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.

I am not by any means rich and sending our DC to private school or anything by the way 😂 I wish!

I earn pretty well but nothing out there! Even if I did though I'd not consider it my responsibility to fund his exes house.

I think people have a problem with the inconsistency. If you're a single parent and a partner moves in, their income is treated as your income when it comes to benefits. People can struggle to understand why sometimes when living with someone the law considers this the case and other times not. No comment on the rights and wrongs, just an answer to your question as to where the thinking comes from.

YABU. Stop half-arsing your family.

If you’re joining a family or creating a blended family then absolutely you should be contributing.

Otherwise you’re not a family 🤷‍♀️ You’re just fuck buddies with kid(s).

I do actually, would dissuade women hooking up with deadbeats and and weaselling out of providing for kids which is a win win situation to me.

I do contribute... To my household.

He isn't a deadbeat, DSC live with us 3 days a week and he pays a good amount of CMS (more than the calculation) for the extra day a week they are with their mother.

But yes I'm sure it would stop people who do get with dead beats!

Yep, and his kids are part of your household. So they’re part of your family. So you should be helping contribute towards their entire upbringing.

I’m not in favour of stepparents’ income being taken into account for CMS payments at all. But I am very CMS payments being reduced when the NRP has further children. The children they already brought into the world shouldn’t be going without because their parent went on to add to their family.

I do.. in my household.

What 3rd party who had no involvement in me bringing my children into the world contributes to my child's upbringing?

No way. Even their own mum doesn't push herself to earn for them

In general I think no but I do think that if they choose not to work and live off their partners income then in that situation it is different. I don’t know how you would assess that thought to make it fair.

Not sure why someone would think their kids require 3 adults financial input when other kids get by with 2.

What about when mum decides not to work and lives of maintenance/benefits

It depends.

If both your DH and you are working then it is quite correct that only DHs wages are taken into account to set CMS and he should be supporting his previous children from that wage. In which case YANBU.

If the two of you have decided to structure your household so that either you are the only earner, supporting DH to live without an income and thus deprive his children of any support, or that DH is a very low earner but being subsidised by you to live a much better lifestyle than his personal earnings could support then YABU, because DHs obligations include supporting his children and if you are subsidising him then the "him" that you are subsidising is a package that includes his CMS obligations.

I dont think it should have be taken into account. However if one parent actively chooses not to work as much as they could otherwise, due to their lifestyle being subsidised by their new partner, then their contribution shouldn't reduce. Eg a parent always worked full time, but reduces to part time because they now dont have to work. Why should their kids miss out? Unless they have dropped part time to increase their share of childcare or for health reasons then their contribution should be measured based on what their full time wage should be

How would they police that?

Well it works both ways. Unless there is a genuine reason why you are not able to both parents should work to contribute to the upbringing of the children unless you decide between yourselves that one of you won’t and can be supported by the other/other means.

No way. I already contribute towards my SCs when they are with us, no way should I need to contribute to them when they're not even with me?! They're not my children.

Ignore Apples OP, they sound like one of those who thinks they are entitled to another woman's earnings. Self respect appears to be lacking.
Or they are deliberately trying to get a reaction.

Generally no, as long as the paying parent is working full time (as the resident parent, usually mum, is expected to maximise her earnings, so should the nrp). If the paying parent's cms is reduced because there are other children in the household then yes, I believe the step parent's income should be included.

You can't have it both ways. If your contribution drops because you move in with someone who has their own kids then you should be prepared to have their income scrutinised and potentially used in a calculation.

I disagree strongly with 'other kids in the payee's household' being used to reduce the financial obligation to their own kids. That new household has 2 parents contributing to those children as well as their other nrp paying maintenance, whilst the original children's payment is reduced BECAUSE of those other kids? Nah...

They only take the finances of the resident paren'ts household into account when assessing uni finance leaving a situation where my sister's partner was expected to contribute to her kids as he lived with them but his income was not assessed to work out the finance for his own DC>

If you have DD’s 4 days a week you are doing more than 50% of the parenting and the ex should be paying you maintenance!

dh has always been a low earner. His ex also wanted my income taking into account (but not her OM!) for maintenance, and actually applied to the court not knowing my last name or where I lived. She’s found out what I do, assumed I earn loads and wanted a share.

as to what I do contribute- she kicked dh out with nothing. I provide the house where the kids stay, pay the bills, buy the food, the money for days out…

still not good enough as over the years she has poisoned the dc telling them how much money we have and that they can’t have violin/ballet/tennis lessons as they can’t afford it, and to ask dad if they need money- for reference she and her OM are on a much higher income than us.

I disagree strongly with 'other kids in the payee's household' being used to reduce the financial obligation to their own kids. That new household has 2 parents contributing to those children as well as their other nrp paying maintenance, whilst the original children's payment is reduced BECAUSE of those other kids? Nah...

Agree with this too. Parents should concentrate on their own kids. The set up above shouldn't happen. Also don't agree with NR parents maintenance going down if they choose to have more children with a new partner.

Yes you have to be careful where the kids "live"