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.

@ilovemykids2018 if he were working he would earn more than enough to cover the loss in benefits. He is well educated and fully qualified in a job very common in our city.

@flamingofridays

You're missing the point!!! Whether he wants to support them or not, if he was working then he'd have no choice. The law forces him to pay. But he really doesn't give a shit so has been finding ways around it. The law is always changing to close those ways out.

Now, his newest way out is to move in and be supported by a new partner. He's been lucky enough to find a new partner who doesn't give a shit either. So the children lose out. The law should be changed to ensure that even though they don't care about his kids, his kids still need to be financially supported.

It's an obvious loophole and many people take advantage of it because people, in general, can be selfish and when you've got a man who refuses to support his kids, he usually ends up married to someone with similar morals.

It should not be individual morals which decide how much financial support a child gets. It should be a blanket "you pay for your child either from your wage if you work, or from household income if you choose not to work". Therefore no one can avoid it and no child is left without anything from one parent.

Ok so if it was made that the household income is what calculates child maintenance if he isn't working, then would people agree that rent, tax credits, childcare (if she was to send them), her previous debts if she has any etc and bills get taken into account. As o only paid my partners csa when he wasn't working as I got at the time £200 a month for my eldest from his dad so that paid his maintenance to her for the kids as such

Rocinante no I would not be happy, but I would not expect her to then pay. He's the one I'd be pissed off at.

Lola I think some men just cba as to work. My partner was like that and it took me months and months of refusing to
Give him play station money or money for crap etc and being tight and buying all the value food he didn't like as much as the branded to get him
To accept he needed to work. But she sounds like she wouldn't do that. What I think is sad is yes your kids miss out, but how much is she affecting her kids too. Xx

Why should she care? Because we would all like to live in a society where people are considerate of others otherwise if it was all for yourself, it would be an even more horrible place to live than it already is.

And one day, you might be in that person's position where you're wishing your ex's new partner cared for your children.

If my ex's new partner didn't give a shit about my children, I'd be thinking twice about wanting them to have anything to do with them. (I already know in the OPs case there is no contact)

I'll never agree that someone who has nothing to do with the kids should pay maintenance. He should have to pay yes of course he should.

@ilovemykids2018 he worked throughout our 15 year relationship and marriage. He studied to progress and got promoted. He chose to leave his job inorder to not pay me anymore and live of an inheritance he didnt want me to get any of due to out marriage. He emailed me this, blatantly telling me, knowing there was nothing i could do.

Ilovemykids, no because all of those expenses aren't taken into account for any child maintenance. It's a very small percentage anyway.

hugh unfortunately you'd have no say over that either.

He should have to pay now, out of their joint family income. He is contributing by providing childcare and saving the household childcare costs. She is benefiting financially at the expense of OP's children.

I never suggested a partner should be responsible for the same % taken from a fathers wage. But the kids should be considered and a smaller amount paif if they are prepared to be financially responsible for the nrp.

Hughgrant.. not really a small percentage when we look at our bills some months we are lucky to have a £5 left with paying ccsa and travel expenses, so I do think
Sometimes they need to be put into consideration because I have now defaulted on my loan and credit card from my previous marriage (which I paid as a single
Parent) because of what we pay out

Flaming, but her enabling him not to work means he isn't being made to pay.

If the threat was there that if an NRP gave up work to be supported by their partner, the household income would be used in the calculation, I can guarantee a lot less NRPs would give up work?!

Ilovemykids, his children and maintenance responsibilities should be figured into your family finances always. It is a priority debt. Before loans and phone bills and clothes.

What would you suggest though?

How would you police it? What constitutes a serious enough relationship that you solely become financially responsible for someone else's kids? Living together? Marriage?

I can see where you're coming from sort of but I still don't think it's fair, really. She might work all the hours under the sun to keep her kids fed but you want to take a % even tho you've two working adults in your household.

If I got in debt tomorrow, I can't stop paying for my children!

Lola I think some men just cba as to work. My partner was like that and it took me months and months of refusing to
Give him play station money or money for crap etc and being tight and buying all the value food he didn't like as much as the branded to get him
To accept he needed to work.

ilovemykids2018 My partner was the same at one point. As I said upthread he went through faze where he just didn't want to work. I didn't stand for it though and I certainly wasn't prepared to pay maintenance to his ex when I didn't choose for him not to work. Our dc was happy at nursery and thriving there so I was not prepared to pull him out of there so my that partner could be a "Sahp". It was either get a job or leave and I was very clear about that.

It doesn't matter how "serious" a relationship is. If your partner is a SAHP to your children, then your family finances should be considering his child maintenance.

@flamingofridays the moment you love together you are considered a household for tax credits etc. Cms should be the same.

*live

I think if your relationship is serious enough for you to be SAHP for their children then it's serious enough for other calculations too.

Well it does matter how serious it is. He might look after her kids every day and not live there (Not talking about ops scenario but In general)

And there are those that say step parents only become such on marriage..

Of course it doesn't. If you are enabling your partner to avoid work and paying maintenance, then your income should be considered.

What a pair of scumbags. How can she have this piece of shit in her house.