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 hate how being "bitter" is thrown into these discussions to undermine the OPs point. She 's not bitter or jealous that he has moved on and she has explained very clearly why that is the case. She is not asking the new partner to pay for her kids or for her to make the ex do anything, She is asking that there be a change in the law so that all NRPs MUST pay a bare minimum and can't be given a nil assessment based on no income. Its a nonsense. Its impossible to live on literally no income so are the CMS assuming that these people are starving in the streets? No. They are exploiting a loophole. The new partner absolutely can choose NOT to pay for his kids by NOT having him move in. Lots of people have said on here that new partners lose tax credits, council tax allowance etc if the person moves in with him but that is a CHOICE. In the OPs case the NRP and the new partner have chosen to arrange their lives so that they have no childcare costs and no maintenance to pay to HIS KIDS, not the OP, not the "bitter ex", his kids, that were not mistakes but planned and wanted children. It doesn't matter if the RP is a millionaire or remarried to one, the NRP should always have some financial responsibility unless they are assessed for PIP and cannot work. In most cases if they are not working they are on benefits and so a minimum amount can be claimed but in cases such as the OPs there is an economically capable adult choosing to set things up so he doesn't have to pay. IF the law were different and he was liable regardless, his new partner wouldn't be paying the maintenance because no doubt they would have set things up differently and he would have gone and got a job when his inheritance ran out. If she CHOOSES to live with someone who CHOOSES not to work then she is CHOOSING to take on financial responsibility for him and that includes his obligations.

flamingofridays you are being uterly ridiculous trying to impose this total moral and ethical cordon sanitaire around the new woman separating her from the shitty ex's actions. It absolutely does not wash, because his actions could not take place without hers. And she knows it. This is not person C standing silently by while person A shoots person B (which is morally questionable in any case but whatever). Person C gave person A the gun and is directly benefitting from person B's death. The fact person C doesn't know person B from Adam is neither here nor there, if they are knowingly enabling person A to harm person B when person B otherwise would not have the means to do so, they are culpable of that - not to the same extent as if they had fired the gun themselves but to a different crime.

The CURRENT law means she has no responsibility legally. The OP is pointing out that is morally unreasonable and saying things should be different. It's not about new woman being responsible for OP's children, or Shit Ex's actions; it's about being responsible for her own.

If you knew someone was abusing a child physically (as opposed to just financially as in this case), and were using your resources to do so - hey, it's not your child, nothing to do with you right? No obligation to lift a finger to prevent it, especially not if it serves your own purposes in some way.

Jesus some people will literally argue black is white once they get the bit between their teeth.

And all the people calling OP bitter, implying she's not over the ex etc because she is fighting to make sure he takes responsibility for his children rather than washing his hands of them (in fact going g to quite extraordinary lengths to do so rather than paying a nugatory fee from a substantial salary) - I do hope every time someone has failed to repay a debt they owed you, or done some harm to your kids, you have shaken it off like Taylor bloody Swift and never given a moment's thought to retribution or redress. Wanting justice for your kids and being willing to pursue it is just sooooo bitter and sad, am I right? 🙄

Also the people suggesting the OP should look into some sort of joint custody arrangement in lieu of getting any money out of him (wherever it might come from) - did you miss the bit where social services has been involved and deemed the ex unsuitable as a care giver of the children? Really??

But making her pay is not forcing him to support his kids. It's forcing her to, they're not her kids.

It's not about having an argument it's about having an opinion. I am allowed one after all.

Op does sound bitter reporting this that and the other though, And actually yeah. Dss mum is shit but do we dwell on it or do we just parent him instead? Have a guess.

Again op forcing the gf to pay isn't getting justice for her kids because she's going to the wrong person

YABU

Also the people suggesting the OP should look into some sort of joint custody arrangement in lieu of getting any money out of him (wherever it might come from) - did you miss the bit where social services has been involved and deemed the ex unsuitable as a care giver of the children? Really??

But yet she's happy to take some poor woman's money. He sounds like a right dick and he is probably putting on an act, so she thinks he's absolutely amazing. They are only 6 months in and there is plenty of time for her to see the true him. The op should back off and stop thinking she is entitled to this woman's money. If they were a long term couple and they sat down and made a decision for him to be a SAHD for the benefit of their stable family unit, then that would be an entirely different story. But it's not.

Well then flamingo how does the OP get the ex, whose responsibility it is, to pay? Or how should the law change to ensure her does? And does the woman consciously enabling him to harm his child really have nothing to be judged for? What would he do if she hoofed him out? I'll tell you what, he'd pay his bloody child support because he'd have no choice.

And re dwell or parent, it isn't an either or. OP can be a fantastic mum to her kids and pursue heir father to fulfil his obligations to then as their dad. Indeed some would say that part of being the one is doing the other.

Well she can't can she? See a solicitor?

No she shouldn't be judged she's looking after her own kids.

Yep and op would get what a fiver a week. How amazing would that be.

"But yet she's happy to take some poor woman's money. "
She isnt a poor woman, shes actively helping her deadbeat boyfriend in avoiding maintenance.
Op is the poor one here having to fight for money for her kids!

So, if a new partner’s income is taken into consideration, aren’t they, de facto, indirectly contributing towards the child’s upkeep? Then surely they would be entitled to some parental rights too? For example, if there was a breakdown of the relationship? Conversely, too if the RP has a new partner, shouldn’t their income be taken into consideration too, as you’d be expecting someone who is not the child’s parent to contribute simply because they live with the NRP.
Parents should be responsible for their children’s upkeep, not partners. New partners didn’t choose to have a child, so should not be factored into any related financial arrangements. Although in my experience, some partners do contribute and support.

A fiver a week is better than nothing. It would be reminding the NRP that he cannot absolve all responsibility. It would also keep the CMO linked to him so that when /if get ever got another job, the benefits department would notify CMO as soon as his benefits stopped and they could start proceedings quicker to reassess him on his new employment.

As it stands with his nil assessment, CMO can go a year without noticing the NRP is working because only yearly assessments are done when they check HMRC, unless the RP notifies them differently.

The OP isn't being bitter. She wants what her children rightly deserve.

Twofigs, when a resident parent has a new partner, that person is contributing to the children in the household. Their income is included in any financial calculations including the children. Are they given parental rights? No they are not. What a strange argument.

The income of the resident parent and any partners are not included in child maintenance calculations anyway.

"It's not about having an argument it's about having an opinion. I am allowed one after all. "
You arent though are you, You are calling op bitter and being really defensive of her scummy ex and his scummy gf who both have no morals.

Various policies have been tried about getting NRPs to pay, and yet it still seems that they are ineffective in some cases. Perhaps the courts should have some other options open to them- if you are unwilling to pay for your children, perhaps your passport should be withdrawn, so you cannot spend money on air fares and foreign travel? Or perhaps no driving licence, as if you cannot obey a court order, then you should not be trusted to obey the laws for driving? These would target the individual more than the household, and I agree with those who think the new partner's income should not be included as it is not their fault.

ForalltheSaints, CMO have powers to remove driving licenses but they don't want to use them.

I agree with angry!

The new partner isn’t blameless or a poor woman, OP said this arrangement saves a fortune on childcare.

New partner has let a man (who doesnt have care of his own children) look after hers, that’s always a questionable one for me.

Given there will likely also be NRP to these children it’s not a stretch to assume she will be fully aware of rules regarding CM and such.

Unfortunately as long as there’s a loop hole to be found NRP who want to will exploit it.

If the father of my child, whilst living with another woman decided to be the SAHP, then actually I think she should be paying as the money coming in to their household is 'joint' money. He is also unable/prevented from working by virtue of the fact that he's staying at home minding theirs/her kids, so actually yes she should be paying towards his CM for his existing kids.

New partners didn’t choose to have a child, so should not be factored into any related financial arrangements

That’s not the case, is it? If I were to move in with someone, my council tax would immediately increase and his income would be used to calculate entitlement to tax credits. There is an expectation, therefore, that any loss of income I may experience as a result of having a new partner is made up by that new partner. My ex wouldn’t have to,pay any additional maintenance, would he?

So why is it that there is no expectation whatsoever that my ex’s new partner has no responsibility whatsoever towards his children?

Sure it's been said as it's too long to RTFT but yeah I agree OP. Would protect women from getting involved with deadbeat dads and believing their lies if they knew getting involved would mean they contribute to the kids he's left behind

If my ex's new wife's salary was taken into account my daughter would be provided for properly instead of the pittance my self employed ex husband has managed to fiddle.

But if I moved in with my own new partner I'd lose all my child tax credits due to his salary even tho I'm not working at the moment. So he would have to make up the shortfall. He would then be expected in a few years to contribute towards my daughter going to uni as though she was his child, due to household income also being 'relevant' in this situation. Whilst her real dad, once she's turned 18, is absolved of all financial responsibility for her and able to throw even more cash than he already does at his new kids.

I don't actually think the OPs ex's new partner should contribute towards her children BTW but the laws in this country feel like a load of contradictory, frustrating crap sometimes. I'd be interested to hear what happens in other countries.

But if I moved in with my own new partner I'd lose all my child tax credits due to his salary even tho I'm not working at the moment. So he would have to make up the shortfall

Well, it would be kind of a given that he would contribute towards household costs if he lived there. If that means him paying more towards things like rent so you have more spare money for your children then what's wrong with that?
Just because he'd be contributing towards your outgoings it doesn't mean the nrp's partner should too. How would she benefit from paying for your food shop?

Tax credits / council tax are based on household income.

The children are not part of her household so it's irrelevant.

Getting into a relationship with someone who has kids living with them is different to one who's kids are not living with them.