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.

No it wouldn't make a difference and you're conflating two seperate issues - household income and how and why it is assessed and CMS.

HE is responsible for your children. SHE is not. Her earnings when she's been in a relationship for 6 months should not be considered to be his/household earnings when calculating CMS or for any other 'debt' he has.

olaLouise

I never said women should pay for choices their new partner made in the past

Erm no that's exactly what you're saying

What she and most others who are agree are saying is ...

If the rule was, you become a SAHP, you still have to pay your child maintenance SOMEHOW, these men wouldn't become SAHPs. They would be working and providing for their children.

@flamingofridays im saying a man should pay. If a woman takes on financial responsibility for him, allowing him not to work, that bill should still get paid. She has a choice to take responsibility or make him take responsibility. If you live together these decisions are made jointly. Making a decision to not pay for previous children shouldnt be allowed to happen. At all.

No you're saying he doesn't want to pay so you think she should. Because she's giving him the money and he's giving it to you doesn't mean he's paying. It's still her money that she's earnt. Your kids are not her responsibility.

You're saying you want a woman to have to essentially force your husband to do something. Why the fuck should she?

Has your husband not got a brain?

She has a choice to take responsibility or make him take responsibility

Stop making it womens responsibility to sort out mens fecklessness!!

But if shes made a decision to have him provide free childcare for her kids, my kids become her responsibility as they are acting as a family unit. No one is making her pay. She could quite easily tell him to go out and get a job. Why she hasnt is beyond me as his earning potential is far greater than hers and they would be far better off than they are now.

I suspect she is actually claiming tax credits as a single parent still. Which is why he isn't working. Im waiting to hear back from my solicitor but i suspect, all though he is living there full time, this hasnt been made official. (Solicitor is nothing to do with cms, its as he refused to sign divorce paperwork and i now need to bailiff serve him, however, we need a registered address to do so and so far he has been NFA) if thats the case and he isn't registered as living there, then tax credits will be notified and maybe he will be forced to find employment then.

No. Your kids are not her responsibility.

What don't you understand about that?

She didn't give birth to them, adopt them or take them in. They're not her responsibility.

And now you are starting to sound bitter. Her warning potential and tax credits have sweet fa to do with you.

Sounds more like you just want revenge now tbh.

No your kids are not her responsibility.

I really don't understand why you think they should be.

If i know he is living there full time but its not reported and she is claiming as a single person, again, its moral obligation to report that to the relevant bodies. I wouldnt sit on information of anyone committing fraud. Which i suspect it is.

I dont want her to pay. I want him to have a flat rate he has to pay. No zero rate. Im talking £5 per week as with benefits. Anything that forces him to take responsibility and not pretend they dont exist.

He doesn't have a job. It would be her money. She would be paying you.

How on earth do you know she's claiming as a single person?

Are you still in love with your ex? It seems that you have difficulties accepting that he has moved on and leaving you in the high and dry.
Your anger should not be directed against her, she is only doing what any mother does: providing in the best possible way for her children. She is giving him a home he is looking after her children...
My suggestion would be to see if you can get a similar deal? As he obviously doesn't want to give you money. Does he live local? Could he have his own children while you work or as holiday cover? That too would safe you money...

I dont know that. However my solicitor is currently obtaining information of his address after i gave it to them regarding our divorce. I cant bailiff serve him the paperwork unless we have proof he is living there. Ive tried previously when i knew he was staying at friends and his parents. There needs to be documentation thats his address to serve him. If my solicitor comes back and says she cannot get the proof so i cant serve him, then i know he is living there and they havent disclosed it. Maybe they have told tax credits and if it gets reported theres no harm done. Hopefully he had cos id give anything to get this divorce sorted. I hate still being married to him and i have another year before i can apply without his signature or bailiff serving.

Well if you've maliciously reported her then I expect you'll most definitely be getting sweet FA from her in the future. Just cutting your nose off to spite your face now.

I think your ex sounds like a tool & has treated you badly, however YABU, to expect a woman he’s been with for only 6 months to pay for your children

@sinue. I havent loved him in years. If at all given my new relationship and how i see it now. My kids were removed from his care by police and social services back when he had them. Back when i arranged it, drove them to and from his house, provided them with food for the night and still had phonecalls from them at 11am saying he was still in bed and they hadnt had breakfast and were bored. Bow he isnt allowed unsupervised contact. If i do so and another incident occurs, i could be charged with neglect or placing a minor at risk by leaving them alone with someone with known alcohol problems. Social services told me not to, so i stopped over night. I offered supervised, with his family, my family, i contacted a contact centre to self refer but he never responded. If he wanted to see them when he got his inheritance the first thing he would have done is hire a family lawyer but he didnt. So no, him helping with childcare is not an option. I wish it were. Id take shared custody over money any day of the week. My kids are hard work, particularly my eldest. I get no breaks at all from them, i work in a highly stressful job. So im bitter in that regard yeah, this was never something I envisioned happening when i had 3 children with him, he was a decent man with a hood job and we owned a home. Im moving on with a new partner and im happy with him, i just wish all the parenting responsibilities werent on me. My partner is still too new in their lives to help in that aspect at all.

Please remember that this is all new information to me too. He has been missing for 18 months. Bar occasional nasty emails and evil reports to social services theres been no contact what so ever or able to find him via legal routes. All this information i found out over the past two weeks having a chance meeting with her sister and becoming friendly with her. We were in a training course together and clicked. Talked over breaks and light over the week and facts came to light. Ive not had much time to process it all so yeah im angry about it still.

Its isn't his new partners responsibility to pay for your children it's his. He chooses not to work and reporting them to tax credits isn't going to really make a difference. If he isn't working she would get more money not less due to the family element surely? It sounds like your children are better off without him and instead of being bitter about it maybe you should just be proud of what you are able to provide for your children without him!

It's not new though is it. Your husband told you he wasn't going to pay. He still isnt.

Doesn't make a difference who he us living with.

It's his decision not to pay.

If the inheritance is now gone it does make a diff as he would have to be either claiming or working without her support

No it doesn't it's still his choice and responsibility not hers.

He would be paying something without her support tho, he would have to as i would do collect and pay as soon as its flagged he has an income.

Doesn't matter. Your kids are not her responsibility.

But they are his so he should be on a flat rate that he has to pay regardless of anything else. He should be forced to support his kids so babysitting someone elses isnt an option.