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?

Some of these responses are all kinds of madness. If I ever thought for one minute that my husband or his ex would ever expect me to be financially liable for the children they had together, I would have run like the wind and never looked back. Thankfully, neither of them are insane.

@BungleandGeorge

I don’t think the point is that the step parent is personally responsible, but that once you move in with someone you become a household. Practically everything apart from maintenance is based on household income. A parent running a house alone pays the same as if they are part of a partnership. I think what people are saying is that the percentage salary paid by the NRP should increase based on household income to reflect their improved financial position. If you move in with someone your income affects their eligibility for benefits including child benefit which is no different really

It's completely different. Recieving benefits vs giving away your own money you personally earned. Very different. I say that as someone who has a joint account and therefore equally funded a resident step child for a number of years.

I draw the line at paying maintenance. They benefitted from me in other ways.

@BungleandGeorge

I don’t think the point is that the step parent is personally responsible, but that once you move in with someone you become a household. Practically everything apart from maintenance is based on household income. A parent running a house alone pays the same as if they are part of a partnership. I think what people are saying is that the percentage salary paid by the NRP should increase based on household income to reflect their improved financial position. If you move in with someone your income affects their eligibility for benefits including child benefit which is no different really

So in that scenario, the RP should offer to have their maintenance reduced if they shack up with someone new then? Because they're better off financially. Works both ways, surely?!!

What an utter crock of shit.

Given that my ex happily let's my dp financially support his son, and if he goes to university, it is our household income that will be looked at when it comes to grants, then yes, NRP partners income should be taken into consideration. The NRP always expects the new partner of the RP to contribute but won't have it the other way round.

@delilahbucket

Given that my ex happily let's my dp financially support his son, and if he goes to university, it is our household income that will be looked at when it comes to grants, then yes, NRP partners income should be taken into consideration. The NRP always expects the new partner of the RP to contribute but won't have it the other way round.

Dp has never expected any of his exs partners to contribute and even if they did he would have zero say or control over it!

By step mother shirking, I mean allowing and supporting the father to only pay a meagre wage and pay way below the income that's truly in the house from a business etc. No woman should want a man who actively lies and cheats out of providing a reasonable support for kids.

Hilarious. As I said earlier just no.
Dp children benefit hugely from my income but I will not pay maintenance.
Also there are a lot of assumptions on here about merged finances. Not everyone cohabiting has joint finances.

@BungleandGeorge

I don’t think the point is that the step parent is personally responsible, but that once you move in with someone you become a household. Practically everything apart from maintenance is based on household income. A parent running a house alone pays the same as if they are part of a partnership. I think what people are saying is that the percentage salary paid by the NRP should increase based on household income to reflect their improved financial position. If you move in with someone your income affects their eligibility for benefits including child benefit which is no different really

Yes but those other things that you are both liable for as a partnership are joint ventures/things you both benefit from or are responsible for. Partnerships with step children in the mix are in the fairly unique position of not being equitable in that regard. You can try and dress it up all you like, but it's only one of their responsibility. You cannot try and force a different kind of relationship into a conventional mould. When you bring kids to the table, you are bringing something you always be solely responsible for into your next relationship.

@Kindasup1

Ridiculous, as a step mum I am in no way financially responsible. Sorry you can't be trying to get my money at the same time tell me I have no role or say in the child's upbringing. Makes zero sense to me. My money and career choices are for my child and family. The split my husband experienced has nothing to do with me. And you cannot control the actions of someone who you are not tied to anymore. It's up to my husband to pay and what he pays is based on his individual circumstances. My child get money from his two parents so its equal. This is all ludicrous. The parents pay for their kids. And there are plenty of families with limited income havi g expanding families. You can't tell someone you are not with if they can have further children or not! It's not your business.

Once you become entangled, living together, you take on an involvement in his prior commitments. If you do not agree with that, don't get involved.

That makes no sense, the NRP is liable to their share of paying for the children. What should happen in your scenario is that the children have more spent on them by the RP and get a better standard of living.I’ve just looked up the payment via csm 12- 14 % of gross salary not including pension payment it’s not really a lot, you’d hope the NRP would voluntarily pay more if they become better off but apparently some voluntarily stop working or pay the absolute minimum. There does need to be some way to close the loophole. It’s not honestly fair that maintenance payments don’t count towards benefit calculations either

Once you become entangled, living together, you take on an involvement in his prior commitments. If you do not agree with that, don't get involved
Says who?

Legally if you're not married you don't have any legal involvement in anything, unless you co own a house.

Even if you are married legally you do not become responsible for each others children.

@Pleaseaddcaffine

Hilarious. As I said earlier just no. Dp children benefit hugely from my income but I will not pay maintenance. Also there are a lot of assumptions on here about merged finances. Not everyone cohabiting has joint finances.

Maybe not. But one way or another, if you live with someone you benefit. Now if one partner benefits more that's a discussion to be had with the partner. But regardless of how you choose to arrange your finances, you're viewed as having a household income for all purposes involving the children and such as benefits, grants and bursaries, so that logic should be applied.

If you don't like it, don't move in...

@Funfairballoon

Once you become entangled, living together, you take on an involvement in his prior commitments. If you do not agree with that, don't get involved Says who?

Legally if you're not married you don't have any legal involvement in anything, unless you co own a house.

Even if you are married legally you do not become responsible for each others children.

For the purposes of benefits, grants, bursaries, both parent and sp's incomes are used. So you're wrong.

I don't believe the step-parent's income should be taken into account, but I also don't think that having step/new children living with the NRP should reduce child maintenance. If you can't afford to pay full child maintenance once you have another child, then you can't afford to have another child.

For the purposes of benefits, grants, bursaries, both parent and sp's incomes are used. So you're wrong.

Yes but you're not responsible for each others children, ever, legally.

@BusyLizzie61 have you been at the glue?

@User5747384

can you show me the evidence of the millions of pounds taken from bank accounts please?
Also the deductions from earnings orders being common place?

Certainly

Do you work for them...

No

@JustLyra

CMS overall are appealing at using their powers, which is why there is such a huge level of debt owed to RPs.

No I certainly do not work for the CMS - I am a statistician by trade.

The figures are all available from the government website here:-

Child Maintenance Service statistics: data to September 2020

According to the official government statistics, over the last five years (2015-2020) the CMS has been responsible for overseeing just over £4 billion (£4.067 billion) of payments.

£3 billion of that was through Direct Pay and just over £1 billion through Collect & Pay.

Of that £4 billion around £380 million has not been paid. So, over 90% of child maintenance payments have been made over the last five years.

You asked specifically about lump sum deduction orders and deduction from earnings orders.

The figures for 2020 are not complete and, in any event, due to the Coronavirus outbreak, during the quarter ending June 2020, the CMS suspended new enforcement action so you can't really compare the figures.

But, in 2018 there were 2,200 Lump Sum Deduction Orders which collected a total of £4.1 million (an average of £1,860 each). The same figures for 2019 were 2,800 orders and a total of £6 million collected (an average of £2,140 each). That's straight out of the bank accounts of NRPs.

Then, when it comes to DEOs, at the end of 2019 there were 50,200 people subject to DEOs of whom 41,100 (82%) were compliant and paying £110 million per year.

Going further, when it comes to liability orders, over 10,000 were granted in 2019 and 8,800 cases were referred to enforcement agents. Between these two they brought in £7.8 million of payments.

Then when it comes to going to court they only have the figures for the last 6 months of 2019.

During that time - just six months - there were 197 suspended prison sentences made (where the NRP was told that if they did not pay then they would go to prison).

There were also 6 cases of people actually going to prison for not paying.

There were also 4 suspended passport confiscations and 4 suspended disqualifications from driving. There were also 3 immediate passport confiscations.

So, yes, NRPs really do go to prison for not paying. Six NRPs went to prison over the course of six months for not paying. It really does happen.

Also, just as an aside, I'm amazed at the comments here saying that all NRPs should pay £100 as a minimum.

Have a look at the existing figures.

As of September 2020 there were a total of 498,000 NRPs making payments either through Direct Pay or Collect & Pay.

Of these:-

71,000 (14.3%) did not have to make any payments as their income is less than £7 a week.

114,500 (23%) paid £7 a week as they are on Universal Credit or JSA

102,400 (21%) paid between £8 and £39.99 per week

169,000 (34%) paid between £40 and £99.99 per week

36,800 (7.4%) paid between £100 and £199.99 per week

4,300 (0.8%) paid £200 per week or more.

There really are very few NRPs who are paying more than £100 a week and there are 23% of all NRPs who are on UC or JSA.

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.

What would happen if the NRP is single or if the parents were still together? No convenient fairy stepmother to come to everyone’s rescue would there?

And why are you placing more importance on the other household when the stepmum has bills to pay for her own household with her now sole income? And has her own children to provide for as well as the stepchildren when they come to stay? What makes you think the stepmum is going to rush to make sure the other household is ok over her own household?
Both the mum of the stepchildren and the stepmum are both in the same boat if the dad loses his job for whatever reason. You’re basically saying that one woman should form a safety net for the other, leaving one woman and her children even more vulnerable to the affects of the man losing his job. Fuck that. Thank god the law doesn’t agree with you.

@delilahbucket

Given that my ex happily let's my dp financially support his son, and if he goes to university, it is our household income that will be looked at when it comes to grants, then yes, NRP partners income should be taken into consideration. The NRP always expects the new partner of the RP to contribute but won't have it the other way round.

I highly doubt the NRP always expects the RPs partner to contribute. They obviously have no control over whether or not they do, that is between the couple.

Again though, if a SM is paying toward bills, food etc... for the house the children stay at then she is contributing, just not to the exes household which is fair enough.

You asked specifically about lump sum deduction orders and deduction from earnings orders.

I didn’t ask anything.

I posted about CMS lack of willingness to use the powers available to them.

I don’t need to see figures. I know about their lack of willingness from working for them.

Those figures aren’t for all NRP though are they, that’s just the ones who the RP has bothered claiming against? The ones taken to the cms are likely to be the ones who hide income or voluntarily reduce hours or stop work. If the NRP is paying what seems like a reasonable amount I don’t think many RP quibble with it, or expect step parents to pay (I realise some are unreasonable and do). It’s when payments are non existent or far below NRP standard of living that people tend to go to the cms

Apologies that when I said “they don’t use them” I didn’t specifically say that I didn’t mean “literally never”

From posting on the subject on here very frequently most people have always understood what I meant

There is so much entitlement and greed on this thread.

@BungleandGeorge

Those figures aren’t for all NRP though are they, that’s just the ones who the RP has bothered claiming against? The ones taken to the cms are likely to be the ones who hide income or voluntarily reduce hours or stop work. If the NRP is paying what seems like a reasonable amount I don’t think many RP quibble with it, or expect step parents to pay (I realise some are unreasonable and do). It’s when payments are non existent or far below NRP standard of living that people tend to go to the cms

Just lol at this.

Generally no but if a nrp gives up a decent job because their new spouse is supporting them then I have sympathy for the view that the family income should be taken into account