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'm sure it is rare, but he did it, and subsequently we were in a worse position than we would have been and she was in a much better one."

I couldn't get worked up about that to be honest because that was built up between them not you and him.
If he felt he wanted to leave it to her to keep the kids in a stable home that's his business.
Although one plus for you there is you know he didn't set out to screw her over after the split and made sure his kids had a stable home.
Splitting the proceeds would have probably been quite tough for her to afford anything with one income so I can see how that made sense to him at the time.

@User5747384

"I'm sure it is rare, but he did it, and subsequently we were in a worse position than we would have been and she was in a much better one."

I couldn't get worked up about that to be honest because that was built up between them not you and him.
If he felt he wanted to leave it to her to keep the kids in a stable home that's his business.
Although one plus for you there is you know he didn't set out to screw her over after the split and made sure his kids had a stable home.
Splitting the proceeds would have probably been quite tough for her to afford anything with one income so I can see how that made sense to him at the time.

I'm not bothered it happened, we have a house and it's fine. I'm just making my point that she's not some poor penniless woman whilst we live in a mansion and live on champagne.

*She's not as well off as me because she made poor choices like having three children, not working for many years and not being sensible with money.

Dp supports his children, I don't see why I should contribute just because she is single. She chose to have them kids. I did not.*

Yep. All of this. I totally hear you @Funfairballoon

Bold fail!

"She's not as well off as me because she made poor choices like having three children, not working for many years and not being sensible with money."

Some people aren't well off in life money wise with the jobs they choose it doesn't make them any less of a person and a poor life choice.
If we didn't have people on minimum wage working in shops and in care etc.. then we would be pretty stuffed.
I also think you stating her having three kids was a poor life choice is pretty horrible.
You did infact say she worked now you are saying she didn't..

"Dp supports his children, I don't see why I should contribute just because she is single. She chose to have them kids. I did not."

And I have never said you should.

@User5747384

"She's not as well off as me because she made poor choices like having three children, not working for many years and not being sensible with money."

Some people aren't well off in life money wise with the jobs they choose it doesn't make them any less of a person and a poor life choice.
If we didn't have people on minimum wage working in shops and in care etc.. then we would be pretty stuffed.
I also think you stating her having three kids was a poor life choice is pretty horrible.
You did infact say she worked now you are saying she didn't..

I never said it made her less of a person wtf!!

I'm not slagging her job either! She does a job I couldn't do.

Her having three children the first at 15 imo was not a good decision. Not a decision I made or would make.

She didn't work for many years, she worked after dp left and works now. Which is exactly what I said.

You think I should pay for her child because she's single. Why is that?

[quote Mumbo1234]@BungleandGeorge

Out of interest, which do you think is better for the child/ren...packing a bag to camp at NRP but RP receiving full CMS

Or

CMS being reduced but child not having to pack a bag to camp at NRP. They have everything they need there already and can just rock up.[/quote]
I don’t think either is ‘better’ it depends on circumstances, wishes and personality of the children, distance parents live apart. What relationship the child had with each parent before the split. It’s totally individual. From your use of language I presume you think one is better? But really it should be a decision based on the children wishes and totally independent of consideration of maintenance although it’s obviously much more expensive that way and it’s impossible to have everything you need in two places at the same time. I’ve seen positive and negative cases of both scenario. Step siblings and parents can be quite difficult for children to deal with as obviously they don’t choose them and often they lose their own space which can change what set up they want

"You think I should pay for her child because she's single. Why is that?"

Again I have never said you should.
Strange you keep saying.

@funinthesun19

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.

Actually I don’t think the problem is generally when a NRP moves out and is unable to afford a bedroom each for the kids. If they have to sleep on the sofa and kids use the bedroom that’s fine. The problem comes when NRP establishes a house with bedrooms for the kids and then a step parent and step kids move in. The step kids are there more if the time so they take the bedrooms and people suggest the other children sleep in a summer house, or on air beds in the lounge or something.

“Out of interest, which do you think is better for the child/ren...packing a bag to camp at NRP but RP receiving full CMS”

Child should have everything they need at the NRP house anyway, considering that is also their home

@User5747384

"You think I should pay for her child because she's single. Why is that?"

Again I have never said you should.
Strange you keep saying.

This is what you said

I would be happy to pay more for DSS if his mum became a single Mum because it really is very different and you need support.

Hence my comment about poor decisions.

"I would be happy to pay more for DSS if his mum became a single Mum because it really is very different and you need support.

Hence my comment about poor decisions."

Which again makes no sense.
Read it, I said I would be happy to pay more for my DSS if his Mum became a single mum.
Her situation isn't the same as your exs.
But yes if she was struggling we would be happy to help.
At no point does it say there that I think you should pay for your step children...
Your DSS sounds adequately supported and his mum has a stable home.

@User5747384

"I would be happy to pay more for DSS if his mum became a single Mum because it really is very different and you need support.

Hence my comment about poor decisions."

Which again makes no sense.
Read it, I said I would be happy to pay more for my DSS if his Mum became a single mum.
Her situation isn't the same as your exs.
But yes if she was struggling we would be happy to help.
At no point does it say there that I think you should pay for your step children...
Your DSS sounds adequately supported and his mum has a stable home.

Oh for Christ sake, never mind.

If step parents aren't expected to contribute, why does a single mum lose her benefits when she starts cohabiting with a new man?

@Soothes

If step parents aren't expected to contribute, why does a single mum lose her benefits when she starts cohabiting with a new man?

She shouldn't.

So all the posters who think the RP should receive less or no maintenance if they have a highter income, sure you also think the same in reverse?
That if the RPs income goes down the NRP should pay more?

But she does and if she didn't why should the state support her children when the household has substantial income? Almost everything is based on household income.

@Soothes

But she does and if she didn't why should the state support her children when the household has substantial income? Almost everything is based on household income.

Living with step children is a very different prospect than not, and paying maintenance though isn't it?

@Oswin

So all the posters who think the RP should receive less or no maintenance if they have a highter income, sure you also think the same in reverse? That if the RPs income goes down the NRP should pay more?

Not necessarily, it needs to be a balance. So the child's lifestyle is as equal as is realistic in both households, but it's too complex to work in reality I think.

Too many factors to consider. Ie parent a might have had 4 more kids and be on their arse skint, should parents b pay for that? No. But will it affect the child? Yes.

Which is probably why cms keep it so basic.

*Not necessarily, it needs to be a balance. So the child's lifestyle is as equal as is realistic in both households, but it's too complex to work in reality I think.

Too many factors to consider. Ie parent a might have had 4 more kids and be on their arse skint, should parents b pay for that? No. But will it affect the child? Yes.

Which is probably why cms keep it so basic*

Yes, I think the reality is that it ought to be done case by case, but that would require a lot of work.

Living with step children is a very different prospect than not, and paying maintenance though isn't it?

Is it? Why, it's still a "household" expense. The household finances are joint in every other aspect, why not this?

I don't know what the answer is, but it can't be right that parents (male or female) avoid paying because their new relationship means they can have domestic arrangements that don't require them to work.

@Soothes

Living with step children is a very different prospect than not, and paying maintenance though isn't it?

Is it? Why, it's still a "household" expense. The household finances are joint in every other aspect, why not this?

I don't know what the answer is, but it can't be right that parents (male or female) avoid paying because their new relationship means they can have domestic arrangements that don't require them to work.

Because the child doesn't live in that household.

I don't think anyones saying that's right, but I don't think it should be down to the step parent to foot the bill, tbh.

I don't think anyones saying that's right, but I don't think it should be down to the step parent to foot the bill, tbh

But the step parent will usually be benefiting from having a non working partner, through saved childcare etc

@Soothes

I don't think anyones saying that's right, but I don't think it should be down to the step parent to foot the bill, tbh

But the step parent will usually be benefiting from having a non working partner, through saved childcare etc

Yes, they'll have also lost a ft wage in their household so ..