To ask why child maintenance is automatically reduced due to subsequent children?

[freegazelle]

This doesn't affect me personally, but I came across this rule on mumsnet and its just been bugging me.

If I coupled up with a man who had DC from a previous relationship, I'd take them into account when working out if we could afford children, just as I'd take my own DC into account. Why should his responsibilities towards his existing DC automatically be reduced after we have another child?

Other countries don't apply this in the same way - in the US it depends on the State and in Canada CM is not reduced unless apply for "undue hardship" (as far as I understand).

Am I missing something?

@children

Yes, I mean minimal support, which is what CM most of the time is. And as someone said, its certainly not fair to make that decision for someone else.

The system is broken because no one cares about women, least of all women who are unattached to a man. It all drives me crazy.

I am financially responsible for my dsc .

They live with us no payments from mum as she does not work.
I am the worker in the home and I treat all the children sc and dc the same.

Yes fair point children. I'm talking anout a particular type of NRP. I agree. They type who does everything to wriggle out of their payments gives everyone else a bad name. But that is why it wouldn't be fair to base the entire system around those sorts. What would be better is if the system could be enforced so that they couldn't get away with it.

And maintenance is not taken into account for benefits- the whole system is broken.

And until the system gets better st collecting it neither should it.

All that happens when it’s yaken into account is that housing benefit etc take into account the £76 a week you “get” abs reduce your entitlement. Then the CSA absolutely fail to collect a penny and your finances are completely screwed.

Who chose to end/caused the end of the relationship is irrelevant.

RP1 being better off than RP2 is irrelevant.

Doesn't affect what it costs to raise the DC.

"If second children from a new marriage shouldn't affect maintenance then why should first children from and old marriage affect tax credits?"

Basically because the 2 child limit should apply to both RP and NRP of the original 2 children. Why should subsequent children NEED a tax credit eligibility if they're arguably receiving more support as a result of the NRP's reduction in cm?

Childrenofthesun

Cm is usually such a small amount it rarely even covers 50% of BASIC NECESSITIES of raising a child. Whereas RP's cover their half AND the shortfall.

I am not saying subsequent children need to be second best to older DC BUT to have subsequent children KNOWING this will disadvantage earlier children is wrong.

I don't know any RP's who've had subsequent children without giving it a great deal of consideration how they'll manage financially, they certainly wouldn't get away with not covering the basic needs SS would step in - but plenty of NRP's who've moved in with new partners and taken on step children or had more DC of their own without a moments thought to the effect on the existing children...until they remember they CAN reduce their maintenance payments (which they don't even HAVE to do its a choice). They're not criticised by ANYONE if the DC go without basics.

"sitting down and saying "right, we can afford to have children if you half your maintenance payments". Who would do that?" Unfortunately not only are there women who would happily do this and think it completely fair, there are women who begrudge their partners CHILDREN getting any maintenance at all!

I get why maintenance isn't taken in to account when it comes to benefits because some people fail to pay it and an RP on a low income will get no maintenance plus no housing benefit etc.. It just sickens me how people getting loads in maintenance will benefit from that rule. I bet those people are actually glad some people mess around with maintenance because at the end of the day it works in their favour.

@Graph

I don't agree with you on the tax credit applying to both thing - that would disproportionately be crap for the new partner and children. I think the current system is so discriminatory and contradictory that it should be scrapped altogether.

Agree on the rest. I think its awful to begrudge your partner's children. I have a relative who prob won't be able to afford a second kid because of her husband's commitments to his ex wife and kid which even includes school fees. But she knew those commitments when she married him, and as it happens, she loves her step son (who they have on weekends).

Basically because the 2 child limit should apply to both RP and NRP of the original 2 children. Why should subsequent children NEED a tax credit eligibility if they're arguably receiving more support as a result of the NRP's reduction in cm?

By your logic no child could receive tax credits then if their parents are supporting them. Just because the cm might be reduced by a small amount each week doesn't mean the second children will automatically be rolling in it .
Tax credits claims only include children once for 2 reasons:
-So the can't be claimed for twice.
-So other children living elsewhere don't go without as a result of the 2 child rule.

As it should be.

I moved in with my DP with my two children. He was paying money direct to his DD1 (as she had left her mum's home and was living elsewhere) and was paying maintenance to the mother of his DD2. I was receiving £5 a week for my DD1 and nothing for DD2.

So although the maintenance for his DD2 was reduced, it certainly didn't mean that my children massively benefited from that. We still had his DD2 at our home and still provided for her, bought her clothes (which went home with her), bought her books, paid for outings and trips. And the money for that came out of the tax credits for my two children.

When DP had his accident we had to stop paying CMS for a few months as we had no income. Then we started paying the minimum amount as we were on benefits (and absolutely broke - really had no money at all). DSD2's life didn't change. Her lifestyle didn't change. She just didn't get outings or trips with us as we couldn't afford to do any. But she still went on holiday with her mum two or three times a year, still had decent clothes because she had another parent able to do that.

My DC didn't have that. They had us. So no new clothes or trips or holidays. They got very little and it was awful.

So not all children of the new families are getting double money and double the lifestyle. Quite often they do without to ensure the children from the previous relationship don't.

Mycatsaspirate i completly agree there was times when my oartner wasn't working and the boys went massively massively without so that I would still pay the maintenance to some degree out of my wages and for him
To see and visit his daughters and keep contact. The stuff my kids went without. Unfortunately though we will always be deemed as not good enough step mums just because we don't pay every single penny of everything to the ex partners x

It just sickens me how people getting loads in maintenance will benefit from that rule.

The number of RP’s in benefits who are receiving lots of maintenance is absolutely tiny.

Look at the benefits changes there has been in the last few years - if there was more than a tiny number who benefit from this it would change.

The number of people that folks perceive benefit from this is far higher than those who actually do.

It sounds awful, mycatsapirate, but your children didn't go without to ensure that his other child was OK. You stopped paying CMS altogether.

Your children went without because your dp had an accident and stopped earming - that would happen in any family.

@ExFury

I agree. I tend to disagree with changing rules that will adversely affect the majority just because a small number take advantage. This is the sentiment that led to UC.

Partner has children from a previous relationship ,and children with me. He never thought to tell CSA that he'd had more children so maintenance could be reduced. Partner never wanted to create a feeling of inequality by taking money from his "first " family to provide for his "new family ". When we planned the children we had we always worked out finances with the maintenance disregarded.

I don't understand why stepchildren would be considered in the claim , especially considering they'll probably be getting maintenance from their biological dad. I have a friend who moved in with her partner The maintenance for his daughter with his ex got reduced drastically because she had 3 children. And she was genuinely perplexed as to why his ex was unhappy ...

Nobody wants to bash stepmums. But there is a fundamental difference where you CHOOSE to move in with/ have children with a man who already has children. It's your CHOICE. You know what you're getting into and you can make an informed decision.

Its not the choice of the ex and her kids whose expenses stay the same.

It isn't fair in the case of stepchildren.

Chances are they get child maintenance, and if they are the money shouldn't be reduced for them.

So my ex's SC gets money from father and my ex while mine get a pittance as he has dropped his hours to avoid paying as much.

@graphista I agree with alot of your points, but this one, I think isn’t fair really, unless you think everybody should stop at one child?

“I am not saying subsequent children need to be second best to older DC BUT to have subsequent children KNOWING this will disadvantage earlier children is wrong.”

If you’re still together and you have a second child there’s less money for your first and so on and so forth.

Do you take the same attitude to couple that are still together and have large families?

To me it’s only the same principal, it’s just with a different person and not the ex partner.

If you’re still together and you have a second child there’s less money for your first and so on and so forth

With this BOTH parties have made a choice.

To me it’s only the same principal, it’s just with a different person and not the ex partner

So the ex-partner is affected by a choice out of their control? Not really the same is it?

@Jim

As @ohreally said earlier: "I think it reasonable that as a parent, you make a decision as to whether you can afford to have more children when those children will be resident in your own household and you have an understanding of the impact an additional child may have on household,finances.

What isn’t OK is making a decision which will impact on the income of another household."

And again, CMS is already tiny amounts that don't come to covering half of the child's expenses. Even if a couple is still together, if they can't cover half their current kid's expense then no, they shouldn't have a second child.

I don't think maintenance should be reduced when the nrp has subsequent children, but I think money will naturally alter within the nrp's household.
For example, say he has one child with his ex and then goes on to have a child with his new partner. He will now maybe have less money to indulge his older child with and that happens in any household when more children come along.
I know that if I had just one child I would be able to give him more than if I had my further children. That's just part and parcel of having more than one child unless money is no object.

@jaqueshammer. We will have to agree to disagree.

I still see it as the same principal. People are entitled to move on and have more children. As I say the income would have to stretch further if you had more children together.

The only difference is, this time it’s out of your control as you’re not the one having the kids anymore it’s with a new partner.

I see it as it is fair the ex partner’s income is affected by something out of their control. They cannot dictate what their ex partner does with their life?

Can you imagine the uproar if a man tried to tell his ex she wasn’t entitled to have more children by her new partner?

Can you imagine the uproar if a man tried to tell his ex she wasn’t entitled to have more children by her new partner?

Which is absolutely not comparable because ex wouldn’t be expected to increase payments and new partner would be paying for his own child.

I see it as it is fair the ex partner’s income is affected by something out of their control. They cannot dictate what their ex partner does with their life?

🙄 nobody is saying an ex can’t have more children. They’re saying it shouldn’t negatively affect the one they have.

Thank FUCK my ex is a reasonable human and has already promised if he has more children he won’t drop his maintenance payments.

See @jacqueshammer I understand your point of view. But I still disagree.

I meant of the man was the RP. But even in the scenario you describe, I still think it’s comparable. Take money out of it for a moment. I don’t think aquaintences of mine (female, some single Mum’s) made the most sensible decision by having more children, for financial and other reasons.

But having more children does negatively affect the ones you already have. Whether it’s with a new partner or or not. With every child you have you’re taking away attention and money from the first ones. No matter the scenario.

@jimdandy you’re still missing the point that nobody should be making a decision which impacts negatively on someone else’s life when it is out of their control.