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.

Firstly, kids are not a problem. That's such an offensive way to speak about them.

Secondly, it doesn't matter if he doesn't want too. Without her, he'd have to get a job and would legally be required to pay - the CMS would just take it if he refused. But with her, he can not bother to work and therefore avoid payments. It is a loophole that too many dickhead fathers use, so it should be closed up.

When you get into a serious relationship with someone with kids, they become part of your world, even if only financially, but they are relevant and should not just be ignored. Unfortunately, there are too many morally bankrupt people out there who will say that since the law doesn't make them, they won't pay. The loophole should be closed.

It would have been closed a long time ago if the genders were reversed, as men would never stand for women finding ways to not pay for their children in huge numbers.

Noone should enable a parent to not financially support their children.

If the shoe were on the other foot, I bet she wouldn't be happy if her ex did the same.

If they live together then yes i think it should. As most other benefits are based on a household income.
If they don’t live together then maybe not.

Why should she have to tell him/make him do anything?

Does the poor man not have a brain?

Does she wipe his arse for him too?

Maybe she should have a little self respect then and not let a man who is such a loser be the SAHP to her children.

If she had any self respect she wouldnt support him anyway

I agree. The new gf has no responsibility for his kids but she doesn’t have a responsibility to use her earnings to clothe and feed him or put a roof over his head either. If they’ve come to an arrangement where she is working to cover the family outgoings while he cares for her kids (which he also has no responsibility for) I see no reason why cm shouldn’t be an essential part of that. If he/she doesn’t like it he can always get off his arse and get a job and pay for them himself.

Maybe she doesn't know the full story?

Maybe she does and doesn't care.

Still doesn't make her half as bad as your husband who doesn't want to pay for his kids.

Shes been made aware of everything, right down to why he doesnt see his kids, by her sister. Her sister who is now concerned for the kids so took her propf of what happened and she is still chosing to allow the situation to happen. She is well aware but free child care

lola Why do you care?

Sorry, I've only read half of the thread as I suddenly realised I'm sure I've read a thread from the other side of this in the last year or so.

I'm absolutely sure a poster started a thread asking if she was unreasonable to not pay for her DP's children. They, as a family, had made the decision that as a family the best arrangement for them was that her DP should be a SAHD, possibly once she'd finished maternity leave for the baby she was expecting. My memory of this is very hazy so forgive me if I'm wrong with some details. She was told, by pretty much every poster replying to her, in no uncertain terms that she should be covering CM out of her salary as that was an expense which needed to be considered when making the decision for her DP to be a SAHD and it should be paid out of household income.

Aha! Found it!
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/2936453-Dsc-new-baby-and-maintenance

Because i think its disgusting he is legally allowed to wash his hands of financial responsibility over his kids and i find it outrageous another mother whos ex pays for his kids is allowing it to happen. And that they then have all the latest consoles and games and are off on a two week holiday. They can easily afford to atleast contribute to the kids. They have chosen not to. I think its wrong that can be a choice made.

@flamingofridays

Are you high? She cares because her kids will be missing out on things they could have if their dad and his little gf paid their share.

But then why should she have to care? She didn't choose for him to have kids, and as I stated it earlier she is probably struggling financially too. As I did when my partner wasn't working. My benefits (along with what I wasn't full time) took a bashing when he moved in and didn't work and hence I wasn't a single parent anymore. She presumably has never met them and probably won't and why should her income be included when you don't know how much she is physically struggling herself now with bills. It could be that she had no choice to cancel childcare because he moved in. As a single parent I got £240 out of £300 a month paid for my childcare. When he moved in and was not working tax credits would only give me £100 towards childcare, less housing benefit and I wasn't a 'lone parent' which boosts it. And my council tax went up fully. Could be she generally doesn't have the money. He is in the wrong not her

HughGrantsHair

Nrp csa only goes down if new children are living with the Nrp. It wouldn't go down if the Nrp is supporting a spouse or caring or a relative. That's what I thought anyway.

What I'm trying to say is, Rp could marry a millionaire who starts supporting the kids but the Nrp will still have to pay csa. Nrp could have taken on debt or live in a very expensive area but none of that is taken into account. I think they should consider more than just 12% income that's all. It's about making sure the children are provided for. Not automatic money for rp whether they need it or not and at any cost to the Nrp quality of live and standard of living.

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
A previous poster wrote this ^
Why would you (a) have a child or children with someone who you know didn’t pay for their children and (b) expect him to pay child support for your child or children when you split when he still isn’t paying for the first ones?

Yep you're right it's disgusting.

However it is still his responsibility to provide for his own children. It's awful that he's not but it's not up to her to a) do it for him or b) make him do it.

@ilovemykids2018 but she has chosen to take advantage of the fact if he doesnt work they dont have the outgoings of cms and childcare. If it were in place that if the nrp wasnt working, household income is considered, they never would have made this choice. She wouldnt be using him as free childcare.

Single mum here
No I don’t think the partners income should be considered in CMS payments

However I do find it odd that they reduce benefits when a single parent moves in someone that they are having a relationship with. So it’s ok for the HMRC to factor in the earnings of the new person in to what benefits they receive. It’s like it is one rule for HMRC and one rule for single parents.

But its perfectly ok for her to benefit from his shitty parenting choices

@flamingofridays

When you live in a household with one working adult, their wage is family money. And as such, is used for all expenses. The law should reflect that child maintenance is permanent and non-negotiable expense so that in these situations, a parent can't say decide to quite their job and then not support their kids despite still having a household income.

Well yes, morally it's dubious but if he doesn't give a shit why should she?

But if it was changed she would be made to give a shit and men would no longer be able to just chose to ignore previous children.

Well that's different then Lola if she is taking advantage, however I was just seeing it from the other side that I wanted to keep my child going to nursery/childminders but I couldn't because they reduced all benefits for another adult living in the house. I had no choice but to allow him to be my childcare because if I didn't I couldn't have paid them.

Yeah as a single parent on housing allowance it states -loan parent supplement and council tax as a single pew tax is reduced by 25%.

Tax credits paid less in childcare help, as their response to me was he wasn't working so I don't 'need the childcare to work.'

If it were changed id guess in the vast majority of cases a woman would tell a man to stick it, go get a job, and refuse to support the kids. This in turn would force more men to either claim and pay or get a job and pay.