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?

@DeadlyMedally

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.

My thoughts exactly. Why anyone thinks people should consider dating people with kids under these circumstances is beyond me.

Personally I think if you’re a decent parent you wouldn’t need to use the CMS service to be forced to pay for your child in the event you and your ex split up.

If you’re a decent human being you sort out maintenance and probably go above even that when you can afford to buy them things for school and in general.

What did we do when DH went on paternity leave, we still paid the maintenance.

However if my DH had lost his job and we couldn’t afford it then we’d have to be honest about that. It never happened though, and I can only think that redundancy and ill health being the only reasons why you didn’t cover the cost for your stepchildren’s maintenance. Because everything else is voluntary.

Dp and I have sepeeate finances and his son, my child has needs to, my only priority is to my dependant child financially. Dp is an adult and pays his own way and for his kids because they are his responsibility.
BTW I'd also nag the crap out of him if he decided nto to work and pay his way including cms. That's no what adults do

@Mumbo1234

No. But I do think they should take RP earnings into consideration...controversial, I know.

Why do you think that? Do you think if a resident parent is a high earner that the other parent should get a free pass and not have to support their child?

@BungleandGeorge

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

I don't spend 55 pounds a week on my child. Not close!

It's subjective.

Presumably the step children weren't found in a cabbage field so they have there own father to pay for them?

Lol. Yeah and they also have a mother to pay for them so why should a step parent pay?

@Fucket

Personally I think if you’re a decent parent you wouldn’t need to use the CMS service to be forced to pay for your child in the event you and your ex split up.

If you’re a decent human being you sort out maintenance and probably go above even that when you can afford to buy them things for school and in general.

What did we do when DH went on paternity leave, we still paid the maintenance.

However if my DH had lost his job and we couldn’t afford it then we’d have to be honest about that. It never happened though, and I can only think that redundancy and ill health being the only reasons why you didn’t cover the cost for your stepchildren’s maintenance. Because everything else is voluntary.

Dp would have loved to have a private arrangement but his ex went to the CMS the literal day he moved out. He was still paying the entire mortgage as well bare in mind. Doesn't make him a shit parent whatsoever.

Do you think if a resident parent is a high earner that the other parent should get a free pass and not have to support their child?

No, but there is certainly an argument to take that into account.

It's certainly done in other countries.

For example, it's done like that in California. Here is a link to their online calculator:-

childsupport.ca.gov/guideline-calculator/

Some concrete examples, take one child staying with NRP every other weekend and two weeks during the summer or Christmas etc

If both parents were earning the US equivalent of £44k a year then the NRP would have to pay £462 per month.

If the RP were only earning £26k per year then cm would be £575 per month and if the RP were earning £17.5k per year then cm would be £603 per month.

Just for comparison, the equivalent NRP in the UK will pay £371 per month under the CMS calculator.

Dp would have loved to have a private arrangement but his ex went to the CMS the literal day he moved out. He was still paying the entire mortgage as well bare in mind. Doesn't make him a shit parent whatsoever.

Similiar happened to my DP she knew he couldn't default on any kind of loan or he would lose his job. He racked up thousands in credit card debt covering both untill the property was sold.

I think the point is you can have both rp and nrp who will play the system. I do agree that loopholes for nrps should be closed but not at the expense to new partners.

Why do you think that? Do you think if a resident parent is a high earner that the other parent should get a free pass and not have to support their child?

The only time i think this is hypocritical is when posters say that a high earning NRP should pay a ridiculous sum to 'maintain the child's lifestyle in their other home' but yet it's absolutely ludicrous to suggest this the other way around and they would happily have a child eating lobster with their RP and nuggets and chips with their NRP so long as he was paying maintenance out of principal.

If it's about maintaining a child's lifestyle across both their homes then I do think RPs income is relevant. If it's just about the principal of paying your way for your children then it's not. But I don't think you can have it both ways.

Laughing at the person who has put that the only additional cost to RP is food and clothing. Childcare, school trips, hobbies, leisure, kitting their room out, stationary, toys, parties (giving and presents for others), medicine, hygiene products, the list goes on, there are many calculators showing how many thousands it takes to bring up kids! When they hit puberty might as well just open your wallet! The cost of living is such that it’s very difficult to find enough money when running 2 households. It’s fine deciding extra earnings will go directly to things you buy for them as long as you don’t cherry pick all the ‘fun’ and frivolous item and extras.

For example you have a millionaire RP and a skint NRP, posters would say the NRP should spend their last two cents paying maintenance out of principal. But is that really in the best interests of the child? I don't think so tbh.

But then, that kind of situation would be rare I imagine.

@PutItInYourPocket2

Why do you think that? Do you think if a resident parent is a high earner that the other parent should get a free pass and not have to support their child?

The only time i think this is hypocritical is when posters say that a high earning NRP should pay a ridiculous sum to 'maintain the child's lifestyle in their other home' but yet it's absolutely ludicrous to suggest this the other way around and they would happily have a child eating lobster with their RP and nuggets and chips with their NRP so long as he was paying maintenance out of principal.

If it's about maintaining a child's lifestyle across both their homes then I do think RPs income is relevant. If it's just about the principal of paying your way for your children then it's not. But I don't think you can have it both ways.

Surely it depends on the proportion of time spent in each home as well. It’s not really fair if one parent is struggling to provide essentials whilst the other has income to shower the kids with gifts, trips out, new clothes etc. Whichever way round it is

@PutItInYourPocket2

Why do you think that? Do you think if a resident parent is a high earner that the other parent should get a free pass and not have to support their child?

The only time i think this is hypocritical is when posters say that a high earning NRP should pay a ridiculous sum to 'maintain the child's lifestyle in their other home' but yet it's absolutely ludicrous to suggest this the other way around and they would happily have a child eating lobster with their RP and nuggets and chips with their NRP so long as he was paying maintenance out of principal.

If it's about maintaining a child's lifestyle across both their homes then I do think RPs income is relevant. If it's just about the principal of paying your way for your children then it's not. But I don't think you can have it both ways.

I actually agree with this.

I earn more than twice what my DD's father does. He went through a period of struggling financially and I told him to forget the maintenance until he was back on his feet because 1) I barely noticed the money he was paying as it was such a small contribution relative to what I was earning, so I clearly didn't need it, and 2) my DD would often come home from her dad's saying they hadn't done anything that weekend because "daddy couldn't afford it". I felt bad because her experience at her dad's at that time was rubbish relative to her lifestyle with me, due to the difference in our incomes. Why on earth would I have continued to take his maintenance payments in that situation? Who would that be benefiting? Certainly not my DD.

@BungleandGeorge

Laughing at the person who has put that the only additional cost to RP is food and clothing. Childcare, school trips, hobbies, leisure, kitting their room out, stationary, toys, parties (giving and presents for others), medicine, hygiene products, the list goes on, there are many calculators showing how many thousands it takes to bring up kids! When they hit puberty might as well just open your wallet! The cost of living is such that it’s very difficult to find enough money when running 2 households. It’s fine deciding extra earnings will go directly to things you buy for them as long as you don’t cherry pick all the ‘fun’ and frivolous item and extras.

All those costs the nrp has as well.... !

Surely it depends on the proportion of time spent in each home as well. It’s not really fair if one parent is struggling to provide essentials whilst the other has income to shower the kids with gifts, trips out, new clothes etc. Whichever way round it is

Of course it does. My point was that it only seems to matter to people when the NRP is the high earner but when the RP is it's irrelevant.

You see it when there are high earning NRPs paying large sums in maintenance because 'its relative to what they earn and the child deserves to have the same lifestyle across both homes' but the suggestion that a NRP who has a low income shouldn't pay a very high earning RP for the same reason, to try and maintain the child's lifestyle in their home too, it's immediately shot down as unreasonable out of principal.

I'm just saying, either the argument about maintaining lifestyle across both homes matters in both scenarios or it doesn't.

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

I don’t think you quite understand the point I was trying to make.

My point is, people think it’s very important that a man puts his own children first financially hence why maintenance shouldn’t be reduced. But can you imagine the uproar of a stepmum putting her own children first financially? There would be screams of how unfair it is on the stepchildren.

For example you have a millionaire RP and a skint NRP, posters would say the NRP should spend their last two cents paying maintenance out of principal. But is that really in the best interests of the child? I don't think so tbh.

This one always really annoys me. People actually think maintenance should be paid out of principle and nothing else. Just for a bloody power trip over the NRP.
If I won £100 million tomorrow, I wouldn’t expect my low earning ex to pay maintenance to me, because he would need his money more than I would. He’d need it to provide a life with our children himself. And to be honest, with that amount of money I would probably fucking buy him a nice house for them to live in with him. That’s just how much I think of my children instead of being an arsehole. And I say all this as an rp who receives nothing from him.

If I won £100 million tomorrow, I wouldn’t expect my low earning ex to pay maintenance to me, because he would need his money more than I would. He’d need it to provide a life with our children himself. And to be honest, with that amount of money I would probably fucking buy him a nice house for them to live in with him. That’s just how much I think of my children instead of being an arsehole.

Yeah exactly this. I mean I'm not a millionaire 😂 but I earn more than him and I'm very aware that my DD has a different lifestyle in each home as a result. My DD doesn't need his money at this house as I'm more than able to provide for her on my salary. She needs it more when she goes to see him, so she can spend quality time with him and have a more equal experience in both homes. It's just common sense.

@Funfairballoon well if you’re paying those costs I can understand why you’re miffed. My experience is that NRP pay for maintenance and costs incurred at their house on top only. All items are taken with the kids when staying over, which is for a minimal amount like eow so rooms only need basics and might be shared. If it’s a more even split then minimal if any maintenance would be due. Perhaps you see why I think maintenance is a low amount if virtually all essentials are provided by RP. Personally I think you’re unusual to be paying maintenance and all those other costs on top.

But I don't think you can have it both ways.

You see countless threads where people expect the NRP to provide bedrooms for their non resident children. Like you say, you can’t have it both ways. You either forgo the maintenance and the NRP provides a bedroom or you take the maintenance and the NRP doesn’t provide the bedroom. If both can be done then great it must mean the NRP is on good money, but for the average person it often means one or the other.