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.

I would pay 25.4% of my take home pay for two children based on the CMS calculator.

Yes Mum and lots of NRPs used to increase their pension contributions to get out of paying as much when they were working it out on net pay.

It worked both ways.

They still can

Mum are you saying you would spend less on your resident children if your pension contributions or student loan repayments went up? It would be your children who lose out first? Or would you try and cut your budget elsewhere so your children didn't suffer?

When the Child Support Agency first started, child support payments did take into account household income. My husband has a son from his first marriage and when he used to pay child support my income was considered when working out what he should pay.

The other difference was that every penny we paid was deducted from benefit payments. My husband's ex didn't work, not because of my husband's son, who was in his teens, but because of her younger children. Her new husband didn't work either and claimed benefit for the whole family. I can't remember all the details now, but if I remember rightly we were paying well over £500 a month, and his child was no better off than if we'd paid nothing. Obviously the tax payer benefited, but whilst I quite agreed that my husband should be paying for his son, I didn't think it was right for us to be paying what was almost the entire benefit bill for the family. It's a long time ago now (over 25 years) but it still rankles.

I have nothing to do with child support these days, but it does seem to be a fairer arrangement (though clearly many men do still manage to get away with paying little or nothing).

It would be impossible to find a calculation that everyone would be happy with.

But the rp doesn't have to pay maintenance Rocinante1. So the rp has £1666 a month wages, plus maintenance from ex, plus child benefit in order to pay those child related costs. What more do you expect the nrp to do? If he pays more then he might not have a job to go back to if he's made homeless by not paying his rent and then the rp will get bugger all.

Another vote here for why the new partner has to be the moral backbone of the pathetic ex. She doesn't and she shouldn't. The emphasis here I think is all wrong. Its his responsibility. Not hers.

Believe me I totally think that there should be payment by the man for the upkeep and living expenses of jointly produced children. But, everyone knows things do not always go as planned. This means that he may bail and may not pay. For anything. Ever. Or may not see the children. Everyone knows this at the time of having kids so surely you plan for this from an employment and financial security point of view-ie Plan Z. No one hopes ever to have to run on Plan Z but you need to be able to surely? Lots of single parents do. They don't then turn around and ask new partners - either yours or exes- to cough up cash for said children.

@JuicyStrawberry

I think the payment is low enough that those who complain about/mess around payments/find loopholes to get out of it should be punished. If that punishment includes going after new live-in partners, then maybe these men would get the message thatbthe behaviourniant acceptable.

An NRP pays £184 of their £1397 net pay for their children.

Yes that might sound a lot of money if you then factor in the RPs contribution too and every month you probably don't pay that much, but over the course of a year, factoring in housing costs to accommodate my children, school uniform, school trips, extra curricular activities, birthdays and Christmas and God knows what other costs they accrue, I bet I spend more than the child maintenance and my 15% contribution.

Of course I would try and cut my budget first, but if I had 75% of my wage left I would be unable to buy/rent a small place and pay bills/basic expenses to run it and eat! I have children. If I have spare money, the majority is spent on them but if not, it does affect them in the sense we might go for free days out etc. Earning wages of £9000+ a month are not achievable for most people.
Everyone has their own experiences and reasons for their view, but I know many people who genuinely struggle to make the payments demanded and many women who have said they have never been as well off as they were as a single mum, due to the benefits and maintenance combined. That isn't right. The circumstances of each party are not taken into account. You could have NRP paying maintenance whilst struggling on £16,000 a year while RP demands it (legally) whilst earning £200k for example.

The rates change dependent on earnings, so someone with a high wage will pay proportionately less even though they have more to give. The system does not work IMO. Most people don't earn nearly £1,400 a week.

@MumOfTwoMasterOfNone

That's an absolutely fair point. My ex has never paid and I didn't go after it as he was a very low earner and probably could have come after me for half the house. Since he wanted nothing to do with the kids, I didn't fancy handing over half my house. I'd only get a couple hundred a month, so it wasn't worth the risk of provoking a claim from him. But I could afford to not ask for it. A lot of people can't. And other high earners will still demand it from low earners even when they absolutely don't need it.

But if you start making legislation that lets them off once a certain wage descripency between parents is met, then it reinforces to the whole population that maintenance is optional. It's hypocritical of me to say that, but the law needs to be that they must pay. People can be fair between themselves, but if you put it into law, then others use it as an excuse because "some people don't have to pay".

"They don't then turn around and ask new partners - either yours or exes- to cough up cash for said children."

The law does, that's why Women lose their Tax credits and sometimes Child benefit etc, when a new partner moves in.

Likewise, even in the case of two unemployed Parents moving in together, they can lose out in benefits.

We need consistency on what we expect of blended families and step parents ( they are step parents even if you don't marry).

There have been campaigns going on since the 80's, to have a more punitive system against NRP who contribute nothing to their children. it just isn't acceptable any longer. if this makes deadbeat NRPs terminally single, well that's a good thing, they shouldn't be inflicted on any other children.

HughGrantsHair, lets not make this another situation were Women are blamed for the actions of the Men that they live with.

It's shameful that the US has this under better control than us.

You could have NRP paying maintenance whilst struggling on £16,000 a year while RP demands it (legally) whilst earning £200k for example

Why does the RP being well off mean that an NRP no longer has any financial responsibility for the upbringing of his/her children?

Interestingly, we have thread after thread about greedy ex-wives and how they should go out and earn money if they want/need it. Lower earning single mum’s are considered lowest of the low. But higher earning RP (who would be mainly women) should let lower earning NRP’s off? Really?

Well if it was my personal situation and I was a high earner and I'd left my partner for someone else, morally I think it would be wrong of me to deprive him of income which he could spend on his (our DC) and his necessary bills. I understand this couldn't be done, but not every RP is a blameless victim. Mumsnet itself is proof that there are a lot of bitter, unreasonable people in the world. Yes, there are NRPs where enforcement needs to happen, but there are also decent, honest people being ruined by this system. Not everyone chose to be a NRP and have to pay/contribute significantly to two households.
If this suggestion were enforced, would the income of the RPs new partner result in a deduction? No it wouldn't. You can't have it both ways!

No it shouldn't be based on household income.

I work hard, I have to provide a lot for my own kids that aren't considered as outgoings for CMS due my dc disability so we would struggle if My income were included. I also get disability allowance for my dc due to her complex needs.

Our finances are separate for a reason and there is no way I would want my wages and my dc disability allowance going towards my dh ex, resulting in my dc having to go without.

I would never expect my ex h gf to pay for my dc, it's his responsibility not hers ( and I'll add that despite having a good job my ex refused to pay CM for 3 years...)

What you ex has done is wrong, but it's not her doing and whatever their childcare set up, it's not her responsibility to pay your maintenance

Too some people you may think the rate is low, but we couldn't afford to pay more than what we do in CSA because of travel
Expenses to see them too, which csa didn't rake into account in our case like they do some others. My eldest son doesn't have half of what's i Use to give him now that we have to pay maintenance and all the travel. Plus what he spends when he sees the kids. Again though CSA picking and choosing as they should take the travel expenses into account as we provided the evidence they wanted.

No. It's typical that when a man Is being a feckless shite some people want a way for another woman to have to pay for him.

Umm why should she? Your exes kids not hers.she works hard to support her kids,not yours. It would be opening a can of worms. Even if a dad did pay for his kids,if the new partner earns more or had kids of her own or she had kids with that man, it would be unfair on them.also it would give the few bad mum's an extra weapon to batter or control an ex with,e.g I don't like your new girlfriend. You sound very bitter. Swallow it,leave him to get on with it and be the best mum you can be. Your kids will come to their own conclusion, who their better parent.

It may not sound much child maintenance, but the non registered parent still has to live (even on his own). Rent,utilities, water,council tax,maybe a car,if no car travel expenses,shopping etc. I can see it from both sides but there is too much bad mouthing on both sides. There's crap/decent dads and crap/decent mum's too. My nephew doesn't have a car but will walk 10 mile round trip to see his daughter and spends every penny he has left after bills,on his daughter. My partners ex spent her child maintenance on bingo and fags,then borrowed money off family to pay for the electric.

I never said women should pay for choices their new partner made in the past. I never said if a man os working a new partner income should be included in any calculationnade. However, if they make a choice as a family that the man should stop working, for whatever reason, his cms shouldnt be able to just be stopped. He, and they, once a family, have a moral and financial duty over the previous children. If your decision effects them, the new partner should be prepared to make a payment. Why should a previous child be ignored because of choices youve made?

They're not married, this isn't a blended family, she's never even met your children.

Why should she pay for your children?

They are as far as tax credits are concerned. Their income os combined as a household. Why should cms be any different? He is considered financially responsible for her children. She should have the same responsibilities over his.

Is your new partner financially supporting your kids?