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 think if you are purposely being a stay at home parent whilst your partner works then yes I do think it should be taken into account the kids don't just stop needing stuff because the NRP decides not to work.
I also think if an NRP moves in with stepchildren they shouldn't be able to reduce their child maintenance payments.
Alot of it is geared towards the NRP rather than the childrens welfare and it's wrong.

When cms is calculated they set aside a portion for housing cost etc I think in circumstances where they are staying with parents and not paying or moved in with the new partners house this should not be done if they are not paying of course for rental/joint mortgage purposes this should be taken into account it might stop the cocklogers moving from woman to woman not paying for there kids and not paying towards the home either ultimately housing costs and bills should be proved and proved over a long term for example 6 month grace period then you have to prove your housing for the last six months and continue to do so yes they could be payed back in cash by there partner but some women would find deprivation towards children uncomfortable to live with

I dont think they should get credit for step children as THEY have a father to provide for them

@hashbrownsandwich

Yes I do. I'll give you my scenario. ExH and his newW have a company which makes around £10k a month. ExH takes only a few hundred pounds a month as his pay. The wife takes a large sum. ExH puts into the CMA calculator his own personal earnings. It also asks how many children reside with him. He has 2 with me (who only stay one night a week there) and his Wife has 2 of her own. So he counts her 2 as residing there. This therefore decreases the percentage that my children receive. Fair?

I don't think the step parents income should be taken into account, but I absolutely think loopholes like this should be closed. This is in no way acceptable.

No.

Bad laws are made using edge cases.

It's shit for those whose ex has decided to use their next spouse/partner to stop paying maintenance but over the years I've heard of plenty of ways parents - and I do mean parents - skip their responsibilities to their children.

(In the case mentioned the parent was actually using another way of not stepping up, but gaslighting their partner that it was that partner's responsibility to pay for their every whim.)

I should also add I know step-parents who have gone out of their way, including when one or both the children's parents have been crap, to help their step-children. I had a step-mother who stepped up when my dad was alive and also when he wasn't.

@WhiskyIrnBru
The step parent can be paying in ways that's not maintenance. I pay for DSS swimming lessons, football and a large proportion of his clothes when his dad couldn't afford it and I didnt want him to miss out on these things.
We also maintain a home where he has all his own room with all his own clothes, toys books ect.
He spends 40% of his time where we ( me and his dad) pay for his food, activities holidays ect. I resent the implication that unless money is being handed to his mum that I would have no financial input towards DSS.

I agree with the poster who said there should be a set minimum amount.

I think if NRP were responsible for paying a set amount each month they may not get into relationships, have more children, become SHP for those children to save costs on CM and childcare etc.

I truly believe if you already have kids you remain responsible for them and it shouldn't be made easy to have more and not financially support those unless you can.

A system similar to the benefit cap.

The current system allows for too many NRP to avoid CM - a prime example above is the family who have business and the dad doesn't withdraw much. Cases like that should be allowed to be reviewed individually and they would have to prove the amount she draws doesn't benefit the father in anyway and that it's not done to avoid any types of costs towards NRC.

I'm in Ireland so slightly different system here. But in short - no I think the only people responsible for maintenance should be a child's parents. However the system (in Ireland also) needs to be overhauled & loopholes closed including the one where a resident parent can stay not working & not contributing financially to dc who have no SN & who are teens & young adults.

It is for university, my step parent's income stopped me studying my chosen university course and forced me to do nursing which came with a bursary. It was my mum who refused to contribute to my expenses. My step dad would have, but he was overruled. I'm still bitter!

I don't think a step parent should be obligated to pay anything unless the NRP is deliberately reducing income to avoid maintenance.

I don't think a NRP should be able to reduce maintenance because they live with children who aren't theirs.

I really hate that so often paying for children is the first thing that is stopped, maintenance isn't less important than the electric bill or broadband.

If a resident parent moves a partner in, and the partner earns over the child benefit threshold, the partner has to pay the child benefit back.

If a resident parent on tax credits or other benefits is considered to be in a relationship with a parent, they lose the money.

Meanwhile a non resident parent can hide behind the income of the step parent - for example paying them a salary from the business or in my case giving up work entirely to be a student (incidentally student loans are not considered income for child maintenance either)

It either needs to go one way or the other. Either all incomes count or only the actual parents count.

No but I also think that morally if the NRP’s can continue to afford contributing that it should do so.

I feel the issue is when the NRP intentionally tries to avoid paying, not when there is genuine financial poverty in his/her household as a result of unemployment.

I don’t think that the stepparent’s income should be looked at all, regardless of whether the NRP pays or not.

maintenance isn't less important than the electric bill or broadband
Arguably it is if the NRP is expected to have their child/ren for contact.

[quote Aimee1987]@WhiskyIrnBru
The step parent can be paying in ways that's not maintenance. I pay for DSS swimming lessons, football and a large proportion of his clothes when his dad couldn't afford it and I didnt want him to miss out on these things.
We also maintain a home where he has all his own room with all his own clothes, toys books ect.
He spends 40% of his time where we ( me and his dad) pay for his food, activities holidays ect. I resent the implication that unless money is being handed to his mum that I would have no financial input towards DSS.[/quote]
That's great that happens with your DSS and that speaks volumes about your relationship.

But my experience has been that nice things like books, toys etc are not the same as finacial support.

Can't feed children books and toys kept at the nrp house!

Cash flow issues for single parents are hard. Children can have lovely things at their nrp house but it doesn't makeup for what a child needs day to day with their resident parent.

I accept that there are exceptions but there are a lot of nrp who use loopholes.

@Youseethethingis agree. In a scenario where DH isn't earning (not through choice), and I have the choice between paying my own electricity / broadband (which I need to work) or handing over money to his ex-w from my salary so her household doesn't take a hit, the priority is absolutely my own household bills.

Nope!
A step parents didn't choose to have that child/children. A step parents met a man or woman and fell in love with them. Yes that person have children but nothing to do with them!

I don't think the stepparents income should come into it but at the same time, I know of at least one dad who is self employed and doesn't make enough to pay maintenance. He pays a salary to his partner instead.

It's a hard one when some men will literally go to any measures not to pay for their own offspring and when others have so much guilt and sadness from not living with their first kids that they put them on a pedestal and expect subsequent children to miss out.

I find it a little inconsistent that for the purposes of parental income at university, that includes a new partner of the resident parent, so their income can mean that the student receives less money and presumably the step parent is meant to contribute? Whereas the NRP is under no obligation to pay anything.

@Mumbo1234

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

I agree, I think they need to take many more things into consideration...

@WhiskyIrnBru
That's your experience, mine is very different. Me and DP work long hours so we can provide for our kids. He has working the same place for over 10 years and never missed or been late on a maintence payment.
His ex wife hasnt worked since she had her second child with her current husband. Her husband barely works but owns a home from inheritance. Honestly if they wanted or needed more money they could go and get jobs. I dont see why my money should be used to support their household.

@WhiskyIrnBru but there are a lot of nrp who use loopholes.

And that isn't the fault of the step-parent.

The nrp would find another way to not to step up if the step-parent didn't exist.

All the step parents piling on here...

Listen, I am saying their income should be considered if they are basically supporting the nrp who is not working.

The loopholes aren't the children's fault either and they shouldn't have to suffer either!

No I don't think a step parent should have to financially contribute to children born before they met their partner.

But I do think that if the person claiming maintenance remarried, the payments should reduce to take into consideration the new joint household income.

The reason I say this is my DH pays maintenance, and we struggle financially. His ex remarried and they now live a life of luxury with their incomes, to the point she only has to work part time, takes 4 holidays a year, while we struggle on with our children

I appreciate this may be controversial to those who receive maintenance!

"And that isn't the fault of the step-parent."

It isn't, but you have to have pretty low morals if you want to be with someone who does everything they can to avoid responsibility of their children.

This is why as PP said there should be a set amount, it stops the loopholes and doesn't eradicate the responsibility like non payment does.

@SimonJT

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.

It’s interesting. I don’t agree though with your example... it’s not just about the money. If one parent had lost their job maybe they could make up on other ways.. so the other parent may have to do OT at work or something and they can watch the child.

You wouldn’t pay someone else’s electric bill. I think further down the line for a step parent to pay for a child which is not there’s could cause major resentment. What if someone has 4 kids? If that Step parent expected to foot the bill?

I’m not a step parent btw just intrigued by your view.