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?

But that does not mean that they are useless or "shite" as others here have said, but they could clearly do better.

There are people on here owed 5 figure sums (£10k+ ) then the kids turn 18 and the CMS ask if they'd allow them to write off the debt so they look half competent.
There are countless stories on here where RP are getting no money for months and told to give the NRP a chance to pay.

If someone didn't pay their rent, Council Tax or VAT bill- how long until action was taken ? No way would it be treated as lightly as non payment of CM

And CMS are totally shit. I found out my ex wasn't living with his partner and her DC as they'd claimed in order to get a reduction. I was told I had to prove it. I sent screenshots of the text messages. Was told they weren't proof as they could be faked. Even though they were sent from exes phone number that he had registered with the CMS.

@caringcarer

Parents job to pay for their child. My ex used to refuse to pay child maintenance in December so he could be the one to give all the love presents for child and he hoped I could not afford much. He would sometimes catch up payments at end of February. My new husband has always been very kind and generous to my children even after they become adults. Their own Dad not so much. Now they are adults they remember. Their step Dad gets Father's Day card, their Dad not.

How/why do they know about it?

@WhatWouldPhyllisCraneDo

And CMS are totally shit. I found out my ex wasn't living with his partner and her DC as they'd claimed in order to get a reduction. I was told I had to prove it. I sent screenshots of the text messages. Was told they weren't proof as they could be faked. Even though they were sent from exes phone number that he had registered with the CMS.

We had the opposite problem. Ex told cms dss was still living with her. Never asked her to prove it. Asked us to prove he lived with us, we provided everything they asked for but they wouldn't take out word for it. Wankers.

@Bul21ia not with you I’m afraid. The only one liable to pay is their parent. But their parent would pay a slightly higher percentage than if they were running a house as a single person, step parent income would stay the same. I didn’t say I wanted that but I can see where people are coming from with that
Personally I only think it’s really an issue if the NRP voluntarily reduces hours or stops work because their partner is paying the bills. Both parents should be under an obligation to pay for their children, and make arrangements wherever they can to continue paying for them if they’re made redundant or are incapacitated/ die. Because they owe it to their kids who can’t live on fresh air alone.

How do you pay if your dead?

How/why do they know about it?

Children are not stupid. Simple stuff like a parent expressing negativity about the ex, picking up on phone calls they over hear, seeing CMS letters drop through the letter box, parents being explicit - it’s your mother’s job to pay for stuff, not mine, money grabbing bitch.....

Or it can be as simple as telling your children that you are the only person supporting them. This has been my approach for a number of years, although years of being told bus fares, school trips, hair cuts, shoes etc are nothing to do with him kind of pointed them in the right direction. It is no big deal - they know I work hard and have ‘enough’ money. They still enjoy a good relationship with their dad, although his argumentative side and need to be right has made things difficult as they’ve reached their teens. If he doesn’t want them to think badly of him then he should have supported them. Not rocket science. Not my job to protect him.

How do you pay if your dead?

You can have had the foresight to have taken out life insurance that would pay a lump sum to the PWC up to a certain age or direct to the children if they are still dependent at uni, for example. Just responsible parenting.

LucieStar
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

No. It shouldn't.

By that logic it should also decrease, then, when Mum has a new partner move in with her, to reflect the improved household income of the RP. Bet people won't be so vocally advocating for that on this thread, somehow ....

No that’s not the equivalent is it? First scenario NRP payment increases, second scenario RP payment increases. Personally I’m not a person who wants to pay as little as possible for my own children, the figure is certainly a lot bigger than 14%, as it is for many NRP when they take into account maintenance and other things they pay for.

It wouldn’t sit well with me to have a relationship with someone with children, but then not provide for those children’s needs as if they were my own. That being said, I’m not sure taking a SP earnings into account is the right way to go about it.

The system really needs an overhaul. The contributions from NRP don’t touch the sides where a child’s needs is concerned. If you take into account the stats on child poverty, it’s no wonder the UK fares so badly compared to other European countries. It needs to be taken at source like tax for those employed and the loopholes closed for the self employed/ company directors. And the onus shouldn’t be on the RP to prove NRP earnings.

@funinthesun19

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.

Exactly! People seem to forget that stepmums provide a lot in the own household which the rp obviously doesn’t see, therefore people think she’s not providing anything. Absolute joke.

The step parent may provide, may not. However, as a household they can make decisions that reduce the CM obligation too. They often benefit financially from the sacrifices the first partner made so that the now NRP has a good career and even better financial outlook. They can gain PR if so desired, but to me that's irrelevant and merely distracting away. The Stepparent if has children, will also possibly gain too. The Stepparent without children possibly will be at a disadvantage, but if this is how the situation was from the outset, then there'd be no surprise and everyone would be entering these relationships with their eyes open. Whereas atm, many NRPs enter into new relationships, with the expectations of how they can reduce their CM obligations. That should not be the defacto for many. And given that the Stepparents income is taken into account for educational purposes benefits etc, why should this not be the case also for the setting of CM? Yes, it means that the new partner is liable, but that no different to the fsct once the NRP moves in the council tax liability rises from 75 to 100% is it. Its accepted. Indeed many teens are disadvantaged by the NRPmoving in with the new partner when it comes to grants and student loans. So given all of these significant elements that impact the children surely CM should be based on household. Many NRPs purposely appear to avoid paying true reflection of their incomes, legally, from which the new partner's household benefits, to the detriment of the children living elsewhere and the financial sacrifices made getting the NRP to that career point. Is this right?

@BungleandGeorge

LucieStar 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

No. It shouldn't.

By that logic it should also decrease, then, when Mum has a new partner move in with her, to reflect the improved household income of the RP. Bet people won't be so vocally advocating for that on this thread, somehow ....

No that’s not the equivalent is it? First scenario NRP payment increases, second scenario RP payment increases. Personally I’m not a person who wants to pay as little as possible for my own children, the figure is certainly a lot bigger than 14%, as it is for many NRP when they take into account maintenance and other things they pay for.

By that logic it should also decrease, then, when Mum has a new partner move in with her, to reflect the improved household income of the RP. Bet people won't be so vocally advocating for that on this thread, somehow. Likelihood is that the step parent is also receiving CM, so for most, it will be swings and roundabouts in how much is lost or gained. However, the children of suddenly limited companies parents or no new Stepparent in the RP household, would probably on the whole gain. And given they're the most vulnerable statistically, I struggle to understand how anyone could justify not redressing this imbalance and inequality that sees women, predominantly, and their children in poverty.

This is fabulous theory but not the law and nor should it be. Bad laws are made like this.
The rp income decreases for household expenses as two members of the household are present and paying if a step aren't moves in, as it should as they would pay for housing anyway. It does not decrease or impact cms and nor should it! The university thing is a disgrace and needs to change to not reflect step parents income but rather both the arnets of the child's income. That would be fairer.
If my dp moved out with the 3 dsc I would be substantially better off, without even discussing cms. I would also have more room for my own child.
The step parent is not legally or morally responsible for providing for children they did not make. Regardless of if their relationship is with the rp or nrp

Not directly in itself, but much further ranging reform is needed.

Child maintenance should be set by the courts for a fixed period e.g. until child or children is 18/leaves full time education.

Income and assets should be taken into account when setting the amount.

No variation possible based on any further children that come along. Plenty of people chose not have an additional child based on not being able to afford it. Doesn’t matter if it’s with a new partner.

No variation possible based on change of employment status. The responsibility to the child doesn’t change. Redundancy insurance should be mandatory in cases were there insufficient assets to cover any potential shortfall.

No variation possible on change in health circumstances. Illness insurance should be mandatory in cases where there are insufficient assets to cover any shortfall.

Assets should be non-transferable without court permission, similar to the way in which a home that is registered as a marital home cannot be sold without the permission of both parties.

Any employment at below market rates or use of company structures to falsify the true income picture should be criminal fraud, punishable with prison time.

Any failure to pay should be met with seizure of assets and punishable with prison time. If a resident parent chose to stop feeding/housing/clothing their children they would be charged with neglect. Other penalties may be suitable e.g. loss of professional licences.

Any debt accrued in respect of child maintenance should remain after bankruptcy. It should be possible seize assets including pensions, as should anything held in trust with the NRP or any subsequent offspring or any relevantly financially connected person as a beneficiary.

If a new partner chooses to pay to keep someone out of jail, that’s their call.

And given that the Stepparents income is taken into account for educational purposes benefits etc, why should this not be the case also for the setting of CM?
The system is Stupid, unfair, incoherent. Why would you give this Stupid policy as a reason to justify another Stupid, unfair and incoherent policy?
Yes, it means that the new partner is liable, but that no different to the fsct once the NRP moves in the council tax liability rises from 75 to 100% is it. Its accepted.
Council tax is Stupid. Basing a tax on property values 30 years ago rather than each earning adults income is Stupid. Why would you give a Stupid tax as a reason to justify a Stupid policy?

The Stupid taxes and policies need fixing, not more Stupidity piled on top.

@funinthesun19

And if the NRP needs the passport or driving licence for work, then really if the rp gets it removed then they’re just cutting their nose off to spite their face because then they have zero chance of getting maintenance if the NRP becomes unemployed. It just seems like such a spiteful and drastic thing to do.

What if their job pays the rent or mortgage for the house where their children come to stay? What if they have other children who live in that house who will end up homeless?

Its not the RP "getting there licence removed" its the NRP choosing not to support there children ffs when are we going to stop pandering to people its simple pay nothing lose your licence pay something keep your licence nothing to do with the person receiving the money the sole responsibility lies on the shoulders of the person making the payments

The step parent is not legally or morally responsible for providing for children they did not make. Regardless of if their relationship is with the rp or nrp

This a million times over. And I say that as someone who is both a stepmum and having a dd with her own stepmum. Never in a million years would I expect myself or my DD to benefit from her income - it's nothing to do with us. By the same token, I don't expect my own income to have anything remotely to do with my partner's kids either. Nothing will convince me otherwise.

Why can't I see the last page? Posting to see if it takes me there!

And given that the Stepparents income is taken into account for educational purposes benefits etc, why should this not be the case also for the setting of CM?

Ridiculous policy.

Just wanted to add, I haven't had maintenance in years from my scumbag ex. But hell would freeze over before I'd go to his partner for it.

@PradaBallbag

Just wanted to add, I haven't had maintenance in years from my scumbag ex. But hell would freeze over before I'd go to his partner for it.

Me too. I'd work several more jobs if I had to before I did that.

No variation possible based on change of employment status. The responsibility to the child doesn’t change.

Meanwhile, back in the real world...
What do you propose should happen in together families, then, when Dad has an unfortunate turn of events and is made redundant through no fault of his own? From where is this magical money going to be summoned from? No different if parents are still together or not - life happens!

The hypocrisy on here is astounding.

The biggest issue for me here is the way child maintenance is used and spent. You have 2 children 1 boy 1 girl in reality the housing costs will be the same for the for both the RPs and NRPs. The only difference would be clothing and food.

RPs state that housing costs are more expensive however if a NRP moves into another house with other children that housing cost will naturally be more but cry when the money drops. Maybe the RP should think about this when playing silly games through the divorce process. Why would a NRP go out there way to assist if you are playing funny buggers. Seen too many People

Ultimately this wouldn't be an issue if a) the RP allowed more access to their children and not see it as away of gaining more money from the process

The scumbag parents who don't pay there should be more punishment but how you do that without punishing the children.

Also why should a RP benefit from an increase in the NRP wages

Also why should a RP benefit from an increase in the NRP wages

Indeed. And more to the point, why should the RP benefit from the SMs wages?! Insanity.