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.

Nope.

Would it be okay for a resident stepdad to refuse to provide for his partner's first child whilst she was SAHM to their new baby? Or would it be called family money and he should of course help provide due to their joint choice to arrange their household in this way? Why is it any different for non resident couples? Is it because it should be acceptable to collude in neglecting children who live elsewhere? Kind of out of sight out of mind. And posters are defending this?

My partner became ill and went on sick pay for a few months while recovering. We continued paying the child maintenance despite our lowered income because it is a bill just like our mortgage. I couldn't just stop paying the mortgage because he's sick.

It would be shitty, yep.

As I've said that's an entirely difference scenario. Moving in with someone with kids is different to when the kids don't live there isn't it.

It's not our of sight out of mind at all. They're not her kids. It's his responsibility.

If you move in with someone's kids it's pretty fucking obvious you're financially responsible for them. Because you're in the same house.

When you're not in the same house of course it's different. She doesn't even know the kids.

He should be supporting them. He's a grown man - why is it up to a woman to either force him or foot the bill?

I'm sure OP's ex gets his phone bill paid. I'm sure he goes out for a pint, has cash in his wallet. Because they view it as their joint income (until his children need feeding that is).

It's her choice to pay that presumably she can stop if she wants.

Again, not her kids. Not her responsibility.

He should be working and paying for them. It's his decision not to.

Luna I have no problem providing for my partner's child for things like extras and obviously household related costs while they are here. I wouldn't see my partner struggle to pay for some new shoes for his child for example. What I won't do is contribute towards maintenance. The only time I would do that is if we decided that he will be a sahd for our children, but that won't be happening.

Why is it her money when he is contributing to the household as a SAHP? Would you tell a SAHM that she wasn't entitled to any say over the family finances because she didn't earn it and that it is all her partner's money?

It is her money when it comes to op tho isn't it?

I wouldn't expect anyone to work any pay for someone else's kids unless they wanted to.

It's family money in the sense that it pays for her family and he (maybe?) Has access to that money but imo in this scenario ops kids are not her family.

They are his family and he should be paying.

Well if it's family money it should include a contribution to his kids. If it isn't family money then it's hers alone and she has no obligation to his kids. I guess it depends if you think SAHPs are equal members of the household, contributing and should have equal access to money. I do. I think the money is his too as he is providing childcare and reduced her childcare bills to zero. She is making money at the expense of the OP's kids.

Luna you are totally right!

No pretty I really do and it's fucking hilarious that you don't believe me 😂

Yeh makes me laugh my ars of flamingo.

Off**

What would i have to gain by lying to a stranger on the internet?

Trying to make yourself seem more plausible? Who knows? Half of the stuff you have said I cant get my head around...

You would have already advance searched me if you had half a brain.

"You would have already advance searched me if you had half a brain."
I would if If I actually cared...But I am so sorry I dont...

Yanbu OP. Seeing as he is a SAHD and saving her childcare that she would otherwise pay then yes if course.

Heartless cow being with a man she knows won't pay for his own children.

Yoi say you have self respect and are financially independent,yet you are going after your ex?

Ah yes, that old chestnut. Women who expect their ex partners to make a contribution towards the upbringing of their children should be ashamed of themselves. Just greedy bitches, gold diggers, the whole money-obsessed lot of ‘em.

Misogyny rules on a forum populated mainly by women. Sigh.

@ohreallyohreallyoh right? I expected opposing views on expecting a partner to pick up the bill should a man chose to stay at home, but i thought women would be supportive of expecting cm payments of an ex partner regardless of my job status and income. You live and learn i guess.

You may find this thread interesting, Lola

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3108770-To-ask-how-you-justify-being-with-a-non-maintenance-payer

Whilst broadly I don’t agree it’s the responsibility of a new partner to cover maintenance, the number of women who hold up their hands and say ‘not my problem’ is staggering. The non-payment of maintenance should be socially unacceptable. We shouldn’t accept it. Ever.