responsibility but he has chosen to take them on through marriage. His income automatically dictates what comes into our house by way of outside help. He contributes to the bills, the food, the holidays, the school uniform etc. The way I see it is any adult who steps into a child's life in a parental capacity and assumes the role of parent - from whatever side - should have their income considered when financing a child.

Being a parent or step parent isn't all day trips and presents its also hard graft, uniforms, shoes, bedroom kitting out, clubs to pay for, food etc etc

Supermanspants

I think a verbal online hammering will do her good. I had one a few months ago that made me rethink a lot of things. It's unpleasant, but her original post was unpleasent. It has goaded a lot of people. Including myself, who struggled with ds when ex wasn't paying maintenance at all (not even chucked the odd tenner) for over a year. Op has come accross really grabby, and that's my pet hate.

Bitter mums?

I am a disabled mum and my children live with their father, I pay maintenance for them because that's the right bloody thing to do.

Yeah it costs me when I have access, and transport is a nightmare and costs a bloody fortune, but when I decided to have them, I made a commitment to them and accepted that through thick and thin I have a responsibility to provide for them.

My responsibilities don't change just because I have a new partner (hypothetically), or if my ex gets an amazing job. I want my children to grow up knowing that both of us took our responsibilities as a parent seriously. Anyone who messes their ex around for money is awful, because it's the kids that will eventually pick up on that.

What the person in receipt of child maintenance does is none of your business as the new partner of a father, even if they were freaking millionaires, his responsibility doesn't change, he should financially provide for his child.

NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!!!

Posts like this make me sick!

"Your partner's £200 a month doesn't go anywhere near the 50% financial responsibility he should be liable for, so YABU." The child is half your boyfriends, he should be paying half the upkeep. But sadly even the govt doesn't see this blindingly obvious fact! "£200 a month is a tiny amount when it comes to raising a child."

"Or I could do a long winded explanation of how if your oh and his ex were still together 50% of his income or more would go towards the child and actually 15% is fuck all and should be higher so quit whinging"

"As far as I'm concerned, the mother and her partner could earn £1m each and I'd still say your boyfriend is responsible for paying for HIS child."

"The income of the police detective sergeant boyfriend is completely irrelevant. He has no financial responsibility to this child."

"So you want his ex's Partners income to be taken into account correct?

In that case you must be more than happy for yours to be taken into account for the amount of CSA, correct?

No, didn't think so...."

"All I can think is, you might get a warmer reception not posting on a forum swarming, literally riddled with hard working, big hearted, selfless mothers who routinely get shafted by feckless arses who shirk their responsibilities."

"Of course he is trying to escape financial responsibility for his son. Watch out, he'll be doing the same for you in a few years' time if you aren't careful."

I then skipped ahead to op's posts

THIS

"should be asked to chip in what he does."

disgusting attitude! I wouldn't want you near any child! Let alone one who's having to cope with being the child of separated parents!!! We're not 'bitter' we're fed up with women like you undermining the parental responsibility these fathers have so you can live the life you WANT with no regard, compassion, empathy, sympathy for the child/ren involved!

Oh and BTW I personally have no reason to be bitter in this regard as in my case my dd stepmums actually kicks my ex's arse occasionally when he's being an idiot, is lovely to my dd and understands that my ex is her father and will always be responsible for her - financially and otherwise.

But on here and IRL I have seen so many separated mum's where the financial arrangements have been in place for years, work fine for all involved until some selfish little madam comes along demanding that the nrp dad is 'paying too much' when it's NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS!!!

Your DP keeps about £1500 / 85% of his earnings, despite having brought a child into the world. Lucky man.

Is there anyone who said one thing on the other thread and the opposite on this one, 3LittleMonkeys? Because if there was, you'd have a point about double standards, though only applying to that/those specific poster/s of course. If not, you're being ridiculous.

Wow.

You have problems if the pair of you think that 15% of his income reduced to allow for overnights when relevant is an unreasonable amount to pay.

But I have a sneaking idea that he probaly does not have a problem with it at all,I expect you do and you are going to turn into one of those partners who winge about the CM obligations taking food out of your babies mouths and resenting any money he spends on his child.

Children have a right to be financially supported by both parents sometimes due to the inability of some parents to be trustworthy or none manipulative we have to use a gov agency to asses what that contribution from one of the parents should be, that is set at 15% for one child then they reduce it for various reasons if applicable.

Do you think they should asses the RP income to decide how much they should use towards their child? Or is it just that you think it should reduce the NRPs liability because if the RP makes more they should just pick up the slack from the NRP?

"Chip in"??? For his own child? Do you think therefore that he chipped in enough when he got his ex pregnant? Remember that thought for when you're up the stick and alone.

OP is utterly, utterly deranged.

FWIW I'm still with DH and not bitter at all about this issue. I just know what's right.

Needsasock and confusedandemployed well said!

3cheekylittlemonkeys I disagree. It's nothing to do with anyone other than the parents. If my dd stepmum was suddenly earning loads that's nothing to do with what my ex pays for his dd. However, I also think it's wrong that there is a reduction applied when the nrp goes on to have other children ALL their children deserve equal support. Children from previous relationships should not be penalised for their nrp deciding to have more kids.

You're being utterly ridiculous if you're complaining that two different sets of posters have given opposing views on two different threads. Unless of course any of the posters here have said the opposite elsewhere, in which case I'm sure we'd all like examples. I mean, you wouldn't go on the feminist board and whine about double standards because lots of posters aren't feminists at all. Or into the 5/2 section and complain because the replies are very different to the low carbers. Why are posters on threads about maintenance the only ones whose views have to be consistent with what other people on different threads think?