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

All that's showing is that different people sometimes think different things, though. Which isn't double standards. So for example I didn't post on the other thread you linked. If I post here, expressing a different view to the majority on a different thread, why would that be a double standard?

Possibly. If those people exist, yes they'd be exhibiting double standards.

There was a thread a little while back where a female OP posted about an arguement she'd had with her DP, she admitted she'd hit him, but it was about four pages long before anyone addressed the hitting. It was all about giving her sympathy, telling her to LTB and going on about what a cunt he was.

If a man had posted about an argument he'd had with his female partner and said that he'd hit her, there is no way that the violence would have been ignored in favour of giving him tea and sympathy. I'd almost bet my firstborn on it.

Then I've seen other threads where women say that they're struggling to cope with the normal routine demands of family life and they've let the housework slip, they don't want to go out, they don't want to have sex etc, and those posts get replies asking about could she be depressed, what the DP is doing to help, why isn't he doing more, he should be more understanding and the like. And probably rightly so. But then a woman posts that a her partner is displaying the same behaviour and the majority of responses say that he's a lazy bastard, depression is no excuse, why are you with him, LTB.

That is the sort of thing I think of when I think of their being MN double standards. It does happen, and I've pointed it out in threads where I've seen it.

And no, I'm not going to go trawling through the archives to find examples. I've been on this site for years and would have no idea where to start even if I wanted to.

Osolea, those are double standards if the same posters say different things depending on the sex of the people in the example. Otherwise, that's just different people thinking different things.

I think there can be double standards amongst a general consensus as much as there can be double standards amongst individuals.

There are a few topics where there is very much a MN consensus on things like parent and child parking for example, and while a few individuals may disagree, when the majority of individuals on mn feel the same, and you knw exactly how a thread will have gone before you've even opened it, I think it's fair to say that sometimes, a MN consensus does exist. And from that, I have seen the MN consensus be completely different depending on whether we're talking about a man or a woman.

the problem is, child maintenance is something of a double standard. I have said it before but my new partner is expected to support my children because in us moving in together, I lost all my entitlement to tax credits. It wasn't a huge amount and of course, with two adults in the house my bills etc. are shared so I technically have more money at my disposal so make up for the losss, but there is an expectation that if you move into a house where children are mainly resident, you take on the children.

There is no corresponding expectation that the partner of a NRP takes on the children in anything other than the emotional sense.

Bluntly put, if I posted in relationships and said my new partner was refusing to cover any costs relating to the children, to the extent that he was measuring how much gas and electric they used and was refusing to contribute to the full cost of shopping, I would be told to LTB. By contrast, if I were to have a new baby, earn more than my new partner, and we decide that he should become a SAHD, there would be no empathy whatsoever for his existing children - I would be told I had to do what was right for my family etc. etc. etc.

Double standards are rife when it comes to separated families and cause huge damage to the children. Huge.

I think there can be double standards amongst a general consensus as much as there can be double standards amongst individuals.

What does this actually mean though? The problem with complaining about double standards amongst a group is that, unless every thread on an issue contains the same group of posters which clearly isn't the case, you're going to be accusing people of exhibiting double standards if they disagree with a previous 'consensus'. Even if they've literally never posted about that issue before. And a person who has only ever posted once about an issue, or posted multiple times and stuck to the same line, cannot possibly be showing double standards.

I don't even get you title OP

As the mothers income is not invisible. Her partners wage makes no difference to your BF child. He is not the father of this child, your BF is.

He made that child with the child's mother, they are both responsible for their child.

And I am sorry with a household income of that amount they wont qualify for TC.

By contrast, if I were to have a new baby, earn more than my new partner, and we decide that he should become a SAHD, there would be no empathy whatsoever for his existing children - I would be told I had to do what was right for my family etc. etc. etc.

I don't think that's true. In those circumstances I think many MNers would say that the existing children still had to be provided for. It would be up to the NRP to decide how that happens, whether that be staying in work or allowing a new partner to pay, but i don't think people would be saying do what's best for your family if it means that existing children (who are still part of the new family incidentally) are going to be less supported because of it.

I think you would be told that you have a responsibility towards the existing children by the majority, and then a few step mums would wade in and say 'don't worry, your place is always in the wrong on MN if you're a step parent' no matter how unreasonable you were being!

Call me hard line but I dont think you should be allowed to be a sahp if it means your children will no longer be financially provided for. The state should be able to legally insist that parents meet financial responsibilites. You shouldn't be able to choose to opt out by giving up work and allowing a spouse to support you.

If laws were tougher then people might think twice before having kids with new partners when they cant afford the first family!

I would not want an ex's new wife to support my dc. I would want my ex to, even if it means less money.

As an aside, step parents have no automatic legal rights to parent a step child, so really shouldn't be responsible for their costs (like university expenses etc). Those are huge financial commitments which ought to be met by bio parents. Although if you are with someone who resents feeding your kids while they are actually in your home or who begrudges them the electricity it costs to run a bath, then yes you should ltb (male or female) because meanness is a nasty trait!

I agree with your first paragraph beaucoup, but I think it should apply to everyone, not just NRPs.

Yes, if I was a divorced rp, I would be working full time because I would not want to put my dc (or myself) in the vulnerable position of being financially supported by a new partner who had no moral or legal obligation to do so.

The OP's partner allegedly earns 28k per annum. That's a take-home pay of over 1800 a month. He pays a derisory 200 in child maintenance and he hasn't had a holiday in ten years? He must be a completely inept money-manager because 1600 is easily enough to set aside some each month towards an annual holiday. I live in London and can easily afford it.

I reckon he's been spinning her a line and she's fallen for it hook, line and sinker. He could have massive debts to pay off but that's not due to forking out less than 50 quid a week for the last 15 years.

I've not RTFT but I'm disgusted by your thinking OP. I sincerely hope you take to heart some of the posts on this thread as I don't think you've any idea with what you're dealing with here.

for you 'D'P's ex if she has to deal with this sort of shit.

I say this as someone in her position, my OH fully supports my child and our own children while my feckless ex swans around, causing trouble and not paying a penny toward his child's upkeep.

If you can't see you're part of the problem here, you're in for a shock if you decide to procreate with this man.

Utterly disgusted with humans sometimes.

Take home pay if 28k is less that 1800pm. I earn just over 28k and don't take home over 1800pm.

Slightly away from the point I think people forget that when a marriage breaks down the NRP also has to provide and pay for accommodation, bills, pressum ably half the childrens expenses AND maintenance. All this is on top of like my DP A reduction in income due to reducing hours at work to see his children. Each case is different depending on RP and NRP circumstances.

Saying that if OPs partner earns 28K I don't think 200pm should be a problem? If he isn't struggling and his ex isn't struggling the mothers financial position shouldn't really matter??

My DPs exW takes home at the moment More than he does. He did reduce the amount of money he gives her PM because he was struggling to pay it (it's still well above CMS minimum).

Haven't read the whole thread.. absolutely father's should contribute to their children's upbringing but I think the csa should look at every case individually and make their assessment based on that.
The csa are pushing the second family into poverty while favouring children from the split family. The csa take over £600 a month from my partner, we both work while his ex sits on her arse claiming every benefit she can get her hands on, no rent or council tax to pay, free school meals, free uniform and free after school clubs/trips, no childcare costs cos she doesnt work, discount on household bills cos she claims she's depressed and can't work so claims disability money. We have to pay all this ourselves because we work and by the time we've paid all of the above plus csa we hardly have any money to live on yet she's raking it in on benefit payments and csa money.. wouldn't be so bad if she actually spent the money on buying the children some clothes and shoes but they don't even get that! God knows what that £600+ actually gets spent on seeing as she gets everything for free!!!
When our dc was born the csa deducted a whole £20 off!! Wow our dc is only worth a measly 20 quid a month reduction to help support him yet dsc are worth £300+ each a month... work that one out if you can!!

They presumably thought the majority of money to pay for your new child should come out of the money that wasn't set aside for his contribution to his first child.

Precisely stealthpolarbear.

Girraffe, your DPs ex may or may not be fiddling the system, but either way, it's irrelevant and her child is not being favoured over yours. Yours gets to live with both parents, hers doesn't.

I find the attitude you have that is pissed off because your DP only got to reduce his payment be £20 sickening. It shouldn't have been reduced by anything, because as far as I'm aware, the ex's bills won't have reduced because you had another child. She won't get a discount on school shoes or anything else because you had a child, so why should her child's father get to pay less? I find it outrageous that the CMS do this, the whole organisation is a shower of shit. If an adult can't afford to have a second family without reducing what they provide for their first children, then they shouldn't have them.

Jeez I'm a single mother on esa, on the sick as its referred to. I cant even afford food or clothe myself most the time. Cant remember the last time I bought myself anything. You list all the ex receives. Then you say she doesn't have to pay for anything!
Stop being a donkey. Clothes, food, travel, toys ect ect, all have to be bought.
I hate posts like yours, you make out like she's rolling in it, when she's likely not. Pure bitterness.
Your dp is paying 15-20 percent of his wage, and you moan that is too much? Fucking really?