Aibu about new partners and financially supporting kids from a previous relationship

[StitchHappens]

Aibu about the double standards between paying parents and resident parents?
When calculating child maintenance everyone seems to agree that it is right that any new partner's income isn't taken into account, so why does it also seem that everyone also seems OK with a partner who moves in with the resident parent having their income taken into account when calculating benefits, and being expected to financially support the NRP's kids?
Surely the resident parent should be equally able to move a partner in without them being expected to support their kids, as the non resident parent is?
Sorry if this is badly worded, hopefully it makes sense!

You want to move your partner in but still claim the same level of benefits?

Not comparable. Your reduction in benefits, would be counteracted in the contribution to rent and bills that a partner moving in would be paying.
Its right a non resident parents partner doesnt effect his cms. They're not her kids. It is however wrong that men can reduce their cms because they live with others kids who aren't theirs

Ha ha, no!!
My partner passed away a couple of years ago and I don't plan on getting into another relationship.
I just wondered how the 2 opinions are compatible for people? To me, either a new partner is equally part of supporting the kids or they aren't, it shouldn't depend on which parent they live with.
I should add, I think child maintenance should be taken into account when calculating benefits, but that means someone actually bothering to enforce it.

So the nrps outgoings aren't affected by a new partner moving in in exactly the same way?

The main difference in terms of benefits is that the resident parent would be asking the tax payer to continue to financially supporting them at the same level. It’s not really comparable with a NRP’s earned income.

I agree with @Blimms - the difference is that benefits come from the taxpayer, whereas the nrp ahould continue to support their own child.

But essentially the reason the rp needs to be supported to that extent by benefits would be because the nrp isn't doing their bit, surely? If the nrp paid more then the rp would be able to claim less in benefits...

But if benefits took maintenance into consideration then that would help reduce the amount being paid out, surely?

I agree that NRP’s are not asked to contribute enough.

But your benefits are calculated based on what YOU need to live and child maintenance is based on what YOUR CHILD needs from their other parent to make sure your contributions are as close to equal as they can be - they’re two totally separate calculations.

When benefits are reassessed after a partner moves in it’s based on what YOU AND YOUR PARTNER need to live. Your ex won’t pay less maintenance because a new partner moves in because the new partner won’t be expected to pay for his child.

Why should benefits pay your rent and give you the same amount of money that will be spent on bills/food etc when a new partner moving in will be expected to contribute to those things?

Agree that it’s a double standard that when a NRP moves into a household with children, his maintenance goes down despite the expectation being that he won’t pay for those children because their own NRPs will be though.

Not the same

and you can’t say cms is not enough. I know some parents paying 1500 a month plus.

yrs they’re high earners, but also not considering they got much less assets in divorce with houses etc going to exes and they are left with ugh higher mortgages to get nowhere near same level
og housing as ex. That’s why it’s so nuanced and shouldn’t be generalised

and of course if a person claiming benefits moves their partner in that income should be assessed! It’s not the same at all of saying a new partners income should count for cms !

I do agree cms shouldn’t reduce due to living with new partners children

But benefits are calculated on what the family need to live on, not what two adults need. So it's not separate at all. A new partner can't move in with a rp and ring fence their income so they only pay for themselves, and the parent pays for the child, they are expected to take financial responsibility for anything children in the household when they move in. I don't disagree with that. I just don't understand why it's different for a nrp and their partner. So many nrps move in with a new partner and then reduce their income because their outgoings have reduced, which therefore reduces their maintenance, and I don't see how this is acceptable. Surely household income should be assessed in the same way for both nrps and rps. Then maintenance can be included in benefit calculations, moving more of the responsibility for supporting the children to the parents instead of the state.

The problem is that in some cases cms is nowhere near enough, or non existent, and in others it is much higher than needed, but neither is taken into account when calculating benefits.

Wouldn't it be simpler not to keep moving in and out new partners, what is best for the kids in all this adult created mess?

They used to do this, and all that happened was the NRPs still weren't paying, what they should be paying was taken into account, and so the RPs were getting screwed over financially.

Yes, it's just a completely terrible idea. We can discuss doing it once we've made the CMS system fit for purpose.

It’s not about overall income, it’s about money directed to the care of a child/children.

Absolutely. For both parents, especially given that a nrp can be considered as such but still have their kids 49% of the time.

I know, and I suppose that essentially this is the crux of the problem. If NRP were as much on the hook as rp for supporting their kids all of this would be less of an issue.

The NRP has responsibilities to their children regardless of the household income of the RP. Because all parents have responsibilities for their children, whether resident or not. Those responsibilities don't evaporate if the RP happens to move in with a wealthy partner because the NRP is still a parent.

The tax payer has no inherent responsibility for the children, and should only step in when there is a genuine need, i.e. if the resident parent has no other way of supporting their kids. It's a safety net when every other option fails. As soon as another option is available, the need ceases and the responsibility ends.

Isn't this obvious?

But in the case of the rp that income includes their partner, yet it doesn't with a nrp.

No, the overall income includes their partner’s, but ring-fenced for children remains the same.

And yet the tax payer is expected to subsidise the nrp when they choose not to support their kids ...

That’s a totally different question.

I don't think anyone is arguing that that's right or that we shouldn't implement better mechanisms for going after NRPs for child support? But that's a separate debate.