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?

I’m not missing the point. I disagree. There’s a difference.

If nobody should make a decision that negatively impacts someone else’s life, that’s out of their control, then nobody should ever have more that one child by that logic in that case. As any second and subsequent child get less of their parents and money, even if they’re still together. That’s out of the first child’s control, but it negatively impacts them.

I find your statement a little daft to be honest. That’s just not the way the world works, politicians make decisions that negatively impact me, the carbon footprint negatively affects me, so are you going to never drive a car or get a flight again? Because you shouldn’t do something to negatively impact me and what you do is out of my control???!

None of that has any relevance to child maintenance Jimdandy. Why are you trying to derail the thread?

I disagree. (Again!) It is relevant in the context of the discussion. Have you read the whole thread?

I’ve seen quite a few poster’s staying that the maintence shouldn’t reduce because further children with a new partner shouldn’t affect the first ones.

I cannot agree with that point of view personally. Further children DO affect the first one/s when the parents are still together. The money the couple earns jointly has to go further, less attention etc. So I don’t see why that should be any different just because they’re no longer together.

The point about politicians and carbon footprint etc, the poster is claiming no one should ever do anything to affect anyone else if it’s out of their control apparently, so I’m asking her to stop driving a car or taking flights etc as what she is (potentially doing) is negatively affecting my life and I have no control over it.

I didn’t realise people were in favour of North Korea now?
Or is it just a case of the NRP wanting to still control their ex partner?

NRPS are perfectly free to have 2nd, 3rd whatever children but not at the expense of existing ones. No one is trying to control their ex and say they can't have more, just that it's not OK to do as so many do and skip off to pastures new resenting the 'old' and usually labelling the ex greedy and bitter if she expects him to continue to contribute in a meaningful way.

See that’s what I don’t agree with. I don’t see why if you’re still together it’s ok to keep having kids at the expense of the others, but not if it’s with a new partner? Other than control?
Why is it ok for your 1st child to receive less because you’ve had a 2nd, but then when his 1st and 2nd children (by you) receive less because of his 3rd it’s not ok?

What about if the RP has another child by someone else but remains single? Her money is then spread around the further subsequent child/ren. Is that now not allowed by apply the above logic?

"I didn’t realise people were in favour of North Korea now?"

Like I said entirely irrelevant.

Nope. I disagree it’s not irrelevant.

Your seeking to control someone’s life when it suits you...

*you’re

In fact I’d say you’re trying to now derail the thread, by picking out one sentence out of an entire point and posting about. Rather than posting an opinion etc!!

I have clearly stated my opinion, this is misogyny at work. The system is rigged and men are robbing women to the detriment of children and society as a whole.

If I want another child I don't get to half my mortgage payment to afford maternity leave, I shouldn't get to half maintenance in lieu of shared parenting either.

See I still disagree. But that’s the beauty of an opinion. There’s no right or wrong.

The mortgage being halved point doesn’t hold any water. No one’s mortgage is halved when they have any child. Male or female, couple or single. But your money is spread further the more children you have, male or female, couple or single.

I did some work with social workers and I believe it's the government's way of encouraging a family unit. All very statistic based, family units reduce delinquency and encourage higher grades bla bla bla.

And very money orientated.

But jim the difference in that scenario is that it is one family unit taking a decision together. In that case, the first child gets the full benefit of a sibling and hopefully the parents do the sums working out if they can provide what they want to for each child. In second families, the reality in many many cases is that the decision to have more kids is taken without reference to the needs of the first and there is an assumption that the RP will make up the financial slack..as well as providing all the day to day actual parenting.

Re tax credits I was employing the technique of reductio ad absurdum - YES the 2 child rule should be scrapped because it is unfair to all families (but especially first children of an NRP). It's ludicrously sexist and elitist.

Holdonasecond - the 2 child rule DOESN'T prevent a child from receiving tax credits twice, it prevents RESIDENT Parents (usually women) from claiming for more than 2 children BUT DOESN'T prevent NRP's (usually men) from claiming them for more than 2 children.

"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"

1 it may be a small amount to the second family, the first family could well be reliant on every penny they get. Especially where the first family is headed by a Lp and the second has 2 adult incomes.

2 I see absolutely no fair reason why cm should be reduced due to step or subsequent children. If an NRP CAN'T AFFORD more children without reducing maintenance they shouldn't be having/becoming responsible for them - that's a choice!

"So other children living elsewhere don't go without as a result of the 2 child rule." By saying this you're saying children born to the NRP shouldn't go without...but it's ok for further children of the RP to be disadvantaged?? How is it fair or just that an NRP can have more than 2 children AND claim more tax credits AND get a reduction in cm...
BUT if an RP (the one who ALREADY has the major responsibility financial and otherwise) has more than 2 children they can't claim more tax credits? Seriously - explain to me how that's in ANY WAY balanced?!

"So although the maintenance for his DD2 was reduced" didn't have to be he'd have to have requested that.

"it certainly didn't mean that my children massively benefited from that"

A - so why reduce the maintenance if it was of no odds to you?

B - it may not have massively benefited your DC, it certainly wouldn't have disadvantaged them but WOULD likely have made a difference to his dd2.

"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." That's parenting - does he want a medal for it? Do you? That's what a parent is supposed to do - and as a parent yourself you should know it's a drop in the ocean compared to the overall costs of raising a child.

"And the money for that came out of the tax credits for my two children." No it didn't. Or it certainly shouldn't - cm is assessed on HIS income NOT on yours or any benefits you receive for your DC.

"because she had another parent able to do that." Doesn't negate your partners responsibility to his DC.

"Quite often they do without to ensure the children from the previous relationship don't." Not 'quite often' at all. While I'm sorry you had a rough time and hope things better now, the reality is MOST first/previous families are worse off than subsequent families. There will always be a minority of exceptions.

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

Bertie - thank you for being one of the rare stepmums that gets it!

"If you’re still together and you have a second child there’s less money for your first and so on and so forth." If you're still together it's a JOINT decision affecting YOUR family and nobody else. An NRP CHOOSING to enter circumstances that allow for a reduction in CM AND applying for it to be reduced is wrong! So no it's not the same as a couple deciding TOGETHER to have more children and reorganise the family finances - or choosing to do so as a result of improved finances eg a promotion.

In addition as a pp said - the RP usually gets sod all notice too! My ex never told me each time his new wife was pregnant until weeks before baby was due. So I was given no time to plan either! With their first he PROMISED me he wasn't going to request a reduction in cm (and was already an unreliable twat over this) but he did. He didn't even tell his wife he'd done this. She was livid!

"The only difference is, this time it’s out of your control" that's a bloody big difference!

I clearly don't see it as the same principle BUT that said, at the time of deciding whether to have more DC I do think all families have to decide that based partly (but importantly) on what they can afford (and I am well aware circs change they've changed massively for me. I'm frequently vilified on here and irl for being a Lp on benefits. At time of conception I was married - 5 years - we were both in good health and working full time in above nmw jobs and not in receipt of benefits).

"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?" Explain to me HOW this affects an NRP's income? Or indeed life in any way? It doesn't! That's the difference!

And we aren't saying he can't have more DC we're saying IF he has more DC he needs to continue paying cm NOT reduce it purely because of having more DC.

the 2 child rule DOESN'T prevent a child from receiving tax credits twice
I never said it did. I said a child can only be included in ONE claim. The rp's claim. So if an nrp attempted to claim for the same child they would not be able to because someone is already claiming for that child.
This is why that child should have nothing to do with a claim made for other children living in a different household. If the nrp can't claim for that child then the child should be made irrelevant completely and should not affect other children's entitlement.

I see absolutely no fair reason why cm should be reduced due to step or subsequent children. If an NRP CAN'T AFFORD more children without reducing maintenance they shouldn't be having/becoming responsible for them - that's a choice!

And I agree with you. Maintenance shouldn't be reduced and that's a rule I feel should be changed. What I don't agree with is that tax credits should not be awarded to subsequent children of the nrp. They live in a different household to his first children so will be on a different claim. ALL of the rp's children live with her and that's the difference. Do I agree with RPs not being able to claim for their subsequent children? No. But what I disagree with EVEN MORE is children living in a completely different household causing younger siblings to go without. Just as I disagree with maintenance going down. You seem to be very keen on seeing your wish about tax credits as some sort of revenge though . Hopefully it will never happen.

At the current rate who should decide how much a child costs to raise? What if the RP found to most expesive from of childcare they can so the NRP be expected to pay 50%.

Would you like a system where the NRP gets equal say in raising a child if hes expected to pay 50% of the cost of rasing the child. (No The NRP should not be paying 50% of the housing cost because without the child the mother would still need to pay for housing to water and electric costs are not much more then a single person so No the NRP should not have to pay 50% of the RP bills as she would have them anyway (and the NRP has to pay them for themselves too).

Maybe if 1 bed house / flat was like 500 a month and a 2 / 3 bed was 600 maybe the NRP should pay 50% of the extra.

The current rates of CM have to take into account of living expenses the NRP needs to house / feed / pay bills for themsleves so saying they need to pay what it costs to raise a child no matter what would mean that NRP would become homeless starve to death etc Unless you set the 50% at a artbtory government rate of child needs £x a year the NRP has to pay that (Set really low so only taking into account basic school uniform and basic food) No afterschool activities these are a luxury no private school fees / grammer school expensive uniforms oftherwise it would be abused by RP and would see loads of NRP homeless / not being able too feed themselves. (and NRP are more often then not men which get the least benifets lowest priority with housing / funding ) Or are you suggesting that NRP should be able to move back into the family house? so the RP cannot move on with there lives as the NRP needs to pay for 50% of the cost of raising a child?

What good would it be for the child if their NRP died / became homeless / made themselves so ill to attempt to have a basic level of exsitance? Just so the RP and the children have no change in life style (aka USA style )

In some states the CM goes of marriage levels of income, does not take into account of change of circumstances aka if they lose their jobs tough get another job paying the same or higher wage as the maintance stays the same. Become disabled cannot work tough you need to pay the same go into debt etc.

In some states you only have 1 year to deny parentage (the RP does not have to even tell you she has gone to court to start this count down) and after that year is up you are stuck paying even if the child is not yours tough you had 1 year to appeal it. (despite the fact how do you appeal / contest something you know nothing about )

While the CMS we have needs more teeth getting payments out of the NRP it is a much fairer system as it does adjust to change in circumstances as its a set % of their wage rather then a set figure.

GRaphista_ you talk a lot about the nrp should NOT go on to have more children if maintenance is then reduced because child 1 would go without.Have you considered that the RP should not have had children if they could not have afforded to look after said child or children should the worst happen? Call me cynical, but given 42% of marriages end in divorce, and only 38% of parents receive child maintenance,you could apply the same principle to rp.

Holdonasecond

Ahem
"Tax credits claims only include children once for 2 reasons:
-So the can't be claimed for twice."

Ah seems you've misunderstood what me and others have said re NRP's claiming tax credits FOR SUBSEQUENT CHILDREN.

When I say it's unfair that NRP's can claim when they already have 2 children from a previous relationship I mean claiming for their 3/4/5 DC, NOT for the first 2 DC. I disagree with the rest of your thoughts on this because the 2 child limit is supposed to be so people don't keep having children they can't afford to support without state help - yet that ideology is being applied ONLY to RP's (who are mostly women - which is why it's sexist). So what the govt are essentially saying is MEN can have as many children as they like, fuck with merry abandon and NOT PAY for those DC, whereas WOMEN are only allowed to have 2 DC for whom they claim state help - and women DO usually need state help because as the RP either they work, earning significantly less than men, and have to pay high childcare fees OR they sah and have to rely on LIMITED state support. It's placing a moral judgment on single mums, while doing NOTHING to shame the men that created those same DC.

No - what I WISH re tax credits is the unfair and deeply sexist 2 child limit abolished. The 'rape clause' just shows how appalling an idea it is and that it should NEVER have been implemented. That clause for women trapped in Dv situations isn't just prejudiced but actively dangerous. Especially with where the claim is joint and usually in the abusers name. Either they don't apply for the 'rape clause' and there's less money trapping them further OR they do apply (which they can't if they continue to stay living with their abuser beyond I think 6 months) and their abuser finds out and that triggers an assault!

If an RP isn't allowed to claim for more than 2 DC then neither should an NRP be able to - he (and it is mostly he) is still financially responsible for the 2 DC from the previous relationship - that should include forfeiture of further state help for MORE children IF that's being applied to the RP.

Worridmum - I agree NRP shouldn't be liable for 50% of rent/electric/gas BUT they should be liable for 50% of the DIFFERENCE in costs v the costs of a single adult.

Eg 1 bed flat where I live is £350 but 2 bed £475 (ave prices) so I do think NRP liable for £63pcm

Basically I think an income share model rather than a percentage of income model would be fairer.

No Ivy because legally and morally the NRP is equally responsible for the child and should be paying cm.

That so many don't is an utter disgrace and they and the govt should be totally ashamed of this, but they're not they don't give a shit!

The cms, as did the csa, DO have the teeth to enforce payment but CHOOSE not to use them. Why is beyond me because I can only think that if they did

A it would reduce their caseload as the fear of repercussions would incentivise most non-payers to pay - my ex would definitely fall into this category

B long term it would reduce costs of cms

C it would save the country money as reliable cm for many RP's can allow them to take small risks in increasing working hours as children get older, whether they claim certain benefits (contrary to msm etc most people prefer not to be claiming benefits, so even though it doesn't affect eligibility it does affect whether people will claim or not), indirectly as a result of less stress for RP's and their children. Certainly I found it massively stressful every month not knowing if I'd get a payment or not, having to call csa 2 weeks before it was due in my account to find out if ex had paid it to them

A so I could plan accordingly
B because csa wouldn't do anything until he definitely hadn't paid
C because sometimes it worked and the person I got at csa would chase it).

As dd got older frankly I got to a point where I budgeted on the assumption I WOULDN'T be paid. But when she was very young and in full time childcare I needed that money and it was a real struggle if he didn't pay.

yet that ideology is being applied ONLY to RP's (who are mostly women - which is why it's sexist). So what the govt are essentially saying is MEN can have as many children as they like, fuck with merry abandon and NOT PAY for those DC, whereas WOMEN are only allowed to have 2 DC for whom they claim state help - and women DO usually need state help

Right and what is the new wife supposed to do when she can't any get support for her children because of wife number one with her children? There will be one rp struggling even more if your silly rule came in to play.
And even if the nrp is still in a relationship, the children living with him deserve to get the support they are entitled to while his ex claims for his other children.
The new wife is most probably the main care giver, has most likely compromised on her career and the child benefit claim for her children most likely in her name. Of course she should get support for her children. Eventually the 2 child rule would apply to her too if she had more than 2 but her children shouldn't automatically get zero from day one because of her stepchildren who live elsewhere and get support via their own mum.
And although you say the nrp can go on and have more children with like 10 women or something, he won't financially benefit from 10 tax credit claims will he? The rps to those 10 lots of children receive that money for THEIR children. Not just rp number one and fuck the rest of the children. That wouldn't exactly be fair would it?

@holdonasecond perhaps the possibility of their own (& by default their subsequent children's) financial situation being compromised would cause the 2nd, 3rd, 4th woman to consider the implications of having children with a man who already has children because I can guarantee you that the financial situation of the first woman & her children being compromised isn't even a blip on the radar for the majority of them!

Graphista makes many good points however the NRP paying half the difference for rent etc wouldn't work as such as in my case as the NRP why should I have to pay half the difference because my ex & his new wife choose to buy a £250,000 house to live in? There would need to be a standard level for 1,2,3 bedroom properties to calculate the difference but as the actual cost varies so dramatically throughout the country this wouldn't be fair either.

As someone on both sides of this fence I can honestly say neither side is fair especially for people earning NMW as the amount received by the RP isn't enough but the amount paid by the NRP can be enough to severely hinder their abilities to provide for the child/ren during their time.

I'm lucky just now as DD's maintenance covers what I pay for DS so I'm breaking even but once she reaches a certain age/level of education her NRP's responsibility for her ends yet mine doesn't as my income will be taken into account for her student finance etc but she will no longer be counted as a dependent child for CB & TC at which point CMS will recalculate DS's maintenance & that will go up with no disregard applied for DD so my income will go down by over £500 a month (CB,TC & extra CM for DS) but my bills will stay the same.

And that is where the unfairness really lies - children &/or income is only counted for certain things & it's always to the detriment of the RP & in most cases single mothers.

@holdonasecond perhaps the possibility of their own (& by default their subsequent children's) financial situation being compromised would cause the 2nd, 3rd, 4th woman to consider the implications of having children with a man who already has children because I can guarantee you that the financial situation of the first woman & her children being compromised isn't even a blip on the radar for the majority of them!

So what about a one night stand then or a fling and the man and woman don't really know each other.
Oh sorry you can't claim tax credits for your child because the man you had sex with had 2 children with someone else a few years ago. Now off to he food bank you go!

Yeah, sorry but it's a stupid idea. The very point that men can go and impregnate as many women as they want, is the very reason those children that result shouldn't be penalised.

It's infuriating. My ex us living with a girl (he has know 3mths) her 4 kids and he does not provide for his kids that I have with him.

Yes I agree that the tax credit rule shouldn't apply to men either, but that contradiction should mean its scrapped altogether.

None of these things personally affect me, but there's such ingrained sexism and punishment of single mothers in these rules, it just drives me insane - and no one knows about them.