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.

Is it ok for mum to go on to have more children with a new partner and therefore reduce the amount of money available for existing children?

@TheSpoonAndTheFork exactly. Where would it end? Other people paying for kids that are not theirs.

@DownWithBreadsticks seriously I would pay a couple of months maintenance to a lawyer to get you out of this.

He needs to provide a fair share of his own wealth in his will, but not to excess or that causes you to lose your home.

Has he been formally labelled as "terminal"? That is obviously a clear reason for giving up work.

Please fight this if you can find the energy.

That often happens, let’s be honest and everyone seems to think that’s absolutely fine.

I don't think step parents should pay, but there are a lot of loop holes that need sorting out.

I wasn't able to do the degree I wanted because my parents wouldn't support me, my step dad's income meant I wasn't eligible for a loan. That needs stopping!

Nobody should be allowed to suddenly live off a new partner to avoid maintenance.

Moving in with other people's children should never reduce maintenance.

I also don't agree with it being cut because one household chooses to have subsequent children.

Parents also owe it to their children to think carefully before having children with new partners who will have drastically different life opportunities.

All the above should apply to both parents regardless of their sex!

I think there probably is a (thin) argument that even in nuclear families funds spent on existing children may be reduced / cut (luxuries obviously not necessities) and therefore it's only the same when it happens in separated houses. I.e. Sarah may have to have a cheaper coat or only one type of instrument lessons instead of two because new brother Billy has to go to nursery so it'll be a bit tight for a few years but it's doable still.

But there is obviously a big difference there that both parents choose to have more children according to their one household income in a nuclear family whereas that doesn't happen in a separated co parenting situation.

I think it should depend on the circumstances. For example of the absent parent is a stay at home parent in new family whilst step parent works full time earning serious money then yes. My reason for this being that the absent parents lack of working enables them to have a higher income but means they provide bare minimum for their child with the legally required £5. However if the absent from the home parent is paying an amount that actually provides well for their child no. Bare in mind however that I do not think the cms is fit for purpose. They review yearly based on the previous tax years income. If the parent paying gets a 24% pay rise the very next day they don't pay a penny more I find that wrong. It should be a fixed percentage each month.

If step parents are not financially responsible for step kids why were my dp finances taken into account for university?

They shouldn't have been imo.

I can think that a SPs income shouldn't be included in CMS payments whilst also disagreeing that they should be included in uni applications.

I don't think a SPs income should be included in anything, at all, for children who are not theirs.

If both parents are choosing to have more kids and spread their income, that’s their decision.

but if only one parent chooses to have more kids, and reduce income per child, why does the same not apply to the other parent?

a nrp having more kids paying the same maintenance doesn’t affect the existing kids. An rp having more kids it does affect the existing kids financially.

But when you had your second child, you would have had less disposable income to spend on your first. I’m pretty sure the CMS calculation if the NRP has another child is something like -5-10%.

Well that's why I said it's a thin argument (one I've seen in here before). I'm not saying I agree with it just saying I can see why some people may use that.

Imo it shouldn't reduce maintenance if you have more children.

Because at this point they’re considered adults and it’s based on their primary household. The whole student loan policy is wrong for many reasons. No parent’s income should be the basis for another adult’s funding imo.

@putthatdownsteve God I know you can't judge a book by its cover but he sounds awful. As if he was a Cardiologist too I feel sick just reading your post.. I've worked previously in that area. Absolutely shocking you deserved every penny! 👏

I only mentioned his job as I’ve spoken about him and his antics on here before and most people assume he was out of work, or very young, that type of thing.

Anyone, no matter how professional or well respected they are can be a complete knob.

@CadMan when @mindutopia agreed to have her 2nd child though and she would of been aware of the joint cost together as she was in a relationship. When sc are created the bio parents have no control over the matter.... but the first set of kids still need paying for why should they suffer?

Because when you split up, you stop having a say in your ex’s reproductive rights. Otherwise, should the NRP be able to block the RP from having another baby? That’ll affect the existing children too and mean less is spent on them.

I’m talking in terms of the NRP’s partner. Not the NRP. Family A needs providing for, but that’s on the parents to sort out. That’s what maintenance from the NRP is for, and I fully support that.

My point was that the NRP’s household might not have a good standard of living if the partner is also sending money to the ex too. Or subsidising the maintenance payment through her paying more on other bills etc.. That would still be technically her paying towards the maintenance and ultimately less money going in to that household as a result. Why should she go out to work just live like that? And why should her own children have less money to live on because their mum is providing another woman with their money? And it also then becomes a problem when the SC come to stay, doesn’t it? As I said, you can’t have it all ways. If you want more money from that household then there is less for your child when your child goes to stay in their other home, because it went to you instead. 🤷🏼‍♀️

My post wasn’t about the NRP getting out of paying maintenance. It’s about other people not paying it.

I would 100% divorce my DH if I had to pay a penny to his ex wife. Why should I work extremely hard for her to be allowed to sit in her arse all day? Fuck that!

If you want more money from that household then there is less for your child when your child goes to stay in their other home, because it went to you instead. totally agree with this point. My SDC have to share a room at their mums they get one each. If they want to start taking my income into consideration then they'll be relegated to sleeping on the floor in the living room as we'd have to downsize.

@funinthesun19 I don't really understand your post. Firstly you have to address the person whoever has gone on and created a second family. Surely?

Why have more children in the first place?

Exactly. If your own money goes to her then you have less money as a household to provide a big enough home for the children when they stay.

If anything part of the reason why I work so hard and do a well paid job instead of scaling back and spending more time with my child is because DH has to pay maintenance so the household pot has less. If my income was being taken into account I'd go part time or divorce and she wouldn't get any of my cash.

I expect this is the case for the majority. Stepparents are already subsidising and improving the lives of the SC in the non-resident home. The RP gets child benefits, other benefits and social housing consideration for the children; the NRP doesn’t even if they have them three nights a week.

Because children are a joy to treasure?