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?

It doesn't matter how tiny it is. Its unfair. My step dad didn't reduce his cm to his ex when he married my mum and gained 3 step dc. Because why should he.

@WhatWouldPhyllisCraneDo

It doesn't matter how tiny it is. Its unfair. My step dad didn't reduce his cm to his ex when he married my mum and gained 3 step dc. Because why should he.

I'm not saying I support it, I don't, but everyone bigs it up like it goes down by half, when in reality it's usually a few quid a week.

@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.

Yes, so as a 'step parent' (as you only have to be living together and not married hence the ') you are assumed to have some financial responsibility for the child you now live with, but the other adult in the same household has no responsibility for their child. It doesn't make sense really, all of CMS is unfair in many ways though to be honest.

@Pleaseaddcaffine

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

Ahh but according to the entitled on here you should hand over your money to the mother of his 3 children.

His own flesh and blood gets less money because he lives with a child that’s not his own.

I’m not saying I agree with the reduction in maintenance, but I find the general MN outrage about the reduction of money towards a man’s children very double standards when at the same time a woman is expected to contribute towards her stepchildren most likely to the detriment of her own children. It’s all very one sided.

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!

Your partner also chose to have 3 children. When you say 'their' finances, I hope you're including your partner in that and not just aimed at the ex wife.

@Sansaplans

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!

Your partner also chose to have 3 children. When you say 'their' finances, I hope you're including your partner in that and not just aimed at the ex wife.

That's what "their" means isn't it

That's what "their" means isn't it

Going by the rest of the thread, probably not.

@Sansaplans

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!

Your partner also chose to have 3 children. When you say 'their' finances, I hope you're including your partner in that and not just aimed at the ex wife.

Of course she meant that. She said "they" repeatedly throughout her post.

Obviously their means partner and his ex wife as they chose to have 4 and in exw case 3 kids.

@Sansaplans

That's what "their" means isn't it

Going by the rest of the thread, probably not.

What has the rest of the thread got to do with one woman's husband specifically, exactly?

Hoik them judgy pants right up, eh.

Going by the rest of the thread, probably not.

What does this even mean?

No I don’t agree with it.
I say this as a parent who’s own ex h stopped paying maintenance when he moved in with the ow and all her kids. He became at saph to her kids . My dcs received not one penny in support whilst the new woman worked full time using my husband as free childcare. She also received full maintenance from the fathers of her children.
When my ex did start working again he managed to reduce maintenance down to a bare minimum due to his new partners children. He then decided not to bother paying maintenance to his children. It cost me money to pursue it and endless calls. The CMS agreed he was in arrears and had to pay it back. He hadn’t and I seriously cannot stand the stress so there you go.
Total shit storm.

My advice to my dc- never ever forsake your career. Do not sacrifice your career at the expense of your husbands. Make sure he has to take annual leave and time off work just as much as you do. Also never give a child a surname which isn’t yours.

It sounds like the real issue is that stepchildren should never be in the equation at all.
If I step parent decides to support their stepchild, that should be a choice with no legal ramifications.
If new spouses were expected to take on legal responsibility for dependant children, the structure of society would change significantly.
More incentive to avoid marrying someone who is already a parent and subsequently more people staying in miserable marriages/relationships. It would be quite interesting.

I don’t think step parents should be held accountable BUT I cannot for the life of me see why a NRP should have their maintenance payments reduced to account for a child which is not theirs.

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

If that nrp was still with the rp though, and lost their job, no one would step in to sub the contribution to family expenses.

Shit happens, people lose their jobs. My dh lost his, i’m not expecting him to pull money out of nowhere to pay the bills.

It works both ways, and indeed did used to be calculated on “household” income pre CMS.
RP’s partners earnings were also taken into account, and often it ended up with the nrp having to pay less.

My advice to my dc- never ever forsake your career. Do not sacrifice your career at the expense of your husbands

This. Slightly different but my dad died when I was 11. My mum had not worked after getting married. No ex husband to contribute, and only child benefit.

I learned a valuable lesson. I didn’t have kids until I could support them on my own. Dh could fuck off tomorrow and never pay another penny, or disappear, or die, and we’d all be fine financially.

Losing a job is not the same as packing a job in to allow your new partner to earn more and hence avoid paying maintenance though is it. That was my situation. Before my ex h moved in with the ow, she did not work full time.
It’s fine I don’t expect anyone to understand unless you have been there. It is shit for the children it really is. Nobody seems to care. The CMS are shit and that’s the nicest thing I can say about them. I was given excuse after excuse as to why they didn’t just take the bloody arrears from him. He went from earning zero to working so I asked them why not take a good chunk of his wage, he managed without it before! He still hadn’t paid what he owes my dcs but that’s fine. Like I said nobody cares the system is awful and biased. Favours feckless parents who are far better off not giving a single crap about their children.

I'm not saying I support it, I don't, but everyone bigs it up like it goes down by half, when in reality it's usually a few quid a week.

True. But for a lot of people that "few quid a week" is needed. I certainly noticed it when I lost it.

Everyone agrees the system iscrap but that isn't a step parents fault and nor should they have to make up a shortfall for a parent. The cms process is crap for those on both sides and is very slow.

@WhatWouldPhyllisCraneDo

I'm not saying I support it, I don't, but everyone bigs it up like it goes down by half, when in reality it's usually a few quid a week.

True. But for a lot of people that "few quid a week" is needed. I certainly noticed it when I lost it.

I'm not saying it isn't, I'm just advising that often it is not as much of a drop as it is often made out to be.

But no, I don't think it should be reduced for step children personally.

@Pleaseaddcaffine

Everyone agrees the system iscrap but that isn't a step parents fault and nor should they have to make up a shortfall for a parent. The cms process is crap for those on both sides and is very slow.

Yes, we've used it from both sides and it's been crap from both sides.

Just put it into the calculator for 2 children from ex partner living with 3 children on 40000k it takes it down by £85 a month, which is about a 1/6. That’s a reasonable amount when you consider the maintenance is only about £55 a week for each child. When you start looking at the cost involved in bringing up children it’s a very small amount

@funinthesun19

His own flesh and blood gets less money because he lives with a child that’s not his own.

I’m not saying I agree with the reduction in maintenance, but I find the general MN outrage about the reduction of money towards a man’s children very double standards when at the same time a woman is expected to contribute towards her stepchildren most likely to the detriment of her own children. It’s all very one sided.

Presumably the step children weren't found in a cabbage field so they have there own father to pay for them? If you don't want to "deprive" your children don't move in with a man who has children there is nothing wrong with separate houses until you can afford to combine them without deprivation