To think that sometimes a new partners income should be considered by CMS?

[LolaLouise]

My ex hasnt seen our kids in 2 years, or paid a penny in 18 months. This includes birthdays and Christmas. School residential trips, school uniforms, childcare, activities, everything they need is paid for solely by myself. My ex quit his well paid job to live off some inheritance rather than pay for his kids. He said this was the reason for quitting his job.

6 months ago he entered a new relationship, where he now is a sahp to her two young children whilst she works full time. This arrangement has happened for he past 4 months. He is saving her a lot in childcare fees by staying at home and avoiding working so he doesnt have to pay his own. They have a good set up with extra from tax credits and enough to go on a summer holiday together.

Now aside from the morals of allowing a man you have known for 6 months to care full time for your children, she is well he is a father to 3 other children he has no contact or financial support for.

Am i wrong in thinking their household income should be considered by CMS? As it stands, as he has no taxable income, he is on a nil rate.

Grandtheft, no because we're saying only if the new partner is working and the NRP is a SAHP through choice.

At one point I was only getting child benefit and child tax credits. Should that have been used for his cms payments?

No absolutely not. That money was paid for your children. The other children get theirs from their own mum.

Through choice? So what if they get ill, or get sacked? Then it's ok not to pay?

Or do you get a letter from the cms along with your p45?

But she can only work and earn that money because he is looking after her children and they are both choosing to deprive his children of their father's contribution to their upbringing.

Er....No There is no way on this Earth I feel I should pay anything towards my step children and DH wouldn’t expect me to.

I feel well qualified to comment as I am a receiving parent (1 DS who lives with us) and a step parent to DHs children who live with their mum.

No. He is choosing to do that all on his own. If he wanted to pay for his kids he'd get a job. He doesn't. Why is it her responsibility to change his mind?

@flamingofridays

It's like going around in circles with you. You are missing the point.

It is not his decision to pay if he's working - he is forced too. So, to avoid that, he doesn't work and lives off someone else. That's the problem. With the law as it stands, people who don't want to pay can use this as a get out clause. It should be changed so that child maintenance is not left as a morality decision, but a legal requirement. If you choose to live off your partner, then child maintenance must still be paid. It should not legally be optionally and there shouldn't be the option of just giving up work and living off someone else. The law needs to change. And then you'll find that actually, the new gf doesn't need to pay because all these horrible men will suddenly get jobs.

Flaming he should be expected to sign on to jobseekers straight away to find a new job, just like a single mother with a child over 5 is expected to do. She can't sit at home all day and expect someone else to pay for her children like he is.

If he became ill then surely he can't be a SAHP.

Ah right. I misunderstood the OP. When I was full time before falling pregnant and mat leave etc, I helped him with his payments. Now however I'm on zero hours so I can't but he makes them every month so all good.

flaming If the dad gets ill or sacked then it's still not the partner's problem to sort maintenance. She will presumably be now panicking about her own household, own children etc to care about that.

No I'm not missing the point I just disagree with you.

@MismatchedStripySocks no one is expecting you to. But would you support your partner giving up his job in order to avoid paying cms for his children?

Dps ex pays us maintenance but if she say had another baby and gave up work I wouldn't expect her bf to pay us. Because it's not his child!

No Rocinante1 I don’t see a loophole. Only the NRP is liable.

Suppose the NRP ends up (as some of them do) by going back to Mummy and leeching off her. Would you want to make her liable for not telling her son to get off his backside, find a job, and pay his dues?

No fucking way. I think that's ridiculous. And I can see this from both sides. From experience.

@Andrewofgg

Yes. If you're kid comes home, after having had children, and then sits around not bothering to work, then yeah, either refuse to support them or help pay for the kid. My two are both boys and I certainly wouldn't stand back and do nothing if they abandoned a kid and expected to live for free with me.

Letting your grown child move back in with you and not support his children?

Oh I wonder why there's such a problem with men walking away from their children in this country.

Perhaps if all these people didn't enable these deadbeats, we wouldn't have such a problem.

Maybe if we didn't have babies with useless men in the first place we wouldn't have this problem?

Well Rocinante1 if I may say so you get full marks for consistency!

A thought. In my son’s class at school there was a lad being brought up by his widowed father; his mother had died giving birth to his brother when he was four, and he had become SAHF. It was an unusual all-male household.

Now let’s imagine he was also an NRP to an older child - would anyone say he ought not to have become SAHF?

@flamingofridays he wasnt useless when i had kids. We were married he had a good job i did ok. We owned our own home which was well above the average for out area. We did ok. He wanted the kids, the second took a while to conceive and he actively tried. He wasnt always the deadbeat he is now.

The legislation would be a slippery slope. Your ex should definitely be paying his share to help maintain the kids you have, and he sounds like he is being a total arsewipe excuse for a dad, which is awful but not his new partner's fault. If a new partner's income was taken into account I see a lot of potential for exes who are the mercenary type (I don't mean you, I'm thinking of people like my DH's grabby ex here) unfairly hitting a new partner in the wallet.

@bringincrazyback if the father is working though they wouldnt be able to get all grabby with a new partners incomes. This is only in situations where the father is financially supported by a partner. Not necessarily in every case, which why i said some times.

@Andrewofgg

Considerations are already made for NRP who have more children - the maintenance they need to pay to the other children is reduced. If we can made concessions for that, then we can make concessions for widows/widowers.

This is a specific scenario about NRP choosing not to work because they can live off one income and avoid payments. It's a shitry thing to do, and it happens all the time. It is a problem that needs to be addressed. If there were consequences, then these people would be working.

It also wouldnt be for the full % as if it wad the fathers wage. But a token amount so the children are considered not ignored. As what happens with benefits. Im not expecting a new partner to pay 25% of their income to me. Far from it. But they shouldnt be allowed to just pretend they dont exists.

If my partner had a child there is NO WAY I would contribute. Not my kid, not my problem. It would be unfair to expect someone who wasn't involved to pay for her partners past mistakes.