Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think that sometimes a new partners income should be considered by CMS?

515 replies

LolaLouise · 27/05/2018 14:05

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.

OP posts:
flamingofridays · 27/05/2018 19:28

Even though the receiving household has two incomes?

Is that fair? Because that's the paying households kids that are going without then.

HughGrantsHair · 27/05/2018 19:30

Yes, if they would be worse off with the NRP being a SAHP then that will give the NRP and partner the kick up the butt to make him get a job. It's their choice.

HughGrantsHair · 27/05/2018 19:31

There will still only be one income in the NRPs family and two in the RPs.

flamingofridays · 27/05/2018 19:33

Ok so let's take away from one set of kids to give to a probably better off set of kids.

Rocinante1 · 27/05/2018 19:34

@flamingofridays

It should be the same as tax credits, council tax etc.

If you're living together, then that's that. If the parent decides to quit their job and live solely off their partners income, then that becomes the sole household income and should be used for CMS. That would be the easiest and simplest way to do it.

I take home just under £400,000 a year. I'm dating a man with 2 kids who earns around £80,000 a year. We're discussing moving in together. When he does, we're planning to then pay child maintenance to his ex according to our joint income. If we have children, then he'd be the one staying home... But we will stay pay whatever she needs. And I won't begrudge her a penny of it. I would never want his kids coming to our house for weekends and then feeling rubbish about going home to lesser standard of living. I want them to have the same quality of life as their step siblings.

Unfortunately, too many people just say "well, I don't legally have to so you'll get nothing". And it's the children who miss out - because the decision is being left up to morally bankrupt people who use every loophole available. It should be sealed in law that the only way to not pay is if you're dead.

Andrewofgg · 27/05/2018 19:35

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

Ha-bloody-ha. See post after post in thread after thread about self-employed NRP's not paying. It is impossible to collect debt, especially income-debt, from determined self-employed debtors. It's not just PWC's who find that out.

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

A person who is not the NRP does not have to pay is not a loophole and does not need tackling.

HughGrantsHair · 27/05/2018 19:35

That's something you should factor when you decide to get into a relationship with a person who doesn't want to support their children.

Why would you want that person around your children. They don't care about their children. They only care about yours because you're enabling them to stay at home all day, not do any work and most probably they are just trying to punish the ex because of course, all child maintenance gets spent on the RPs nails and boozy nights out

HughGrantsHair · 27/05/2018 19:37

Andrew you are missing the point.

If an NRP couldn't get away with not paying by being an NRP, they wouldn't do it. You won't need to go for the house hold income. The NRP would get a job because, as we can see on this thread, nearly all new partners are saying there's no bloody way they would pay for their partner's children.

flamingofridays · 27/05/2018 19:38

I don't know, I wouldn't want to be with someone like that but clearly some people do.

It's not a loophole. They're not her children.

She can choose to provide for them if she wants to.

HughGrantsHair · 27/05/2018 19:38

"by being a SAHP" I obviously meant.

HughGrantsHair · 27/05/2018 19:39

Yes she can at the moment Flamingo, we're saying perhaps they shouldn't be allowed to choose.

HughGrantsHair · 27/05/2018 19:39

The loophole is "the NRP being allowed to not work and be supported by a new partner".

wotsittoyou · 27/05/2018 19:39

I don't understand the references to the length of time the ex had been with the new partner before she let him take care of her children. You do understand that parents leave their children with childminders all day after a chat or two, don't you?

You also say that your ex hasn't seen your children for 18 months, then go on to talk about how poorly he is taking her of his new partner's kids. How have you any idea?

flamingofridays · 27/05/2018 19:39

And if maintenance is that big of an issue surely you'd just have 50/50 care instead and then nobody has to pay anyone?

(Clearly this cannot work in ops case bit seemingly it could in most others)

JuicyStrawberry · 27/05/2018 19:40

Rocinante And with your income you can probably comfortably afford to do that that. Good for you. Your partner's ex will be pleased. But for someone earning say, minimum wage and getting tax credits to top her wages up and making ends meet to provide for her own kids. Why should her earnings pay towards maintenance for her partner's kids if the dad is working and already paying it?

flamingofridays · 27/05/2018 19:40

They're not her kids. She should absolutely be allowed to choose.

BoneyBackJefferson · 27/05/2018 19:41

LolaLouise
it wouldnt be household if she left him and notified cms immediately.

And she would have to wait months for them to sort it out leaving her short of money and the possibility of never getting it back.

She would have no financial responsibility with no family connection.

She has that now

Rocinante1 · 27/05/2018 19:41

@Andrewofgg

So what about this.

2 people, A and B, live together and have the same income. B has children with an ex. They decide that one of them will give up work to be a sahp. They earn the exact same so it doesn't matter, but if A gives up work then they still need to pay child maintenance from B's wage, so they decide that B will give up work and that will save them the child maintenance money each month. They get to have one parents at home, and one parent working and avoid paying child maintenance. The other children lose out.

You don't see that as a loophole?

HughGrantsHair · 27/05/2018 19:42

But Flamingo, if her partner said to her 'i'll be SAHP but my child maintenance will come out of our household income" she still has a choice. A choice to say "erm no way, go and get a job".

GrandTheftWalrus · 27/05/2018 19:42

At one point I was only getting child benefit and child tax credits. Should that have been used for his cms payments?

flamingofridays · 27/05/2018 19:42

She doesn't have a family connection. She's not married to their dad and she doesn't even know them.

HughGrantsHair · 27/05/2018 19:43

You do realise if he was working and she was SAHP, the child maintenance would come out of the NRPs income and they'd be in exactly the same boat!

flamingofridays · 27/05/2018 19:43

But he's not saying that.

He doesn't want to pay for his kids. That's his decision. It is not her fucking responsibility to convince him otherwise.

Like I said before should she wipe his arse for him too?

Rocinante1 · 27/05/2018 19:43

@JuicyStrawberry

If the partner is working, her wage wouldn't come into it.

My suggestion is that child maintenance be paid from the non resident parents wage alone, but if they jointly choose that the parent stop working and be supported by their partners wage, then the child maintenance should be changed to come out of the partners wage instead. This would ensure that any decisions on finances and work will always include the other children, and they can't try and avoid paying.

flamingofridays · 27/05/2018 19:44

No they wouldn't because they're his kids. He would be paying for his kids.

In the current circumstances she would be paying for his kids.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

Join Mumsnet Log In

This thread is closed and is no longer accepting replies. Click here to start a new thread.