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!

I'm sorry, I'm not understanding this. The rp is expected to cover all costs for the child when considering benefits. (Child maintenance being disregarded because its so unreliable). Any new partners income or savings are included in the calculation. They are considered a household and equally financially responsible for supporting the kids.

No, you’re confusing total income and income directed at childcare again. If total income rises, benefits are reduced obviously.

Well I'd say no because the CM payment is going out of their household and directly into another - the NRP's household will always be down that amount, plus the money that is spent on the children when together.

Also if the NRP was on benefits then their income would be impacted in the exact same way as the RP if they moved a partner in?

Yeah but that is within their own household? So the total money could also include things like paying rent, household repairs, food shops etc, all of which also benefit them.

You can't expect a new partner of an NRP to be made to hand over money to support their DP's ex's household, where they don't even live? They are already likely contributing to the children by paying rent/mortgage on a bigger house than they would require/in a different area/food shops etc.

Why should the tax payer support the RP when they move someone in?

say they get £300pm CMS, and I don’t know rent paid at £600 via housing benefit or something. . When someone moved in they still get the CMS. However the person moving in will contribute towards rent, utilities and food, in the same way they would if they stayed where they were. That’s likely to be far more than the £600

If they don’t want to take responsibility for the lost benefits then don’t move in

But child maintenance is to support the kids, not the household (and in many cases doesn't even come close to a reasonable percentage of this cost) . So the nrp partner wouldn't be contributing to the household of the ex.

I didn't say they should. Why should the tax payer subsidise the nrp so they don't pay their share of the cost of bringing up the children?

The NRP is paying a contribution towards the costs of raising children - which doesn’t include the cost of housing, feeding and clothing you

thats the difference

So the nrp partner wouldn't be contributing to the household of the ex.

But that’s exactly what you’re suggesting.

They aren’t.

Yeah but do any parents actually ringfence CM payments and only ever use it on things directly bought for the children? I doubt many do unless they are wealthy and put it aside as savings for the child or something.

I think it's perfectly reasonable that it goes on food shops, rent for the roof over the child's head etc etc. It's a contribution that goes where it's needed, whether that be directly buying school uniform, for example, or the MOT on the car that drives the kids to school.

My point was more that the NRP's partner and the RP's partner are quite different in that money shared by the RP's partner is still going into their own household pot - unless we are talking about them directly contributing to things like school trips, driving lessons etc. To take it from the NRP would be directly taking it out of their home and putting it into someone else's, which isn't right.

That said though OP, I do actually agree that it's a murky area to even include the RP's partner's income in these calculations because there is no guarantee at all the they help out with the children's expenses and many likely do not.

I suppose the assumption is that the children's costs remain covered by the 2 parents via direct spend and CM, but that the RP's partner will be contributing towards household costs that benefits are there to help with.

In many many cases they are.
Basically unless all child related expenses are split 50/50 and neither parent is claiming benefits.
While a self employed nrp can pay their partner instead of themselves, keeping all money in the household but meaning they don't pay cm on it the system is set up to subsidise the nrp by enabling the costs to be put on the state rather than the parent.

But if an NRP did this and their partner was claiming benefits then their benefits would be reduced/stopped, so the same as it is for the RP's household?

I wouldn't have though the majority of NRP's partners are claiming benefits though, unless they have children of their own, in which case they'd have their own concerns about moving in with a partner anyway.

If an NRP's partner is working and earning their own money and contributing to the household where the children live when with the NRP, then there is no reason they should be made to hand over more to their partner's ex. It's mad.

Yes maintenance is to support the child. That’s true. But it’s to support the child when they are in the RP’s household. Of course maintenance is going to benefit that household if it benefits the child. It frees up money for the RP for her to spend on her household.

But it’s not up to the NRP’s partner to support and facilitate that.

I say this as an RP whose children receive nothing from their father. It is absolute cheeky fuckery to expect another woman to support your children and therefore your household.

But that only works if you consider it to be the rp responsibility to support the child and not the nrp. Cm isn't freeing up the rps income unless you already consider that to be allocated to supporting the child.
Every parent should be contributing to 50% of the child's upbringing.
Absolutely, it would be, so why is it not the same when it is expected of the partner of the rp?
Maybe child costs should be calculated separately to that of the adults in terms of benefits, and only the parents expected to contribute to them??

The partners of both parents support the children when the child is with them. It’s not the NRP’s partner’s fault that the child might not be with them as much, or that the RP’s partner actively chose to live with someone who is an RP.

If the RP is receiving child related benefits eg the child element of UC then moving a partner in will mean those benefit amounts will change because of the partner’s income. So yes a partner does have a responsibility to make up for that so that the children don’t lose out.

An NRP doesn’t lose any child related benefits because they aren’t claiming them in the first place. So their partner’s income coming in to the equation doesn’t put the NRP and his kids in any difficult position like the RP’s partner’s does.

The NRP’s partner will be paying in to the household where the children stay when they are with their father. Maybe even made it better for them as she will be bringing extra income in to that household. That’s enough. She could be a millionaire but she’s still nothing to do with maintenance just like you would never expect maintenance to go down or stop because of an RP’s partner’s income.