It's wrong and shouldn't happen. As it is cms calculations are rarely enough to cover half the costs of raising their child.
Step children absolutely should NOT be included in calculations because THEIR parents are financially responsible for them NOT their step-parents.
Myboys2018 - frankly if your dp can't afford to AT LEAST be paying maintenance at the same level as before he moves in then he CAN'T AFFORD TO MOVE IN! It's not compulsory and he should be prioritising HIS children from HIS previous relationship over YOUR children! Cms calculations DO take into account the NRP's living expenses that's why it's ridiculously low! That he/you both also tried to reduce it MORE sickens me. YOUR son is the responsibility of you and your ex NOT your new dp (although I do agree this should ALSO be taken into consideration for benefits adjustments. They should only be reduced in terms of the elements applied to you as an adult not your child).
"In that case, the NRP's partner's income should be included for CM." Excellent point - bet you'd hate that Myboys!
"He couldn't afford to pay his ex half of it every month as we would lose our massively and the boys would be affected as we would risk losing our home" then he shouldn't move in with OR have more DC with you unless he increased his income.
Fwiw I don't think eg my ex's new wife should be responsible for OUR dd - BUT as it is currently it's unbalanced in their favour. Her EXPENSES (more DC) are taken into account BUT her INCOME isn't. (Lightbulb moment for me there)
Childrenofthesun
No your child shouldn't be worse off - but NEITHER should his first child/ren! He chose to have another DC, you chose to be with someone who already had DC. That HAS to be a consideration BEFORE more DC are decided upon. Each parent has 50% financial responsibility for each child, her (and certainly her partners) earnings are irrelevant - unless you want YOUR income used in calculation for cms?
New children should NOT be included in calculations because the NRP should NOT be having more children if they can't afford to at least keep paying the level of maintenance they are paying for their original children.
Re tax credits 2 child limit - should never have happened in the first place. The majority of claimants "self regulate" as it were.
But even MORE so because it's APPALLINGLY sexist. It's mainly women who are RP's and therefore claiming tax credits for the original children. IF the govt insists on keeping this UNJUST rule then it needs to be applied to BOTH parents. It's administered through hmrc so no reason they can't check on both parents. If NRP ALREADY has 2 children from an earlier relationship they shouldn't be allowed to claim for subsequent children from new relationships. It's the only way for it to be fair.
Something has to be done to rein in those men that bounce from one relationship to another making more and more children and taking NO responsibility for them.
My ex never paid regular maintenance and exploited every loophole he could. He's gone on to have 5dc with 2nd wife and despite a large detached house, new cars and tech for them both, 2-3 holidays a year etc tried to plead poverty when it came to our dd, his eldest. (There are other issues too and dd basically feels like she's been all but forgotten by him).
For him to choose to have FIVE more dc without even CONSIDERING the effect (not just financial) on dd is SO selfish.
"Blame him. Not the system." Except the system exists BECAUSE NRP's (usually men) DON'T take responsibility for the children they are half responsible for creating UNLESS someone makes them. That being the case the system needs to be properly fair.
"It is a rigged game and society is allowing women and children to be financially and coercively abused." Completely agree
Zsazsa I can accept maintenance changing if NRP's income genuinely unavoidably changes BUT not if they CHOOSE to take on the responsibility of more children (especially step children).
"Benefits aren’t reduced for maintenance payments" that was only brought in BECAUSE NRP's were NOT reliably paying maintenance. When I first split from ex and was receiving benefits ONE maintenance payment meant benefits administrators ASSUMED maintenance was being paid in full and regularly - it was a bloody nightmare proving that wasn't the case!
"later children shouldn’t suffer for being younger." Later children wouldn't have to if their parents were responsible and didn't have them unless they could afford them. They're not compulsory. Why should earlier children suffer?
"So it's not a gender issue, it's a person issue!" While I also know nrp mum's who've behaved just as poorly as many nrp dads, I'm sorry but it IS a gendered issue because MOST RP's ARE WOMEN and the govt knows that we just get on with it and deal with the shit because we've always bloody had to!
Spangly - he's not "overpaying" he's paying more than the csa MINIMUM but there's no max payment. Good that he does.
The amount doesn't HAVE to reduce because you and he didn't HAVE to have another child - that was your choice.
In 15 years as a Lp I've NEVER come across a properly organised campaign to get the govt to enforce even the current rules! Let alone improve the current system! Partly of course because as well as the financial responsibility RP's have the practical responsibility - so doing all the graft of child rearing too - we're too bloody knackered to campaign! Hell we even vote less in GE's!
Whereas NRP's (being mostly men and not having their lives constrained by raising children), vote more, earn more (and so pay more in taxes), complain more if they think they're being unfairly treated, have the time AND energy to research and exploit loopholes, are VERY RARELY properly held to account if they DON'T pay (this is even more the case if they SOMETIMES pay or pay a nominal amount - my ex exploited that particular loophole well)