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.

If he was the one working his cms for biological children would be reduced for her children as he is considered financially responsible for them. So this should also work the other way round

I don't think her income should be taken into consideration. My cocklodger ExP had 2 children from his marriage and was being chased for child maintenance. He didn't pay but there's no way I would have paid, or given any details of my income. I kicked him out eventually once i realised what a mug i was, and he now doesn't pay for our DD together, and he's still being chased through CMS for the children off his marriage! It's down to the NRP to pay. I have no respect for men who arrange their lives not to pay for their own flesh and blood.

YABU. I’d go mental if I had to pay DH’s ex-wife out of our household income.

Sorry, your ex is a dick. (I have one of those too unfortunately) But his partner shouldn’t have to pay for her kids AND yours.

If he is not working in order to look after someone else's kids, that should be a deemed income - in that he is earning, she is paying him, in the form of board and lodging, and presumably spending money.
Appalling that he goes to these lengths to avoid paying for his own kids.
You're well shot of him.

He shouldnt be allowed to chose to not pay for his children and live off someone else wage regardless of what my income is

Of course. But you can't force him to work and you can't make her pay for your kids. Just like you couldn't force your partner to if he didn't want to.

Only two people are responsible. You and him. He has chosen not to work, not to see them and not to financially support them. He can do this. You chose to have children with the piece of shit. You could and did do this.

It's not her place to pay for the children you both decided to have.

I don’t agree that it should be formally considered but morally if DH stopped working to care for our children I’d expect maintenance for his DD to come out of our family money.
Your description of him indicates he’s not a great person tho so it doesn’t surprise me that he would purposefully avoid it

@mintbiscuit im not saying you should pay. At all. Im saying household income should be considered. When you take on a man with children there some responsibility there already, with contact, holidays etc. If the man is working then he can still cover the payments. Im not saying it should be calculated so the new partner is paying out. But they do, if they are living as a family, have responsibility over their partner kids. When my partners kids visit i cook And clean for them, pay for meals . I take them out. I care for them whilst he works. I buy them presents for birthday and christmas. I treat them as i do my own. He can pay from his wages the cms they calculated and it was dropped when he moved in with mean my three children but also because contact went up now he didnt need to take so many days of work. I also don't believe this was necessarily fair for his ex either. But he pays every month and we have them regularly.

Because he dosn't work and you work full time and are paying for childcare, he should step up and look after your children during the day to save you the money you spend on childcare that he should be paying anyway !!!

Win for him to see his own children more instead of spending all that time with his girlfriend's kids and he's also had 6 months babysitting experience!!

I'm assuming even if this was/has been suggested, he'd make up his excuses as to why it can't possibly happen.

Luckily your children have you and a responsible, loving parent and as they grow, will see what a deadbeat he has been.

Nope. Your kids are not her responsibility.

@sirlee66 he has chosen not to see them in 18 months. There was an incident for their own safety i put a stop to overnight contact, supported by social services after police were called. But i tried everything within my power to maintain some contact, through his parents, brothers, my family, contact centre, but he absolutely refused. He never really wanted the initial contact. I arranged it all, dropped them off with meals and clothes and collected them. Id have my then 9 year old daughter phoning me at 11am saying he was still in bed and she hadnt had breakfast etc. He was incapable of looking after them so i wouldn't allow him to have them now anyway.

I sometimes wonder if you could take out an advert in a local paper stating that such and such does not pay child support and hasnt for so many months. Its not slander, as its true. Defamation ? Well it certainly defames them, but again is true !

@flamingofridays but according to cms her kids are his financial responsibility?

They are if they live with him. Your kids don't live with her.

The amount payments change for resident children is tiny.

@MyfavouriteCauliflower Fab idea! You should also be able to do a profile search to see if they have a criminal record (a history of DV for example) and if they have children from a previous relationship they refuse to pay for.

I wonder if the OP's Ex's girlfriend would have got into a relationship with the Ex had she known?

It still changes as he has financial responsibility. Maybe the % should be leas but if youre prepared to support a man with kids who doesnt work you wo he doesnt have to pay, then maybe theyd make better lifestyle choices.

And btw, he wasnt a deadbeat when we had children. We were married working full time with a 4 bed detached house well above the average for our area. We did pretty well. It all went down hill when i left him when he had a personality transplant and turned into a deadbeat. This isnt the man i chose to have kids with. One of them is a facade and i believe its the one i married.

Sorry for the really bad typos. I cant use this stupid new phone.

Well yes, it's galling that he can legally choose to give up work and look after someone else's kids whilst opting out of supporting his own. He can't have much of an inheritance though if they get tax credits, pretty sure there's a savings threshold. I don't think basing cm on household income is a bad idea as then all those dead beat non-payers who choose to give up work would end up single and lonely as no woman would go near them if they thought they'd end up paying for someone else's kids, which quite frankly is no more than men like that deserve. If it's any consolation OP she'll probably get fed up supporting him when the inheritance dwindles and her kids are in school all day whilst he lays about.

@EscapistTendencies only interest on savings above £500 a year is considered by tax credits. But bu all accounts the inheritance is gone which is why he has moved in with her ;)

I kind of agree.

The CSA/CMS include how many children she has and deducts from the resident parents receiving amount.

This isn't fair as it doesn't work both ways.

What an idiot, he's given up work and spent his inheritance (all to avoid paying for his children) and is now reliant on his gf to support him. She will get fed up of the cocklodger at some point and he'll find it very difficult to find employment with a massive gap in his work history. Doesn't help you but his future isn't looking too rosy is it?

I think in this case his partner should be paying him to look after her dc and then a part of that money could then go to the op for their dc.

I think his inheritance should be counted: if he has lots of money in the bank and is of working age, then they should take a percentage for the support of his children.

I don't think her income should be taken in to account because she has no responsibility towards your children. I know that sounds harsh but it's the truth.

Some women are stuck with lazy men who happen to have children from a previous relationship and the woman is basically just doing her best to keep going. The last thing she would then need is their lazy partner's ex wife punishing them further by taking a cut of her hard earned money. As I said, the children aren't her responsibility.

It is even worse when the dad is paying maintenance and meets a new partner, and his ex thinks he should now be paying more because of his new partner. Naahaa, go and run love!

I don't think the newspaper thing would make any difference. Plenty of woman beg into relationships with dead beat dads . My ex said women don't care that he doesn't see his kids. And most people I know irl think it's normal for men to not pay.

@BewareOfDragons yep. And fought and fought for that but as it isnt a taxable income its dismissed.

The only positive is we are yet to be divorced - he refuses to sign paperwork and up until recently we couldnt find him to court bailiff serve him. But im hoping to find out if i can claim any of this for the children since he received the money whilst we were technically married and he wasnt paying support. I doubt it will be possible though.