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?

I've worked my arse for the best part of a decade as a single mum, to earn a damn good salary. In contrast, my DP's ex has refused to work for years (despite offers of free childcare from family members, added to which kids are now teens and don't need childcare), and is scraping by pleading poverty. Why should she then reap the benefits of my 50K salary that I have grafted and busted my arse for? And I had NO offers of free childcare to achieve what I have - I scraped by and I did what I needed to do because I focused on the bigger picture and the life I wanted to provide for my DD. Hell will freeze over before that lazy entitled woman gets her hands on my money.

This is the thing with us, dps ex gets a lot of maintenance for dss, because dp does lots and lots of overtime (we are house renovating we need all the cash we can get lol)

So every year it goes up and up.

Then comes covid and he has 0 overtime for a few months, would cms reduce his payment? Would they fuck. That was a hard few months and I was furloughed as well but nobody cared about the welfare of our child weirdly enough.

We spent less on dss when he lived with us, by quite a long way because obv we pay for our house, extra bedroom, heating, food anyway so it was like a couple of extra nights teas. We paid for all his clothes, uniform, school trips so all that changed is that we weren't paying his mum maintenance. She paid us a pittance every week and refused to pay for anything extra.

Only if the SP is going to be given PR too. Otherwise no.

There is no way a SP's earnings should be taken into account! Unless it's going to work both ways...

So in our situation....

Me and DP would have to pay CMS based on our joint earnings to his ex-wife - she could then have a nice high-earning partner living with her, where would he come into it? Would CMS reduce based on THEIR joint income? Would it buggery!

I can see why maintainance tracks wages, although I do think in cases like the above where there’s a sudden drop in income there needs to be some sort of emergency brake.
Otherwise, why shouldn’t a child benefit from the prosperity of their parents.? More to the point, why wouldn’t you want your child to benefit?
In my DHs case he’s always paid the same, whether he’s been earning more or less because it’s always been more than the minimum. In times where he’s had more money, DSD has benefited through him rather than than through her mother.

But if for example he was originally paying £100 per month as the minimum and has climbed the ladder and now the calculator says £500, why wouldn’t he want his child to share in that financial security?

Can't believe some people think that if you move in with a man with children you have to give your partner's children's' mother some of your own money in cash to look after her own children in her own time! Ha!

Me and DP would have to pay CMS based on our joint earnings to his ex-wife - she could then have a nice high-earning partner living with her, where would he come into it? Would CMS reduce based on THEIR joint income? Would it buggery!

Exactly my earlier point, which was dismissed.

@Youseethethingis

I can see why maintainance tracks wages, although I do think in cases like the above where there’s a sudden drop in income there needs to be some sort of emergency brake. Otherwise, why shouldn’t a child benefit from the prosperity of their parents.? More to the point, why wouldn’t you want your child to benefit? In my DHs case he’s always paid the same, whether he’s been earning more or less because it’s always been more than the minimum. In times where he’s had more money, DSD has benefited through him rather than than through her mother. But if for example he was originally paying £100 per month as the minimum and has climbed the ladder and now the calculator says £500, why wouldn’t he want his child to share in that financial security?

In our case dss benefitted directly from us from dps overtime, and then benefitted again through maintenance. Ds on the other hand obviously benefits only once. Or not at all sometimes.

They say you can reduce it in an emergency but in reality for us that was not true.

I think it should track wages but I don't know whether I agree overtime should be used because it's not guaranteed is it?

@TeachesOfPeaches

Can't believe some people think that if you move in with a man with children you have to give your partner's children's' mother some of your own money in cash to look after her own children in her own time! Ha!

Nor can I believe this.

5he issue is the lack of visibity if how the maintenance is spent by the nrp. I don't blame at all nrp partner from not wanting to just handover cash to an ex on the assumption that it will be wisely spent fully on the children.

An NRP should want to spend more on his kids than what is deemed the bare minimum, as set by a legal rule.

I think that if the nrp and their partner had more control over how the money is spent, they would be more willing to pay more.

Someone here suggested that they would pay towards clothes, activities etc...if the nrp couldn't pay and that seems very reasonable.

I also however agree that the nrp should accept their responsibity in financing their kids upbringing and opri g to be a sahd, or manipulating their account to pay £10 a week is being a shitty father whatever the behaviour of the mum.

cash to look after her own children in her own time! Ha

Do you think that's what maintenance is?

@Sansaplans

cash to look after her own children in her own time! Ha

Do you think that's what maintenance is?

Why do people take comments out of context like this? She's talking about the NRP's partner being expected to provide cash to the RP, to look after her children or for any other purpose, it makes no difference - It's utter madness.

@LucieStar

Me and DP would have to pay CMS based on our joint earnings to his ex-wife - she could then have a nice high-earning partner living with her, where would he come into it? Would CMS reduce based on THEIR joint income? Would it buggery!

Exactly my earlier point, which was dismissed.

Sorry, haven't read whole thread but I'm with you. Totally ridiculous that it should be like that.

I think it should track wages but I don't know whether I agree overtime should be used because it's not guaranteed is it?
I agree with this, I’ve heard of NRPs ending up in a terrible mess because of this, as the calculations are based on what was earned last year rather than what’s being earned now.

I don’t know how it could be managed better. It would come down to CMS looking at the correct sention of a payslip rather than the bottom line.
I used to work in the motor trade. There were salesmen taking home circa £50k and their basic wage was £8k. Fuck only knows what their kids were living on in the case of the separated dads.

I don't blame at all nrp partner from not wanting to just handover cash to an ex on the assumption that it will be wisely spent fully on the children.

It makes no difference if it's going to be spent wisely or fully on the children, or not. I will still not be handing over my cash to my partner's ex for any reason. It's insane. My money has absolutely zilch to do with her. If I choose to contribute money to my partner's children when they are with us, on our own time, that's up to me. But I'll be fucking damned if I'm going to hand it to her.

Changing the subject here a bit. But is Page 12 of this thread not working for anyone else? It keeps saying page cannot be found when I try to click on it.

@funinthesun19

Changing the subject here a bit. But is Page 12 of this thread not working for anyone else? It keeps saying page cannot be found when I try to click on it.

Yes it is for me. I posted about it In site stuff but hq haven't replied.

@funinthesun19

Changing the subject here a bit. But is Page 12 of this thread not working for anyone else? It keeps saying page cannot be found when I try to click on it.

Same here.

Page 12 isn't working for me either and I've realised I've had a NC fail on this thread a bit. @HaloTattle is me!

@Loveacoseynightin

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

No because the person whose house they move into would have been paying for a roof over there head anyway and if you have children occasionally you can get away with a blow up mattress camp beds etc if you have children 50/50 no maintenance is payable to reflect the fact that you need to provide a permanent room in your home for the children

@BusyLizzie61

Where on Earth are you getting that "most" SMs will also be receiving CM so the ridiculous, unfair rules you want to impose on them will somehow level out? There is absolutely no evidence for that, not all SMs have their own children separately to their partner and of those that do not all receive maintenance.

You have without a doubt the most deluded views on this subject I have ever read. SMs benefit from their partner's ex's sacrifices in building up their partner's career, and should therefore accept her wages going straight into his children from as early as cohabiting? Please. For one thing, that is NOT the situation for everyone at all, my partner had benefited from no such sacrifices. And for another, I don't benefit from the hypothetical sacrifices of my DPs ex as much as I would benefit from them, you know, not getting married and having a kid. That did very little to speed up my DPs career. So no, I don't believe I owe his ex for her "sacrifices" 🙄

The delusion of thinking a SM should be grateful to enter into any part of this situation and hand over her cash as a result is staggering.

Furthermore, why should anyone be grateful for and pay tribute to what allowed their partner to pay their share of the bills, when they are also paying their own share? It's just weird.

You are basing your opinion on so many sweeping assumptions of what this set up might actually look like, and as a result what you are saying is outrageous.

Agreed! I out earn dp and his exw combined but because I chose not to have children young and develop a good carer. I've also chosen to not have more than 1 child whereas they chose to have 3. All of those things impact their finances but not mine and nor should they!
The fact I pay for half of all costs except cms mean kids now get holidays which they didn't before with their nrp

One of my best friends actually has a situation as described in this thread.
Her and her exH have one child together, she is RP, receives maintenance and lives with her new partner who also has one child with HIS exP, and he pays maintenance to that child.
Her partner has had a reduction in his cms payments because he now lives with my friend and her child... despite not being married, holding no PArental responsibility and not being financially obligated to provide for her child.
Which is just wrong. His own flesh and blood gets less money because he lives with a child that’s not his own.
Meanwhile my friends exH hasn’t had a reduction in his maintenance payments to her to reflect her improved financial arrangement.
Step parents shouldn’t get a reduction in their payments because they now live with another kid... what a shambles.
I’m privately disgusted at my friend and her partner for using that loophole.

@Mummywantsaweewee

One of my best friends actually has a situation as described in this thread. Her and her exH have one child together, she is RP, receives maintenance and lives with her new partner who also has one child with HIS exP, and he pays maintenance to that child. Her partner has had a reduction in his cms payments because he now lives with my friend and her child... despite not being married, holding no PArental responsibility and not being financially obligated to provide for her child. Which is just wrong. His own flesh and blood gets less money because he lives with a child that’s not his own. Meanwhile my friends exH hasn’t had a reduction in his maintenance payments to her to reflect her improved financial arrangement. Step parents shouldn’t get a reduction in their payments because they now live with another kid... what a shambles. I’m privately disgusted at my friend and her partner for using that loophole.

The reduction will have been tiny unless he's a very high earner, in which case he'll still be paying quite a bit.