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?

Why should I go out and earn money for my stepchildren when they have two parents capable of financing them?

@aSofaNearYou i do agree that it is both parents' duty to ensure that they have sufficient income to provide for their child, first and foremost.

However, I have seen scenarios on Mumsnet whereby a NRP has taken a planned cut in hours/pay because if suited their new household, knowing full well that doing so would mean they would earn less "on paper" for CM. My argument on that was that if the stepparent is happy to supplement NRPs other general outgoings such as clothes, phone contracts, insurances, holidays etc then CM should be no different.

If a NRP began purposefully "sponging" off a new partner, then new partner should be getting rid, quite frankly.

@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?

That poster was me.

I don't really get your point, of course your ex would have to pay extra for things for the kids if you lost your job?? He'd have to pay for things like school dinners or new shoes or school trips or whatever the children needed during that time. I wouldn't expect your boyfriend to pay for that?

But obviously your partner (same as NRP's partner) would end up paying extra expenses for your household as it's to keep a roof over his own head as well.

Not sure why you think I'm saying it doesn't work both ways.

"Why should I go out and earn money for my stepchildren when they have two parents capable of financing them?"

In the grand scheme of things I agree with you BUT as you say they have two parents capable of supporting them.
So for example if your partner doesn't work and lives off of your wage he avoids child maintenance it's your actions in supporting him that results in his child going without. Therefore your income should be taken into account as he couldn't avoid paying maintenance without you working to support him.

@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.

This is so rare though, how many people actually have a wealthy step-parent in the mix who totally finances their partner's lifestyle, especially NRPs?

The more likely scenario is the step-parent is just a normal earning individual who would now be having to support a whole household alone, including the SCs when they're around. Most wouldn't have the money to pay out a few hundred quid to another household, even if they wanted to.

I have a friend who will have 3 children in uni in the next few years so won’t move with her long term DP (no children) as it will effect their grants. Even though her household bills would be reduced, she’s had too much grief with tax credits has put her off getting involved.

I went to uni with a guy who got a full grant on the basis of his mums income. However his dad was extremely wealthy and giving him lots of money on top. He’d been to a very expensive school (paid by dad). I remember he thought it was hilarious.

[quote MrsTophamHat]@aSofaNearYou i do agree that it is both parents' duty to ensure that they have sufficient income to provide for their child, first and foremost.

However, I have seen scenarios on Mumsnet whereby a NRP has taken a planned cut in hours/pay because if suited their new household, knowing full well that doing so would mean they would earn less "on paper" for CM. My argument on that was that if the stepparent is happy to supplement NRPs other general outgoings such as clothes, phone contracts, insurances, holidays etc then CM should be no different.

If a NRP began purposefully "sponging" off a new partner, then new partner should be getting rid, quite frankly. [/quote]
But even this....CM is based on what the paying parent is earning and they have no obligation to keep earning that way for the rest of their life?

Don't get me wrong, I'm absolutely not saying it's OK for people to purposely give up work and neglect financial responsibilities towards their kids - NOT AT ALL. BUT, I also think that both parents are free to change their working hours or jobs at any time and if that results in a drop in available money all round then that's what happens.

I don't think that an NRP would be entitled to criticise the RP for cutting or changing their working hours if they had another child with a new partner, for instance, even though that would equally negatively financially impact the older children as if the NRP did the same.

Why should I go out and earn money for my stepchildren when they have two parents capable of financing them?

Exactly. I don't have SC but if I did there is no WAY I'd agree to my income being taken into account. If this is expected then it should be expected that the SC 'give back' by caring for the SP in their old age!

@User5747384

"Why should I go out and earn money for my stepchildren when they have two parents capable of financing them?"

In the grand scheme of things I agree with you BUT as you say they have two parents capable of supporting them.
So for example if your partner doesn't work and lives off of your wage he avoids child maintenance it's your actions in supporting him that results in his child going without. Therefore your income should be taken into account as he couldn't avoid paying maintenance without you working to support him.

No, its not the step parents fault the parent is useless and can't be bothered to earn for his children.

Sorry his/her children.

Might not be down to uselessness - if its disability etc but in that case the ex would be in the same position financially if they were still together.

"No, its not the step parents fault the parent is useless and can't be bothered to earn for his children."

Yes it is, by supporting them in avoiding their responsibilities you are enabling them.

I wouldn't be with someone who willingly lived off my income in order to avoid supporting their children. It's 100% not my responsibility if my partner suddenly decides to quit his job. I won't be able to afford a roof over our heads and support his children.

@Funfairballoon

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.

In this scenario would the parent be buying new clothes, maintaining clubs/hobbies. This is I think what other posters are saying. If they were to lose their jobs their partner would be picking up the slack for things that were solely for the child.

In a lot of cases reverting where the child lives would be ridiculous, a friend and her ex live 100 miles away from each other so you are suggesting the son moves to somewhere that he'd have to move school. Not only would he be moving school but to an area where he has never lived. Whose benefit is that for? If it's for the child (who is the person I think is important in these scenarios, not the adults) then displacing them would be the wrong move especially if they are happily settled.

@Bibidy I think to me it would depend on the scale, impact and duration of the loss and income, as well as the reasons for doing so. It's a moral thing, as I see it.

I should say that I have been the higher earning step-parent (not married) in this scenario, though the child was resident with us during the week. I paid for and cared for her for around two years as though she was my own daughter, whilst my ex was (supposedly) getting on his feet and training for a better job. I cut my losses in the end because it was clear to me that he was quite happy coasting along on minimum wage, failing his courses and expecting me to fund this. So the right thing to do was for me to walk away, not to live a certain way myself and withhold things from his daughter.

I had no respect for him.

@User5747384

"No, its not the step parents fault the parent is useless and can't be bothered to earn for his children."

Yes it is, by supporting them in avoiding their responsibilities you are enabling them.

I disagree. There is no way I would be with someone who decided their children weren't worth going out and getting a job for. I would leave before I covered his maintenance payments if he had just decided not to work.

Well that's good you wouldn't be an enabler then @KoalaOok.
I don't think you should have to contribute normally only if you enable someone to get out of not paying for maintenance by supporting them financially.
Obviously if they become disabled things are very different.
I am talking about child maintenance dodgers who don't take responsibility for their kids.

In this scenario would the parent be buying new clothes, maintaining clubs/hobbies. This is I think what other posters are saying. If they were to lose their jobs their partner would be picking up the slack for things that were solely for the child

In an ideal world they would but they wouldn't be contributing to the household bills, and there's no way to enforce this either.

In a lot of cases reverting where the child lives would be ridiculous, a friend and her ex live 100 miles away from each other so you are suggesting the son moves to somewhere that he'd have to move school. Not only would he be moving school but to an area where he has never lived. Whose benefit is that for? If it's for the child (who is the person I think is important in these scenarios, not the adults) then displacing them would be the wrong move especially if they are happily settled

I'm not suggesting it's an option for everyone, just saying it would be the only way to enforce It as such.

@Funfairballoon

In this scenario would the parent be buying new clothes, maintaining clubs/hobbies. This is I think what other posters are saying. If they were to lose their jobs their partner would be picking up the slack for things that were solely for the child

In an ideal world they would but they wouldn't be contributing to the household bills, and there's no way to enforce this either.

In a lot of cases reverting where the child lives would be ridiculous, a friend and her ex live 100 miles away from each other so you are suggesting the son moves to somewhere that he'd have to move school. Not only would he be moving school but to an area where he has never lived. Whose benefit is that for? If it's for the child (who is the person I think is important in these scenarios, not the adults) then displacing them would be the wrong move especially if they are happily settled

I'm not suggesting it's an option for everyone, just saying it would be the only way to enforce It as such.

From everything you've said you want it both ways and aren't actually interested in the children involved. It wouldn't be right for children who spend 90% of their time with one parent to be ripped from them to go to the other parent due to misfortune.

It isn't the only way to enforce it as has been stated by previous posters and the Californian calculator for child support.

I want it both ways? I don't want anything, I'm not in this situation.

I haven't said that's a solution., I said it's the only way to enforce it, which it is, currently, unless of course you live in California which I'm assuming most people on this thread do not.

There is CLEARLY better ways of calculating CMS than we use in this country but until we adopt them, what can be done? Not much unfortunately for everyone involved.

@Funfairballoon

I want it both ways? I don't want anything, I'm not in this situation.

I haven't said that's a solution., I said it's the only way to enforce it, which it is, currently, unless of course you live in California which I'm assuming most people on this thread do not.

There is CLEARLY better ways of calculating CMS than we use in this country but until we adopt them, what can be done? Not much unfortunately for everyone involved.

So you aren't a step mum?

I think you will find alot of child maintenance dodgers that don't provide financially make pretty shitty parents on the whole and wouldn't be capable of taking care of them anyway.
If you won't be financially responsible you are unlikely to be responsible in the taking care of them either.

I don't think it's putting the kids first either especially in scenarios where it isn't what the child would want to stay with the NRP and to uproot their life it's putting the NRP first again instead of the children.

I wouldn't expect the children to go and live solely with their other parent due to job loss, that would be quite harsh for both the child and the parent.

I would expect the employed parent (RP or NRP) to cover all direct costs for the children rather than any new partner if the other parent loses their job. If an RP lost their job I would 100% expect them to let the other parent know that they will need to pick up stuff like new clothes & shoes, school trips, dinner money etc etc. Also don't forget that the RP should still be receiving CM so even after job loss they'll still have a bit of income of their own than an NRP wouldn't have.

Maybe it should all be talked through before they split up/divorce. If they are being divorced in part because they are a useless parent then I don't think it's fair to expect that to change and let any future parent make up for the shortfall. If they've suddenly gone from being a great parent to one that doesn't want anything to do with their children then something is up.

So you aren't a step mum?

Yes, but dp isn't about to quit work so...

User5747384 it's not fair for a system that takes into account the step parents income just because there are some horrible people out there