To ask if anyone here actually thinks a step parents wage should be considered for CMS?

[TheSpoonAndTheFork]

Because my husband's ex seems to think so and is currently enraged that I have zero plan or requirement to.

I'm fully aware that CMS do not take into account a SPs earnings and that legally she is not entitled to anything from my wages. I'm just curious as to whether more people think like her (entitled as imo) that they should take it into account.

YANBU - no it's right that CMS don't take into account a step parents earnings

YABU - they don't but they should.

No I don't think your salary should be taken into account for CMS purposes @TheSpoonAndTheFork You obviously help support your stepDC by contributing to the household you & their father share.

BUT - the problem is that CMS is nowhere near enough, nor a reasonable amount on which to raise children, and resident parents often get a really raw deal.

This hits harder on mothers as resident parents because women are generally paid less than men, and often a single mother/resident parent has given up her career and diminished her earning capacity by the very act of having children. Men very rarely pay enough to make up for the financial sacrifice many women make create a family. This is OK unless they divorce - then the financial sacrifice many women make becomes very visible.

For example, fathers who refuse to pay for childcare, or activities, or holiday camps, or uniforms unless they fall exactly on the days he has them. And so on.

So unless your DH is paying the true half of what it actually costs to raise HIS children, I can see why the DC's mother is antsy about it.

I'm glad you asked!! Is it even possible to request a partners income in the calculation?? I didn't know about it if so.

Shicking considering plenty of dad's get away with not paying of the self employed claiming a very low income!

Well men can have another baby and continue working the same day if they want to women not so much there is my difficulty and she might be breastfeeding so who are we to say get that baby onto formula and get back to work instantly

This is my dilemma

Not in maintenance no. My solicitor requested it so that it could be taken into account for division of assets in the divorce as my exh was living with the previous poster and so it would reduce his living expenses. There was a thread on it recently and the family law solicitors who were posting agreed that this was a perfectly normal and proper thing to do. In the end she moved out so it was not an issue. The poster omits to mention that there was a completely fair and agreed division of assets, signed off by a judge. My ex kept many assets and it was all done fairly.

I have to disagree with this though. Expecting true half of huge expenses isn't realistic either. 2 homes have to be ran and I do agree with posters that a bedroom is needed for the child to stay in and so on. However it's not just about money so things like split childcare should be looked at and school holidays rather than mum having to foot the bill solely. When people suggest half of nursery fees this will only work if someone is on a decent to high salary. By all means if the dad can afford it then yes he should pay for those things.

If someone earns 20k a year then what?

Stop it. The judge did not chuck it out. He asked for clarification on a couple of issues (such as had i moved back in!) but it was nothing to do with the sums agreed. These remained the same.

I will not air my dirty washing on here anymore. It is actually 9 years today that I moved out of the family home, after a 20 year marriage. A long time ago now.

Please move on. Like I have.

As a SP I do not agree that my earnings should count towards CMS. When SC was staying with us of course I would buy things like clothes and food. But it was ever mandated that my earning had to go towards his mother who at the time didn't work, I would move out.

I mean it's a question that can be asked either directly or in court (although I believe courts rule only applies for a year - then handed over to cms) - someone can come along and tell me I'm wrong on this one as I'm not 200%

Mum asked my dh directly and then she told me she would go to cms directly if I didn't comply 🙄. I politely reminded her that she gets well over the odds for what she would get from cms and they have a private arrangement that worked for years and I didn't want to be dragged into it and I doubt cms would be interested but she was welcome to check.

This was around the time I was setting up a trust for the children (dsd included) from my own money. And she then said I got off on a technicality 🙄 and I married the man I should be providing for my family. Which I pointed out I was, but when I married him I married him and extended my family to include dsd. But I didn't marry her.

Her dh did step in at that point and said come on girls don't argue over money we are all family.

Anyway as I said bar money issues I don't have any issues with mum. She's sane normally so I imagine there's something I don't know about re her current situation which makes her react the way she does and try to approach it with empathy (and when it kicks off - usually me screaming into a pillow at how insane it all is)

Well @DownWithBreadsticks you certainly have all my sympathy. The judge was a fool and his ex wife is a bitch.

@namechangenacy blimey! Definitely shouldn't be allowed.

@Cloverforever look I don't know there ins and out but it does sounds very much like you asked for the court to take into account the previous posters income. Which ok is a thing you could ask the courts.

But it does sound very much like that poster was telling the truth.

As to drawing attention to it - no one knew who that poster was talking about until you highlighted it was about you so kinda aired your own dirty laundry here.. and if I'm completely honest it's mn so no one actually knows anything bar two posters under whatever username are having a ding dong.

Slightly different but I do find it a bit odd that for calculating student finance the non resident parent isn’t included at all but a step parent is and so would be assumed to contribute where necessary to the student's living expenses.

I'm just here for the drama 👀

I absolutely do not think a step parents earnings should be taken into account for anything.

@Gytgyt I don't mind people asking.

I do mine being told this is what will happen and when they don't like the answer being guilt tripped, when I have done more than enough off my own back because I want to.

Again I can only speak for myself - but many sm happily contributed to the children in their care for their house. Being mandated to would take for granted that kindness.

I'm a mum also and my dd has a sm and I treat mum as I would like to be treated as mum and treat my dd sm as I would like to be treated as sm.

On the whole maintenance holes and loop holes need to be tightened . It's not ideal to say cms has many holes it's not fair on mums (which certain holes are defo not fair) let's make it the females with these men pay instead.

Ooooh the drama!! 😂
In response to the OP no I think it's the parents job to provide for their offspring AS LONG AS they aren't providing for other children that aren't theirs.
I actually paid CMS when my ex husband lost his job for a month or two, cheeky bitch moaned it wasn't enough so I told her to fuck off and didn't pay another penny

It's a tricky one.

I do find it odd that step parents income isn't taken into account for cms.

But, child maintenance isn't taken into account for benefits. Yet, if that money was in the house it would've been taken off.

If a partner moves in and earns reasonably well then the previously single mother loses her benefits yet they are not for instance the step fathers children to pay for?

Capital isn't taken into account for child maintenance yet it is for single parent benefits.

There are so many conflicting situations. None of them make sense when you look at them all together.

@namechangenacy no it's not fair at to mandate people to pay for kids that are not theirs. It's a slippery slope really next thing they will be demanding inheritance.

Honestly I've read CMS threads before on here but oh my this one definitely has been an eye opener. No offence to anybody but I am glad I just have the one child because I have enough bloody drama... with DS dad at times.

Step parents don't have a legal obligation and not all step families get along. It would mean everyone paying for other people's kids I mean my own child is an expense as it is but why would I want to pay for my boyfriends kids?

That would mean that my boyfriends kids get money from BOTH his parents and me as well that's 3 people. Then my own kids dad could ask my own child's dad to pay as he too is step parent 🤣

CMS is not means tested because its unreliable, CMS in general are useless at investigating and is that how low we are stooping begrudging a single parent the bare minium in most cases.
The thread is mind boggling.

Getting to the bottom of what "true half" actually is would be a challenge in itself.
For example, does "true half" include the NRPs expenses? Because my DSDs bedroom in our house costs alot of money for a start.
Then theres what is required and what is discretionary. My DH refused to pay extra for childcare as he wanted to look after DSD himself but mum refused. So he was paying a lawyer £££ to sort that out. Would the lawyers fees be included in "true half"? It was still money spent on DSD after all.
Did DSD really need to be doing 5 extra curriculars at age 6? What about her salon appointments? Holidays? Gifts? Airmax instead of Primarks finest footwear?
Nightmare stuff to unpick as people have such a varied opinion on what their bottom line basics are.
I do think that in the case of non paying NRP, for whatever reason, there should be a mechanism to claim against their NI. So if they dodge paying for their child it's coming out of their pension and no child is left high and dry. What the base figure should be though is anyone's guess.

No, I absolutely do not think the stepparents salary should be taken into account, however. Living with somebody with additional children who are receiving support from their own to parents, should not take anything away from the first family, the resident parent etc.

Also additional children that that couple might have together shit again, not to reduce the payments that are due to the first family. If you want more kids pay for the first lot first. They should not suffer.

@Yousee I don’t think you can put a number on it and actually I don’t think the number it’s self is relevant. When you live with children and they are part of your life my kids pretty much get 100% of my salary. I would say I could live on 90% of what i earn if I didn’t have kids.
So, therefore, it seems reasonable, that no matter how many children, no matter how much the parent earns a percentage of that salary is paid towards the children. I think 25% would be fair.

I also do not think high earners should have a limitation placed on it. I have a friend who has two children with a well-known soap star who you would recognise. He pays £300 a month for two children and child-support whilst earning in excess of half 1 million a year. Even if the CSM could be arsed to nail him, he would still only be paying a percentage on a maximum amount of £150,000

@3BSHKATS she should take him to court or let's hope the daily mail pick this one up! I bet they message you for more info.

I had a very bizarre telephone conversation with the (lady) solicitor during my husband's divorce. She mentioned holidays we had been on and had included my step-son. Why did they have to be so expensive? Clearly she thought my husband had paid. She went completely silent when I told her who had actually paid. Silly cow.

@Gytgyt You get me wrong. I don't have a specific side of the argument.

I was trying to make a point that the rules are conflicting.

If a step parent shouldn't be liable then a single mother who moves her boyfriend in shouldn't lose her child tax credits or whatever the new benefit for this is no? One rule is always in conflict with another.

If I had to pick a side cms shouldn't be taken into account but then single parents who don't receive a penny in maintenance and have their children 24/7 should be able to earn that same amount into their household on top of whatever the current entitlement is before their benefits get deducted.

Surely it isn't fair that a single mother with no maintenance would say lose something like 50p in every pound whilst someone who gets that money without working gets to keep every pound. Not all work and childcare as a single parent is reliable either.