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

But, as in my case, the step dad is subsidising the payments. Why one rule for one but not the other?

OP, your two identical threads are the stupidest things I have read on here in months.

Your DP is getting away SO cheaply with this deal he has.

We are not bitter, by the way, we just have a brain.

You disgust me, actually.

Bacon So hypothetically speaking....... a NRP re-marries. NRP loses their job. His/her spouse earns 100,000K. NRP and spouse have no children between them. You are then told no more maintenance/vastly reduced maintenance while NRP out of work. NRP continues to enjoy comfortable lifestyle. Your lifestyle becomes much more difficult. Just curious..... how would you respond?..... genuine question.

3cheeky

An NRP's partners income is only considered if the NRP has arrears and has asked for a hardship consideration to work out what his household commitment it when they decide what he can pay it back at. It is not considered when he is being assessed.

The only bit of any WTC considered in an assesment is the portion that would be considered (if any) to belong to the NRP.

cheeky I never said it was ANYONE'S problem did I. I posed a hypothetical question based on the RP struggling while the out of work NRP lives a comfortable life. I made no mention of the RP being with someone either.

I am curious that's all.
Is it ALWAYS about the NRP's income or does there come a point where it should be about the household income of the NRP?
Not looking to start a bun fight with you. Just wondered what bacon thought.

While I agree that NRP should be paying towards their child, I don't think it's as simple as 'each parent should pay half the costs' as some PPs have said.

My DH earns approx 3x what I do, therefore my contribution to the household/children is approx 1/4 of the actual costs, and he provides 3/4. If he became NRP then it would only be fair that he provide a significant sum, else I would not be able to keep a roof over our heads and look after the children adequately.

However, if I then got another DP who again, earned a lot more than me, he would be providing towards the household, not necessarily the children, taking the pressure off me so I could afford to spend more directly on the kids. Things like rental costs and energy bills, these wouldn't go up too much with another adult but it would be 'fair' for DP to take over some of the costs, so DH's maintenance figure could go down.

If it was the other way round, and I became NRP and DH (higher earner) was RP, it wouldn't be possible for me to pay half of the DC costs, and why should I be expected to when the agreement was 1/4 at the time we had the children? Again though, if I got another DP who moved in and shared costs with me, I would be able to afford a higher sum for the children due to my costs going down (though depending on the circumstances, the children might have a better standard of living during access rather than me giving more maintenance).

Wondering if the exs partner possibly has kids that he has to pay for??

Sorry cheeky I misunderstood your post.

I think what pants might be referring to is the sort of person who would actively support and encourage their partner out of work in order to remove his/her cm liability and solely financially support him/her just so they can do so or those NRPs who intentionally become unemployed whenever the agency locates them.

Fwiw I don't think either parents partners income should be considered obviously it would be nice if a partner chose to offer some financial support but they shouldn't have to,I also think children that do not belong to the NRP should not reduce an award.

This is very simple.

A child has two parents.

One of them pays £200 a month (8.57% of his gross income) for that child's upbringing.

The other, despite being on a lower income pays a shitload more.

Does that make it any clearer to you OP?

You dont have a child but i am assuming you can do maths and can work out that they cost more than £400 (if the mother matched you boyfriend's contribution) a month. Especially the teenage variety.

FYI- if her partner earns £50k then she isnt getting any state help.

We won't agree to disagree 3CheekyMonkeys. Either you can show us that there are posters who've said one thing about maintenance on this thread and the opposite elsewhere, or you're wrong about the existence of double standards. Meanwhile, I trust you'll go to the pet threads and rail against the posters there because some MNers are allergic.

I agree cheeky but should there be a degree of flexibility based on changes in circumstances? My DH was only able to keep paying the agreed amount to his ex when he lost his job (out of work for nearly a year..... awful time) because we lived on my stupidly low income.
I am certainly not advocating that new spouses' income should automatically be included in assessments but I do sometimes wonder in certain cases.

I always have paid CM when I have been with someone who has lost their job.

But it was my choice to do so and I wouldn't ever advocate it being the law. I feel that by me doing so I sent a very clear message to the partner and their ex that I would not tolerate them piss arsing about with CM that I felt it was a priority blah blah blah. If they intentionally lost or quit a job to welch on it I would not financially support them and they would cease to be my partner/husband.

3cheekymonkeys apologies i didn't mean you'd said that maintenance should go down if nrp has more kids, that's the law currently.

Superman's pants mine and ex's dd is not ex's now wife's responsibility. I'm actually facing this possibility right now and no I don't think dd's stepmum should pay maintenance for a child to which she has no legal tie.

Sorry chronically but I disagree, responsibility should be 50/50.

Needsasockamnesty you clearly have a conscience and morals unlike some.

How do you know what they earn? And if they earn that much they won't be entitled to benefits.

Your bf shouldn't have to pay less for his own child just because his ex is doing well for herself. How far do you think 200 a month goes for a child? He should be paying more really. He's paying the minimum at the end of the day which is not something to be proud of.

I'm sure you could spend that money far more widely than his child though sounds as though you're jealous

I don't think this thread is a very good example of it, but I agree with 3Monkeys in that there are MN double standards when it comes to mothers/fathers husbands/wives.

I also don't agree that £200 is too low an amount when both parents are providing a home for their child.