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 agree it should be scrapped altogether.

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.

And what some people are suggesting means that some single mothers will be punished and some won't. Depends on if they come first or second. If you come second you're basically screwed. That's what I'm disagreeing with.

If you come second you're basically screwed. That's what I'm disagreeing with

As opposed to the current system where if you come first you're screwed...

Well wouldn't it be nice to have a system where nobody is screwed eh? Taking tax credits away from one lot of children isn't a very good start to rectifying the fact that maintenance has stupid rules.

Well wouldn't it be nice to have a system where nobody is screwed eh?

That's the ideal yes... unfortunately as the system is in the main designed & implemented by men & the current system benefits men a heck of a lot more than it benefits women I can't see that changing anytime soon.

I know I agree and it needs to change but I doubt it ever will.
Maintenance shouldn't go down for subsequent children and definitely not for stepchildren and I firmly believe that because when I had children with my ex the money he paid for his older child never went down and nor would I have pushed for it to. The only time it went down was when he was arsing around with maintenance for our children and I had no choice but to go to the csa myself. If he didn't mess me about then I wouldn't have needed to and we could have gone privately. As a result the maintenance to his other ex went down but of course some people will see me as the person to blame for that. It's now up to him to make up the shortfall to his other ex.
What I don't expect to happen as "punishment", is for my children to then not receive the support they are entitled to through tax credits because their dad had a child with someone else. I'm the one doing most of the caring for them not him and at the moment I need all the money I can get.

Completely agree!

The 2 child rule for TC should be abolished altogether & maintenance should be overhauled to take account of both parents current circumstances with the powers to enforce payment used to their full potential.

So you have a family of 2 adults and 2 children. CTCs applied for and paid for those two children. Parents split up, one leaves. The RP will get the CTC for the 2 children who are based with them.

The NRP goes off and doesn't get CTC for those 2 children.

Now the NRP meets someone else, gets remarried or whatever, and has 2 more children. This family, Family2, claim CTC for their 2 children. Then the parents split up and original NRP goes off again, leaving RP2 with 2 children for whom RP2 claims and gets CTC.

NRP then gets together with yet another person, has 2 more children, and Family3 claim and get CTC for those 2 children.

Meanwhile, RP1 has met someone else, they have been together 5years now and have 2 children together - Family1.1

So Family1/1.1have 4 children living with them permanently, for whom they bear the bulk of the costs and do the bulk of the caring. They get CTC for 2 children.

Family2 - RP2 - has 2 children, gets CTC for 2 children.

Family3 has 2 children and gets CTC for 2children.

NRP does not get CTCs for any children unless NRP is actually living in that household and therefore bearing some responsibility for those 2 children who live there.

If NRP were to leave Family3 the CTCs would not leave with them, the CTCs would remains with those 2 children and RP3.

Have I got that right?

Yeah definitely. It's a very messed up system.
I find reducing maintenance because the nrp has stepchildren particularly messed up especially when those children might receive maintenance from their own father. I've never been able to see the concept of that rule at all.

To be fair it is all a pointless argument regarding tc as they all being abolished anyway over the next 2 years they will be gone.

Holdonasecond we agree more than we disagree, I've said throughout that the point I'm making is that the 2 child cap is inherently sexist and unjust and should be scrapped altogether!

I also think maintenance shouldn't be affected by subsequent or step children, can I ALSO say that step parents income should NOT be included for assessing other support eg uni financing either - not their child, not their responsibility.

At the moment it's definitely 'first wives' that get screwed - largely because maintenance laws aren't being enforced and far too many receive NOTHING at all.

Sunshineintheclouds
No it's not pointless as the 2 child cap is ALSO applied to the element of UC that replaces child tax credits. And UC is a whole other punitive farce for those on benefits anyway!

But meanwhile, RP2 has got together with another NRP - NRP2 - who also has 2 children who live principally with their other parent. As their other parent is claiming CTC for them, then RP2/NRP2 can't claim for them. So they have 4 children for whom they have at least some responsibility. They get CTCs for 2 of those children. Should they decide to have another child together, they will not get further CTCs.

So RP1/Family1.1 have 4 children, get CTCs for 2.
RP2/NRP2 have 2 children and 2 step children, CTCs for 2.
RP3/NRP have 2 children, get CTCs for 2.

NRP has 6 children.
RP1 has 4 children.
Everyone else has 2.

Is that right?

Then, NRP and RP3 decide they like having children, and have 4 more, so there are now 6 children in Family3. Nochange to CTCs; they get CTCs for 2.

NRP has 10 children altogether.

It seems to me that the only way to have lots of children and get CTCs for (lots of) them is be a serial NRP. CTCs only seem to really affect the RP until they hook up with someone a bit nicer than the original NRP and then want more children.

I think this says a lot about people's attitude to responsibility. I also think that serial NRPs don't give a shit about CTCs, or children, tbh. They want to be top dog and to win -whatever 'winning' means to them at any given moment.

I know the Gov set the 2 child limit up because they thought that women liked having millions of children each with a different dad, and this would stop them. They were utterly wrong. Men use women (and children) to increase their power base. NAMALT of course, in fact, MMANLT.

And i went to all that effort to try to understand it, and then read Sunshine's post and saw TCs are going anyway

But as a brain exercise it was worth it imo. Sorry to have interrupted the very interesting discussion.