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.

Yes, it should be based on household income.

TodaysMostPopular Household income as in what exactly? It should be dad's wage only and nothing else.

Justonecornetto - the world needs more people like you.

Why should it Juststrawberry?

That is the rule at the moment but people are debating whether that rule is right.

Why should it only be the father's income when a woman lives with a new partner and that new partner's income is considered for all benefits, student finance etc etc

Exactly. Her benefits have already gone down so wh should she then pay towards his maintenance too? She has to put her kids first.

He should still pay the same amount of maintenance and it shouldn't go down because of stepchildren/new children. But it also shouldn't go up either because of her wages and benefits she may get for the children resident in her household. The only time it should go up is if he gets a pay rise.

@JuicyStrawberry

Because, before making the decision for him to quick work, they would have sat down together and gone through their finances. As she was taking on all financial responsibility for him, she would need to see all his expenses. Paying for his kids is an expense that should not be ignored. They would know that the cost of raising those kids does not go down simply because he quite his job.

The jointly decided for him to quit his job. They jointly decided for her to financially support him. But they should just ignore the kids he's meant to pay towards?

She may. But her new partner shouldn't be allowed to put his children last.

They have found ways to make an NRP support their child when they've found loopholes, such as self employed etc.

So they need to find a way to tackle this loophole.

If it doesn't make financial sense for the NRP to be a SAHP and the partner to pay child maintenance out of the household income, then the NRP should go and get a job so his and her children are being provided for.

Dietcoke you seem to be suggesting that the resident stepparent should have financial responsibility to the point the actual parent pays less, but the non resident stepparent has no financial responsibility at all. How is that fair?

they made a joint decision for him to stop work to be a sahp to her kids

No they didnt. He quit work because of his inheritance.

The arguments about tax credits etc are bollocks.

It's not comparable at all.

That's different though and that's not the scenario I'm talking about. I'm talking about if his partner is working as well as him and her wages being taken in to account too. That's just greedy. If they have chosen for him to be a sahp then the maintenance should still be paid through her, and that's absolutely reasonable. But any benefits such as child benefit or DLA for a child of that household should be fully disregarded in any scenario.

That's exactly what I'm saying Juicy. I don't think there should be a blanket rule where all partner's of NRPs and RPs incomes should included.

Only in this situation where the NRP is able to avoid paying maintenance by being a SAHP.

Flaming - OP says the inheritance is gone. He can only continue being a SAHP because his partner is working. If she wasn't, he'd have to get a job.

Well, he wouldn't. Plenty of people live off benefits? He'd have to look for a job. He wouldn't have to work.

Again. Not her kids. Not her problem.

Im
Not making her support my kids. But if you make a choice to support an unemployed man his kids should be part of that decision. If you dont want to do that, then dont live with a man with kids who doesnt have a job.

No adult who is fit to work should be living off benefits and especially one who has children to support. And they can't live off benefits, to claim jobseekers they have to seek work and go to interviews.

I think when a couple sit down and decide that the partner is going to be the one who works and the dad is a sahp then that is the only situation where I think the partner's earnings should be used to pay maintenance.
If the dad just can't be bothered working then no I don't think the same should apply. He should get a job and provide for his kids.

They jointly decided for him to become her childcare so she gains that income and he doesnt have to pay out. If his kids were legally a part of that id guess the decision would have been different. But as it stands he can legally ignore that responsibility.

Even on benefits he'd have to pay something which is more than he's doing now. His partner is getting free childcare and is financially better off at the expense of OPs kids. The pair of them are disgusting.

@flamingofridays

You're obviously one of those people who cannot fathom different scenarios and change your opinion once you think about it. So there is no point replying to you. His money is gone. He can't just live off benefits - he's have to meet conditions and seek a job, so eventually would have a job and pay for his kids. In this situation, they've agreed that she will pay for him. That agreement should take into account all of the kids. But you're so pig headed that you cannot admit that perhaps that's a scenario you hadn't considered and change your opinion on it. Because apparently his kids just don't matter.

What I'm saying is it's not her problem is it? It's his. If he wanted to support his kids, he would.

But he doesn't. Why should She?

His kids do matter. He should support them, but he doesn't want to, does he?

Why is that anyone else's fault but His?

Don't call names.

It wouldnt be her problem if she chose to tell him to get a job or move out and support his own kids not take advantage of the situation for self gain.

Actually in this case I don’t think YABU.

Their set up has effectively totally removed his earning power and therefore any calculations the CMS could make.

In this case that SHOULD count for something

Hes not an uneducated man. He is fully qualified in an area there are no shortage of jobs for in our city with high earning potential.

Actually OP I think you have a point but only if the new partner is the breadwinner and the NRP is a SAHP. I read a lot on here about “family money” and that the SAHP is just as entitled to spend it as the working parent so to me it makes perfect sense that the children from a previous relationship should be provided for out of that money. They’re part of the family too after all.