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?

@Bibidy

Ther is always a financial impact when having more children and its false economy to assume that the RP will always get X amount in child maintenance.

This is my point too. CM is not a solid bill that stays the same no matter what, it is very much based on the paying parent's income in the same way that if the family was still together finances can fluctuate.

Absolutely both parents should financially support children, 100% agree with this, of course. But I do feel that some RPs still want to maintain the same financial reliance on their exes that they had when they were together, which just isn't realistic when there are now 2 separate households to pay for.

Totally agree.

@AnneLovesGilbert

No the NRP’s partner’s income shouldn’t be considered. And we didn’t reduce DH’s payments when our shared child was born.

But it’s bat shit crazy that the NRP’s resident step children reduce payments. Who on Earth ever thought that was fair. If all NRP’s were expected to pay up and be decent the assumption, excepting a parental death, should be that NRP’s step children are being part funded by their own NRP.

If DH lost his job I wouldn’t pay child support. If they were still together there’d be no third party making up the difference.

Couldn't agree with you more on every point. Would never expect his wife to pay for our child, she has her own to support along with their Father.

In my case, DC's step siblings are being supported financially by 4 parents.. I'm single myself and ex pays a minute amount. I've not gone through CMS because it's not worth it after reduction for his step kids. My DC loses every which way which doesn't feel fair...

I think if self employed or work less than full time then yes.

In the case of not working / or working part time that is often done when balanced with the new partners income so the children have to be part of the equation. Many stories of men drawing only a small salary from a successful business as a way to beat the system so also relevant.

For people working full time - not so sure.

Absolutely not. I am financially responsible for my own DCs.

The system of including step children ( well they are not step children if the parents are not married but they still get included in the financial get out of jail free card) benefits men in the main.
Who would have thought a system set up benefit men ........
I suppose it allows divorced men to shack up with another woman as otherwise the financial implications might make a lot of women think ‘No I’m not living with you, it’s too costly.’

It absolutely is wrong to include another mans child in the maintenance calculation.

Children have 2 parents and if one can't pay for whatever reason then the other parent needs to pick up that slack, not some random person one of the parents is in a relationship with

So why is it if I lose my job, it will be my new partner supporting my children not my ex? I can only imagine the threads on here if PWC ask the NRP to pick up the slack caused by, say, redundancy or illness.

@Loveacoseynightin

What amazes me is when my DSD leaves something behind like clothing my partner always gets a message stating the item of clothing was paid for by the ex should be returned immediately. What is the child maintenance paying for?

Unfortunately that behaviour is more normal than you realise between parents, as some exs like to use their child's clothing to play games.

Long before I met my DP and he had his problems with his ex, I was told of children deliberately sent
every single time to their other parent in raggy worn out or too small clothing.

This includes their mother sending them to their father poor clothing so the father has to buy the child clothes, OR their father sending them to their mother in poor clothing after she sent the child in decent clothes. The parent who sends them in rags then hides the child's clothes until they have grown out of them.

Some people try to get around this by having a clause in their Child Arrangements Order which states the child is to be returned to the other parent with the clothing items they were sent with. However one of the parents has to show they are likely going to do this before an insightful lawyer on one side (and not the side often expected) puts this in.

The only alternatives are:

1. To ensure the child is dressed in exactly the same clothing down to their underwear they came in. Then make comments in email about why this is being done e.g. to prevent further conflict that impacts the child. Then ignore the other parent's complaints if it means they have to be returned in their school uniform on a non-school day as it is then clear that parent wants to cause trouble, OR,
2. Dress the child in Primark or similar very cheap clothes to be returned to their other parent. Then not worry if the clothing is never seen again. Again any complaints by the other parent about the clothes being cheap and wearing school shoes are then ignored.

@EnoughnowIthink

Children have 2 parents and if one can't pay for whatever reason then the other parent needs to pick up that slack, not some random person one of the parents is in a relationship with

So why is it if I lose my job, it will be my new partner supporting my children not my ex? I can only imagine the threads on here if PWC ask the NRP to pick up the slack caused by, say, redundancy or illness.

Most of the posters taking that stance are have an entitlement issue.

They think that a random stranger - and legally even if they are married that is what a step-parent is - should pay for their child. People forget a step-parent has no parental responsibility for that child.

The reason that step-parents and de facto step-parents income is taken into account for benefits is because the government doesn't want to pay out more money than they have to. So single people without children who are just friends have been accused and found to be a couple under benefit rules.

The reason the residential parent's household income is taken into account is because there was about a 20 year period in the late 20th Century were divorced parents were taking the piss. It wasn't rare to find students on full grants and then loans but had a rich dad, and a non-working/much lower salaried mother who had remarried someone else well-off. That meant that student ended up with far more money given or loaned to them by the state than a student whose parents stayed married/together. Again the government was giving people more money than they thought they had to.

I don't but my SC's mother does despite her only working 16 hours a week with one adult child and a late teen.

I have no children of my own and work 60 hours a week so I can understand her grabby attitude. Why shouldn't others work to pay for her children and afford her a 4 day weekend every week when mostly her children are in my house being looked after?

@RedMarauder , I wonder why Universities don't request the income of both biological parents then? Surely by discounting the none resident parent there is still a possibility a child could get a loan that they don't need if their NRP earns well and supports them through Uni?

DS is lucky that my DH has brought him up and treats him like his son. His income will mean DS gets much less of a loan, my income is very small as is his Dads. Neither of us would be in a position to fill in the gap, so it'll fall to DH's wages to do that. Some step parents wouldn't want to do that! I just don't understand why Uni's don't look at it as a whole - where is the money going to come from.

@needadvice54321 the Student Loans Company is doing what is just easiest for them.

I just find it baffling that they're more interested in the income of a step parent than the child's actual legal parent. Surely some children will not go to Uni on this basis, if their step parent isn't willing to back them up. I just don't get it!

But even with biological parents doesn't mean you get help.
I know when I was in college my friend would get a government benefit as her mum was on a low income so she would have I think it was £30 a week to spend.
I had to get a job and earn whatever money I needed my parents didn't give me any money.
It's never going to be totally fair as not every parent funds their child through further education.

I pay for everything for my stepchildren anyway. Their mum would rather waste all her money on smoking and gambling. All her big household bills are paid by benefits and she has never had a job. I’ve bought their winter coats for the last 6 years. They leave her house every day in ripped stained clothes or like my 16 year old stepson last week, trousers half way up their legs. I just can’t bear to witness it so I instantly replace them with ones that fit. I just don’t find it that hard to go without something I need to do that for them, and I’m on a crappy low income. We have them 45/55 so they are here a lot. My DH is disabled so pays a paltry amount of maintenance and no, I won’t be topping it up. My own children’s father doesn’t give me maintenance and we do 50/50.

@RedMarauder I think that is a more interesting thread tbh the game playing and how we can make it better for the children involved as it can't be healthy for them. A friends has just found out all of the clothes that her exH was keeping every time she send a bag of clothes with their DS was just being stored in vacuum bags, so the DS wasn't even being allowed to wear these new clothes at the NRP's house. Whenever I look after him, I always make sure he goes home with a new jumper or shoes or some piece of clothing as I know she struggles with keeping up with the loss of clothes.

@EnoughnowIthink

Children have 2 parents and if one can't pay for whatever reason then the other parent needs to pick up that slack, not some random person one of the parents is in a relationship with

So why is it if I lose my job, it will be my new partner supporting my children not my ex? I can only imagine the threads on here if PWC ask the NRP to pick up the slack caused by, say, redundancy or illness.

I don't think any non-parent should be responsible for financing someone else's kids, your new partner included.

The only difference I could see is that if you and your new partner lived together and you were the RP, then any extra costs he covers in terms of bills, food etc while you're out of work will be supporting his own household, including himself, for that time.

Whereas when we're talking about the NRP's partner, they would be being asked to hand over a wedge of money to another household completely. Even though they will already be doing the same as described above for the RP's partner....picking up all the slack from their own household as their partner is out of work, including the things needed for their stepchildren when they are with them. Why should they also hand over a chunk of their money to another adult to support her household?

I think people just forget that the step-parent is usually already financially supporting the stepchildren to some extent, even if indirectly.

They are likely paying towards a bigger property than they would otherwise need, maybe a bigger car, they'll be buying extra food, paying extra bills that increase when the children are around, paying more to go on holiday out of term time, probably picking up things for their partner as he has less disposable income due to CM and the kids' expenses...the list goes on and on.

Just because they wouldn't fork over money to the ex each month doesn't mean they aren't actually contributing already.

So why is it if I lose my job, it will be my new partner supporting my children not my ex? I can only imagine the threads on here if PWC ask the NRP to pick up the slack caused by, say, redundancy or illness.

If he lives there then of course he will end up supporting you all if you lose your job. It’s the same if an NRP loses their job, and their partner has to support everyone. But there is a big difference in the amount of money, because of the dynamics of who they are in a relationship with.

If an RP loses their job, they might not be able to claim benefits because of their partner’s income. This is the big key difference between an rp’s partner and an nrp’s partner. The nrp loses no child related benefits whereas the rp does, so the rp’s partner has a responsibility to provide the money the rp would have got if that makes sense.
The nrp’s partner doesn’t have to make anything up, apart from the usual bills they would pay anyway.

So why is it if I lose my job, it will be my new partner supporting my children not my ex? I can only imagine the threads on here if PWC ask the NRP to pick up the slack caused by, say, redundancy or illness
Your presenting something as different that’s actually the same.
No matter whether it’s the RP or the NRP who loses their job, the other earning partner is going to carry the financial burden in the meantime because they need to keep their own household afloat.
Giving money to another household during that time is another thing entirely.

I do believe that if you marry someone, then both of your earnings are joint.

I would find it immoral for a NRP living a wealthy lifestyle paid for by a new partner, to then claim to have no income when it comes to supporting their children.

Totally missed the point. Not surprising.

The poster said that children have 2 parents to support their children. So I asked what would happen if, because of legitimate reasons like redundancy or illness, I asked my ex to pick up the slack? Because he’s their other parent and why should my partner be forced to pay for them? The poster I quoted said if my ex loses his job, it is my job to pick up the slack. So I am asking, why does that not work both ways?

@MrsTophamHat

I do believe that if you marry someone, then both of your earnings are joint.

I would find it immoral for a NRP living a wealthy lifestyle paid for by a new partner, to then claim to have no income when it comes to supporting their children.

Comments like this are conflating two issues, though. It would be immoral for a NRP to be deliberately claiming no income, nobody is disputing that. They fundamentally need to be earning to be providing for their kids. But it is NOT immoral for him to live a wealthy lifestyle paid for in part by his partner, because her money is hers to do with as she wishes and doesn't come into it. The money to pay for his kids needs to be coming from him.

@EnoughnowIthink

Totally missed the point. Not surprising.

The poster said that children have 2 parents to support their children. So I asked what would happen if, because of legitimate reasons like redundancy or illness, I asked my ex to pick up the slack? Because he’s their other parent and why should my partner be forced to pay for them? The poster I quoted said if my ex loses his job, it is my job to pick up the slack. So I am asking, why does that not work both ways?

Because you'd be asking your partner to pick up the slack of your household.

A jobless nrp would be doing the same thing. They'd support the child whilst they were there, housing, clothing food etc and bills. Just like your partner would do.

Why should an nrp partner fund her own household and then yours on top?

Your partner wouldn't fund your household and you'd exs, just yours.

If you wanted your ex to support your household while you were jobless, the only way I see to do that would be for your kids to temporarily move there and therefore be financially supported by their dad.