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.

By this token, presumably her children shouldn't be taken into account when calculating CMS if he were working?

And if you don't want your money to go on some random child, don't live with a deadbeat father who won't provide for his own children.

@HellenaHandbasket everything should be taken into consideration and individually assessed. Most people can come up with a financial agreement themselves so cms isnt even needed. Initially we did, and it was much less than the cms calculated off his wage. He then swapped jobs and got a promotion, bragged about the promotion, and made me and my kids homeless by moving back into the family home so we had to leave. I was unable to force him out of the house so me and my kids spent a summer on the floors of friends and families houses, not even all together. Diff kids in diff houses. But i still left is as the amount off his old wage. This lasted approx a year, even after the contact stopped he paid, but then he emailed and said hes quitting his job as he doesnt want to pay and he knows i cant get the inheritance atm so hed rather live off that. Thats when i contacted cms who calculated the zero rate. I could provide evidence he was deliberately avoiding paying but as he had zero taxeable income, it was ignored. Its not right that can happen.

Men should be made to support their children and face consequences if not. Just as women who with hold contact with no legal standing should. I went above and beyond to try and get him to see them, even after he stopped paying, i tried to get him to see them with family. But as it is, he doesnt care at all. And whilst my kids are probably better off without him, and whilst im able to provide them with all they need, whilst teaching them morals and taking responsibility for yourself. They see how hard i work to get them every thing they have. It doesnt make it right he is able to walk away.

@HughGrantsHair exactly!

I don't think in a normal step family situation the new partners income should be considered. But when it's clear this pair have come up with an arrangement specially to get out of paying then yes, the joint income should be considered.

I also don't think someone choosing to live with other people's kids should get a reduction in maintenance. Why on earth should this decision negatively impact on the children they are actually responsible for.

Op, you openly admit that your dp,s ex had her CM reduced when your dp moved in because your 3 kids lowered his payments, surely then you wouldn’t mind giving your income to the Csa as well so you are paying towards the amount also. After all it is family money and by your reasoning your wages should be calculated also.

You can’t have it both ways.

@Wateroffaduck i never argued otherwise. I never said my income should be exempt. I said it should be considered. Along with children i am financially responsible for. Childcare i pay for. Everything regarding income and children should be considered. I also said it wasnt fair her cms went down even though on the other hand the amount he has the children went up ad he no longer has to use annual leave or depend on being allocated decent shifts. Her cms should have remained the same when he moved in with me despite my children

OP Whether he is an appropriate provider of childcare to her DC is her call - it certainly isn’t yours.

And if you want the money to come out of their household it’s no use saying that you don’t want her to pay, you want him to pay. It comes to the same thing and it won’t do.

Don’t get me wrong - I’m not defending NRPs who don’t pay. But it is no use saying that payment should be “strictly enforced” - the means of enforcing the payment of civil debt are limited and often futile. Ask anyone in business with an unsatisfied judgment debt.

I never said i know how it works. It obviously wouldnt be fair if a new partner were earning a 6 figure salary and that goes to the ex wife. That would be stupid. If a man is earning a decent wage and pays for his kids then fine. But if the resident parent can prove they have deliberately orchestrated a family set up that means they pay no cms or childcare and theres 3 other biological children, there should be things in place to make the man pay. Even if its the same £5 a week he would have to pay on benefits. He doesnt have a zero income as they calculated. He has an income from her.

I'm a single mum, but I'm well off. I'm dating a single dad who has his kids around 30% of the time so he pays maintenance. He is not well off so he pays the CMS amount plus school uniforms and school trips. We're talking about the future; if we become one household, we will increase what he pays his ex. We will be a family, his children will stay in our home during his days, so why should they have such a different standard in living from their step-siblings. We'd take into accoubt my finances, and pay accorsingly.

It might be different if there would be no contact ever, I don't know but my conscience wouldn't let me leave kids with such a disparity in wealth when they are part of a blended family.

IMO, if you become involved with another parents and then love together or marry, you are agreeing to be a step parent to their children, and that should include helping support those children if your partner gives up work because you want enough. Those kids still need supporting, and the only reason your partner isn't working is cos you've agreed to support them - so you need to support the kids as well.

Going against the grain here hugely.

Yes, it should be based on household income.

She took him on, she took his kids on too. Whether he sees them or not.

Maybe guys wouldn't be such shit dads/women allowing their bf's to be such shit dads if they knew they had to pay for their kids!

Her attitude and morality is disgusting

No, your husbands is.

What don't you get about the fact they're not her responsibility?

The money she may or may not give him is nothing to do with you. If she gives him.moneu he could give it to you but he doesn't.

You wouldn't blame his employer for paying him instead of giving it to you directly.

You're blaming the wrong person.

@flamingofridays you seriously think its morally ok to set up a situation where you are financially better off at the expense of 3 children. Yes, hes worse. Completely. He set up the situation long before her and will no doubt find ways to not pay long after het. However, she is knowingly enabling this for her financial gain. That makes me question her morals and imo quite rightly. I wouldnt allow it in my household or be with a man who could turn his back on his kids. By being ok with his morals it reflects on hers and tells me she is no better.

They're not her kids to consider. It's his responsibility not hers.

You need to stop blaming her you're making yourself look unhinged.

Again - your kids are literally nothing to do with this woman. They're your husbands responsibility. It's not up to her to consider your children financially, morally etc it is up to your husband.

I don't necessarily think it should be entirely on household income, but I do see where the OP is coming from: The situation where CMS would deem her XP to have financial responsibility for the new partners children (by classing them as his dependents and therefore reducing what he has to pay) but where she isn't deemed as responsible for his is a bit nonsensical IMO.

Personally I would like to see a bare minimum specified - no zero rate - with strict enforcement penalties for non payment.

Looking at it the other way - if it was the new partner who had decided to become the SAHM being supported by the OP's ex, then he would have taken on financial responsibility for her children as they'd need to be fed, housed etc and he would be paying the bills. Paying at least a minimum level of maintenance should be classed as one of those bills to be paid where the children are non resident.

No I don't think her income should be taken into it, because her income is there supporting her children and you don't know whether her ex is paying her CSA or not so she could be struggling anyways... it's the father's responsibility he choose to have the kids not his new partner and unfortunately regardless of whether he saves her childcare or not she will be paying out costs for him living in her home the extra council tax, electricity and heating and she won't get the tax credits to help.

My partner has two kids, and he was working whn we were first together and then he stopped for his own reasons. He then moved in officially with us, as up until that point he stayed 3 nights with us and 4 nights at work. My tax credits were no better having a unemployed adult, a child and me than it was just me and my child. My council tax reduction of 25% for a single adult was taken off me and I got something like £5 a week saved of instead. So we really struggled when he wasn't working. There was no extra hours and work I could take up as it was doing 40 and they couldn't afford to give out more hours, and two jobs would have meant me missing time with my child for my partner which isn't fair. I only paid the csa myself to her so she would let them come and stay with us still and because my ex husband was paying me maintenance. If he I wasn't I wouldn't have afforded it. I did reduce what I was paying her compared to him as he was paying £320 a month and I couldn't afford that and his wages when he was working said she was only entitled to £160 so that's what I paid.

I get it's frustrating but you choose to have the kids as much as him, and you get the child benefit, tax credits, housing allowance etc. I am not trying to be harsh or horrible but it sounds like all you want is money out of him and not to concerned about his contact? Which is sad when my partners ex is like it as it's not fair on the kids, plus fo and don't help them form bonds with the step mum etc.

@LolaLouise

Ignore flaming... they made a joint decision for him to stop work to be a sahp to her kids. This deciosn means she agreed to take on all financial responsibility for him. One of his responaibilites is supporting his kids, so she absolutely should pay as they have agreed that she is financially responsible for him so that he can care for her kids.

I honestly think that if the majority of single parents were men, and it was women who behaved like your ex (and all other men who avoid paying) then the laws would have been changed long ago to ensure payments could not be avoided. But it's women who are usually left with the kids, and we've never been as important when it comes to legislation. Give it 100 years and things will maybe progress.

God no. His kids, his responsibility. His new partner and her children shouldn't lose out just because your ex won't do the right thing for his own children.
However I would wonder why she's in a relationship with someone who treats his children in such a shoddy way.

Nope. They're not her kids, end of story. And I am a single parent.

My exh lives with his long term partner and they both work in good jobs, well paid with no kids between them. Their income is over twice what mine is as a single parent, they have 2 cars, a big house and multiple foreign holidays a year. I do not expect her income to be taken into account as my DS is not her responsibility. I have a private maintenance arrangement with DS's father based on his wage only.

@BitchQueen90

And if they have kids, and he decided to be a SAHP - you'd be happy to be paid nothing?

If the parent carries on working; then only his wage should be counted. But if they, as a couple, make a decision for him not to work in order to care for children or whatever, then she is agreeing to take on all financial responsibility for him. Why should his financial responsibility to his kids not be included? They know those kids need supporting, they make a joint decision for him not to work, she then pays for everything... But they just don't bother about the kids.

And that's just OK with everyone?

Didn't you say they're on tax credits? So the woman is on a low income, supporting kids and a live in partner/babysitter and you want a slice of her income as well. Doesn't really seem fair. She may have made a shit choice getting with your ex but it's not fair to make her support your kids as well.

I actually think the whole system needs changing, it should be means tested on the rp. If a new partner moves in to support the kids the nrp csa should go down and if your supporting a non working spouse the csa should go down. It should also be after tax income not before and it should only be on basic pay.

Not her kids, not her responsibility?

Well in that case, when a resident mother lives with a new partner , his income shouldn't be included in any calculations for finances regarding her children then.

Oh but it is isn't it?

It's the blase attitude of "not my kids, not my problem" that contributes to the attitude in the UK that men can get away with not paying for their children.

How anyone could ever live with a man who chooses not to financially support his own children is beyond me.

Bitchqueen - that's a different situation. The OP is saying when a father and their new partner chooses to become a SAHP and to not provide for their child(ren) then the "household" income should be included.

If an NRP is depriving himself of income, a household income should be used.

Dietcoke, in all your scenarios, child maintenance goes down. You do realise it's very hard to get maintenance paid in a lot of cases already and a lot of the time the amount is a pittance. And you want them to pay less?

From a different perspective:
DH is a SAHP, we have one DS and I work full time. He used to work and always paid maintenance, however a while back circumstances changed and for various reasons we decided it would be best for him to be SAHP for a while at least. This means in theory he has to pay no maintenance.
He has two DSs with his ex, whom I support financially and am more than happy to do so. Whilst they aren't my children I treat them as if there were, and I see my income as family income and DSs. I'm not a mug, it's my choice, just happy to support my step children and their mum.