Does anyone here believe CMS should take into account a step parents earnings and if so, why?

[PutItInYourPocket2]

Just curious as to people's opinions. I know the majority, or so it seems, believe they shouldn't take into account SPs earnings when calculating CMS or that SPs should be responsible if the bio parent cannot pay for whatever reason.

However it seems from reading another thread that there are those who believe they should.

If you do, what are your reasons?

To summarise (In Officious little voice like Professor Umbridge in Harry Potter) - “when you marry a man with children you take on those children as your own”
Back in the real world, it’s only the parents job to provide for their kids, although I do believe that in cases where a deliberate financial decision was taken for the NRP to be supported by their spouse then that’s different and the step parents “family money” should include maintenance, although official enforcement of this would be a slippery slope.

Otherwise, in cases of death, incapacity, job loss etc, everyone is in the shit and it’s no more the step parents job to cover the shortfall than the next random person in the street.

I am a sp we have discussed that if we have children maintenance will not be reduced just as if dp lost his job I would cover maintenance until he found something else but I don't think my income should be taken into account but I do feel morally ss should not be effected by our choices negatively

I don’t think their partners income should have an impact on the amount, but I do think child maintenance should be a family bill, so if the NRP is out of work for any reason maintenance should continue to be paid at the usual rate. Losing a job etc isn’t a get out of jail card for the electric bill, so it shouldn’t get an NRP out of paying maintenance.

@SimonJT

I don’t think their partners income should have an impact on the amount, but I do think child maintenance should be a family bill, so if the NRP is out of work for any reason maintenance should continue to be paid at the usual rate. Losing a job etc isn’t a get out of jail card for the electric bill, so it shouldn’t get an NRP out of paying maintenance.

I agree.

No.
The step parent does not have any final responsibility towards the child.

Let's turn it round, would the ex partner be financially responsible for any half siblings or step siblings to their child?

No but I also think the step parents resident children should be used as a means as a way of reducing the maintenance.
Also if a family make the decision for the nrp to give up work to benefit the current family set up then they should consider child maintenance and how they will pay it before doing this.
I have seen on here before a SM wanting her partner to give up work so they paid no maintenance and save her childcare costs for their shared child and her own child.

Yes I do. I'll give you my scenario.
ExH and his newW have a company which makes around £10k a month. ExH takes only a few hundred pounds a month as his pay. The wife takes a large sum.
ExH puts into the CMA calculator his own personal earnings. It also asks how many children reside with him. He has 2 with me (who only stay one night a week there) and his Wife has 2 of her own. So he counts her 2 as residing there.
This therefore decreases the percentage that my children receive.
Fair?

No. When I met DH I was earning 3 x his salary - he was paying CM based on his salary before he met me, and continued to do so after we got together. Why on earth should my mere existence suddenly bump up the amount of CM paid?! If you support this, then really you should also support the reduction of maintenance payments by the NRP reducing when the RP marries or cohabits - can't see many suggestions of that anywhere!

In the case of the 'second' family making a decision that the NRP will SAH and be financially supported by his wife / partner for childcare reasons, then yes maintenance should continue out of the family pot.

In all other situations where the NRP having no income is unexpected / not a deliberate decision, no. If the NRP was still in a relationship with first wife and had no job = no contribution towards family finances. If the NRP was single and had no job = no contribution towards family finances. So the argument that NRP has new wife and has no job = new wife to make sure his maintenance is paid, is just ridiculous.

It goes both ways really. If people expect step parents to pay towards step children, then the step parent should have a say in how the child is raised, and be involved fully in their life without being told they are overstepping the mark.

I don’t think the nrp’s partner’s income should be included. When it comes to maintenance, the partner’s income should be disregarded.
You never hear people shouting for maintenance to be reduced because of the rp’s partner’s income do you? So the same logic applies in that it shouldn’t be increased because of the nrp’s partner’s income.

Maintenance should be nrp’s income only.
Am I right in thinking that on the other thread, the nrp isn’t working because of a medical reason?

What impact should it have? Does the RP get the same fraction of sp income as they do of the nrp income? Essentially that would mean the nrp is just paying twice the amount.
If its more evened out but still based on joint income does it the reduce if for example the sp loses their job or goes on maternity leave ( meaning they end up on smp)?
Also at what point do we start to take it into account. For benifits they count cohabitating partners. Do we do the same for maintenance? So when I moved in with my partner a year and a half into our relationship I would have suddenly become financially responsible for his son. Mmmm not too sure about that. Or is it when your married? Surely you wouldn't marry a man with a child if that was the case.
For what it's worth DSS child maintenance is treated as a household expense in our house but it wasnt when we first moved in together.

I think there are too many variabilities for this to work.

My ex is now a SAHP to his step kids, before that my payments were reduced because he was classed as 'financially responsible' for his step kids.

The whole system needs a shake up. At the moment its too easy to get out of paying and step families are taken into account sometimes, and not other times so it needs to be consistent.

Step parents aren't responsible for paying for the kids, fine, but stop letting families claim that the step father is financially responsible to get a discount towards paying for his own kids, and step parents incomes should be taken into account if they have one income due to the parent becoming a SAHP to their step kids.

No it shouldnt but I don't think step dc living the NRP should be taken into consideration as they have another two parents. That been said its difficult for RP when the NRP decides to not work in favour of becoming a sahd. I think we should adopt the view that America has, we are far too relaxed and things need to be stricter so NRP get out of paying or paying as little as they can.

@DifficultPifcultLemonDifficult

My ex is now a SAHP to his step kids, before that my payments were reduced because he was classed as 'financially responsible' for his step kids.

The whole system needs a shake up. At the moment its too easy to get out of paying and step families are taken into account sometimes, and not other times so it needs to be consistent.

Step parents aren't responsible for paying for the kids, fine, but stop letting families claim that the step father is financially responsible to get a discount towards paying for his own kids, and step parents incomes should be taken into account if they have one income due to the parent becoming a SAHP to their step kids.

Amen!

In most instances, no the stepparents income shouldn't be taken into account. But as PP said, if decisions such as reducing hours or giving up work are made to suit the new family, this should be accounted for.

I don't believe that CMS should take into account the existence of stepchildren living with the none resident parent either. Either stepparents are financially responsible for their stepchildren or they're not.

@SimonJT

I don’t think their partners income should have an impact on the amount, but I do think child maintenance should be a family bill, so if the NRP is out of work for any reason maintenance should continue to be paid at the usual rate. Losing a job etc isn’t a get out of jail card for the electric bill, so it shouldn’t get an NRP out of paying maintenance.

My DH earns more than double what I do. We would not be able to cover the basic costs of life if he lost his job and I was somehow expected to pay maintenance to his ex.

It’s just not my expense. It’s his. And based on his income. I don’t even give any thought to what his income would be before maintenance because that’s not income for our household.

I think a low limit should be set at £100 regardless of circumstances, you create a life you pay for it all the other bills don't go away and it builds up if it doesn't get paid might stop fiddling the system and get into work properly.

In most circumstances, absolutely not. We still have a financially dependent child each. Mine lives with us (not his child), and his lives with his mum with his dad having access. He pays maintenance based on HIS salary alone. I pay for my own child's costs. Neither of us are financially responsible for the other child and that's the way I believe it should be.

I think it's a difficult call because your finances are in extricably linked. If, for example, remarried father becomes SAHP, that's financial decision the new couple made jointly. If a father isn't working for another reason, he may well be entitled to benefits he won't get as part of a cohabiting couple, so the fact that the SM exists does affect his ability to pay, often as a result of a decision they made jointly.

There would be harsh criticism of a man who "took on" a woman with children and refused to support them in any way.

Ylvamoon that’s a really good point.

@Icenii

It goes both ways really. If people expect step parents to pay towards step children, then the step parent should have a say in how the child is raised, and be involved fully in their life without being told they are overstepping the mark.

THIS.

Only it tends not to work out that way in reality.

No the NRP’s partner’s income shouldn’t be considered. And we didn’t reduce DH’s payments when our shared child was born.

But it’s bat shit crazy that the NRP’s resident step children reduce payments. Who on Earth ever thought that was fair. If all NRP’s were expected to pay up and be decent the assumption, excepting a parental death, should be that NRP’s step children are being part funded by their own NRP.

If DH lost his job I wouldn’t pay child support. If they were still together there’d be no third party making up the difference.

There would be harsh criticism of a man who "took on" a woman with children and refused to support them in any way.

Would there really though? I never expected my husband to take on any of my child's costs when I met him. Am I in the minority?

If the other thread is the one I'm thinking about no the ops shouldn't be paying anything to do with their new husbands expenses.
If my income was included to pay for other people's children I wouldn't be moving in with them. Same with pre-existing debts.

@Soothes

I think it's a difficult call because your finances are in extricably linked. If, for example, remarried father becomes SAHP, that's financial decision the new couple made jointly. If a father isn't working for another reason, he may well be entitled to benefits he won't get as part of a cohabiting couple, so the fact that the SM exists does affect his ability to pay, often as a result of a decision they made jointly.

There would be harsh criticism of a man who "took on" a woman with children and refused to support them in any way.

I agree.

I know of at least two families where the mother has remarried and the step father in that situation contributes greatly to the family expenses (obviously resident children as would be expected)

And yet non resident parents can have a high earning spouse who is not obligated to contribute anything and the maintenance is low or nil because the father is unemployed and jumps jobs.

Seems there is a double standard at times.