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.

It used to be.
I not only had my wages taken into account but was told that the fact I was about to take maternity was irrelevant as “anything could happen” and we’d have to seek an amendment after the birth of our child.

No, why would it? In the same way it doesn't go down when a RP moves in with a partner. The NRP still has to pay despite the RPs living costs going down.

A million percent this.

Well the dc could move in with dad and stepmum m-f and see mum at weekends.

that’s never an option either- “I’m not paying to have my kids taken off me” was the direct quote.

Yep exactly.

I think unfortunately there are loads of factors rolled up in this and one is that a lot of parents do not expect the status quo to change when they split up. That's (mostly) mothers thinking they can still remain not working/part time and dad's thinking they can continue working a lot while just paying minimally, not factoring in the extra costs for everyone to run 2 households now, including extra bills, childcare etc.

I know a lot has been mentioned about high earning partners, but what about a partner on an average wage already potentially struggling to make ends meet? Why should that partner give her own children less so that another woman has more to give to hers?

And what a lot of people forget about is the NRP’s household. It needs money going in to it as well. If most of that income is being fired towards the oh so important other household, then how do people expect the NRP’s household to provide a good enough place to live? Can’t have it all ways.
Maybe the partner is paying a big chunk of the rent bill or the food bill. You know, to feed and house the stepchildren when they stay?

No, I don't think the SP income should count in the assessment. But I also don't think the 'new family' should be considered to lower his assessment amount. If he went and had more kids after the first lot, it doesn't lessen his responsibility to the first set of kids. His salary should be taken as a whole before any expenses in CS assessments.

I live alone but my xh has cohabited with his partner for 7 years. They have a combined household income, they are able to share bills etc, no kids so I do have a bit of a feeling that her income as a buffer to his income should have been factored into my financial settlement tbh but I can see both sides.

No, I don’t think it should be taken into account.

I also don’t think that NRP should pay less towards their own child if they move in with someone who has children.

My ex told me with glee that he was moving in with his new girlfriend of 6 weeks as she had 4 children so he would have to give me less money for ds. He was very happy, it was his “gotcha” moment, the sad fuck.

This was after he made my life hell for 50/50 just so he wouldn’t have to pay any Cm (his words). Only, he got bored of having ds so much after just three weeks of the arrangement and having to shell out more on nannies due to his work schedule than he would have had to pay maintenance, and saw him one weekend a month from then on. He had to pay maintenance then, and magically found a partner with lots of children to move in with 2 months later.

He was is a consultant cardiologist by the way, not some boy racer with no teeth.

I’m so glad ds is an adult now as he held every penny of that maintenance over me for 14 years.

No I don’t think so either.

Generally speaking I don’t think it’s for step parents to support children who already have two parents

Yes you might think they should consider whether they can afford it before having more kids!

But why should she fund your household because she happens to be living with your ex? If you think having two household incomes is better then really what is stopping you going and finding someone to live with yourself? (I'm not saying you should!).

You and he are responsible for your children, not her she had absolutely no part in bringing them into the world. I don't think because he has someone to share the bills with is relevant.

Unless you would accept him paying less maintenance if you ever moved in with someone because you were now sharing bills too?

I hope I've not misunderstood your post if I have I will apologise now. The issue is once you have a family one person A and it doesn't work out people seem to casually go on and meet person B which is fine but then they pop out more kids. I don't want to cause offence to anybody.... but family A was on the scene first honestly I would be utterly fucked off if DS dad went on to have more children AND then expect me to have sympathy for him because he now has family B to provide for which is optionally choose to put himself in that situation.

Can you see my point?

YANBU however I do believe that step parents children shouldn't be taken into account when calculating CMS, only joint children.

When NRPs give up work, move away or reduce their earnings because of a new partner, then yes, that should be taken into consideration. It’s only fair because an NRP can move in with a parent with resident care of their children and reduce the CM they pay to their own.

I’ve known a couple of cases where a NRP has become a SAHP to children from their second relationship and it’s wrong that the current rules allow them to stop paying for their first children.

I don't think it a step-parent's income should be factored into CMS payments, no. But I don't think CMS payments should be reduced if the parent goes on to have new children either. When dh and I had a 2nd child, we had to factor in that that would cost us more. Our first child didn't magically get cheaper. We just had to stretch the same money across two children and cut down other things.

I have a friend who has a dd and her ex left before his dd was even born (never met her). He already was the mostly SAHP to avoid paying CMS, I like he pays £40 a month (he's a perfectly employable software engineer who has simply chosen not to work much). That tiny amount has reduced for each of the 3 children he then had with his new partner. Which is ridiculous. No need to have more children if you can't or won't afford the ones you already have.

No, why would it? In the same way it doesn't go down when a RP moves in with a partner. The NRP still has to pay despite the RPs living costs going down.

I am thinking along the lines of nrp earns x amount, but has to pay y amount in rent. Now where we live rent is astronomical so a very real struggle to provide both a decent amount of cms and at the same time have a place suitable for DC to stay when you don't get any benefits for DC. But if there are 2 people paying rent then the NRP has a higher amount of money left after essential bills and could then afford to up CMS. The whole system could probably do with a overhaul

We have 50/50 shared care.

We both work full time. I have no dependents because of my step children, I can’t afford to add £100k to a mortgage for a bigger house and we can’t move to a cheaper area and still have 50/50 shared care.

Meanwhile Ex works 2 days a week, lives in a council house and when we last calculated her annual entitlement between benefits and pay it totalled £28,000.

That’s not far off my annual salary.

Should I work more to support her children? No. She should. I already support with holidays, food, clothes, days out and what’s effectively babysitting and maid service.

Can you stop making the payments or is the CMS garnishing your salary?

I would want to stop the payments, but great that you're getting legal help.

Why? They could break up at any point or you could get a party at any point.
what if he was in a house share would you think the same?

And WTH is it the new wife's problem?? She is wealthy and providing that lifestyle for her children. Why should she do that for someone else's children??

Again though, the RP could just as equally move in with a partner. It doesn't mean the NRP gets to pay less maintenance. That basically is saying that new partners / step parents should subsidise maintenance payments to the exes household.

I disagree that other factors in the NRPs home should affect maintenance, which includes new children, step children AND whether they have a rich spouse and more disposable income for it.

Because even on a dual average income, it can be hard to make ends meet. The resident parent will be entitled to housing benefit, child related benefits and social housing if they’re struggling.

If an NRP is living in a one-bedroom flat moves in with a partner and now they can collectively afford a house with bedrooms for the SC and the occasional day out, the new partner’s already subsiding the SC. Why should an additional percentage of her salary be sent to her partner’s ex on top of her making the SC’s life better (and more equal) already?

She able to earn that salary because he’s become a sahp to their children. His existing children are therefore deprived of any money from him as a result, whilst he is fine and living a good life.

How is that fair?

In addition to it just getting messy too. So say when he was single a dad paid £300 a month, but now he has a partner who shares bills so now he should be made to pay £600 a month this goes on for a few years and then he splits with said partner. What happens then? Will he be expected to continue with the £600 because that's what his ex has grown accustomed to / based her household lifestyle off for the last few years?

Then she gets a partner who moves in so of course he should be allowed to pay less now considering she is also sharing bills with someone else?

I think it just works better as a whole if you make it solely the responsibility of the two parents to pay for their children regardless of any other parties contributing to bills or whatever else.