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?

CM should be treated like council tax (a bill) needs paying. If you lose your job it should be backdated. So many feckless fathers about. As for those who are self employed claiming they earn minimum wage and pay peanuts, shame on them!
SP shouldn’t pay as the dc is not their responsibility to pay for.

There's no one size fits all answer really.

Should a new partners income be included in a CM calculation? Probably not.
BUT when my new (now ex) partner moved in my benefits were recalculated to include his wages (rightly so) so his income had, to some degree, pay towards my DC because I couldn't afford to support them on my wage alone. (hence previous benefit entitlement)
OTOH when ex moved in with his now wife, not only was her income not included for CM purposes, but he actually reduced what he paid as she had DC who were living there.
So my DP had to be financially responsible, but his didn't.
Then ex and his wife arranged their finances in such a way that he was assessed as having to pay £0 for our DC. So while they live in a nice 4 bed house, run a car and 2 motor bikes and take their DC horse riding at the weekend, we are stuck in the cheapest house we can find, which has plaster falling off the walls due to damp, and have been reliant on food banks in the past.

When the CMS made their NiL assessment, ex phoned me up and him and his wife laughed down the phone about how they'd played the system so they didn't have to "pay you to sit on your fat arse". Nice.

So there's a certain level of unfairness in that RSP has their income taken into account. After its their choice to live with someone with DC. But a NRSP? Gosh no. Why should they pay for DC that aren't theirs.

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.

So the partner of a NRP shouldn't be financially responsible, but the partner of the RP should? Seems fair

For university purposes I just had to prove I lived alone and my daughter got full support no mention of her father or stepmother at all

No I wouldn’t expect my exh partner to pay for my children. However I don’t think it’s very fair that my children have to subsidise her children when they are getting their mothers money, their fathers money and now my children’s dads money.

Although it doesn’t really apply in my case because exh pays sweet FA for his own children.

Why should a third party be financially liable for somebody else's child ?. That is the responsibility of the parents. They were repsonsible for brining the child into this world and the buck stops with them, totally.

bringing

@CatCup

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!

His responsibilities as a parent should never change just because his ex has remarried.

When you married your husband did you include your income when working out his maintenance payments? As by your own reasoning his increased household income should have been taken into consideration.

Also, if step parents shouldn’t be financially responsible for step children who would make up the short fall in money when a RP marries?

At what point do we consider the RP’s responsibility to provide financially for their child too?

I say that as an RP. I have worked all my adult life. Not working has never been an option.

Apparently if DH lost his job, I should be willing to hand over some of my salary to his ex, who has no intention of ever working in her life again. Otherwise the SDC will be disadvantaged. Maybe she should consider getting a job herself?

But then, often it's the lower earner that will give up work to be the SAHP.
So if that happens to be the NRP at the same time then that's it. Not a loophole par say. Just a financial decision. RP could actually benefit from this by having a better childcare arrangements.
A lot of RP choose to work pt or not at all. They are not exactly meeting their final responsibilities either.

100% not. If my partner lost his job I would certainly look at helping where I could in terms of Maintenance as of course it's not fair to just right it off.

However at the same time it shouldn't be expected as it's not my financial responsibility. I have had one child through choice my partner has 2 others financially dependent on him through CMS. Could I comfortably provide financially for 3 children to the standard I want too? No.

It is hard however as my SCs mum doesn't work so therefore her new husband is technical financially supporting those children but that is their choice and marriage

Its such a tricky subject for me as for almost everything else its the 'household income' that's taken into account. For example, couple with one child separate. Mum has children full time and is a SAHM, husband works full time. Both parties remarry and have one more child each.

A couple of situations to consider:

One parent in each family earns £30k, NRP pays £200 per month maintenance. This £200 isn't included in any benefit calculations so wouldn't effect that. Family one are now living off £32400 per year. Family two is now living off £27600. Both have two resident children, both have one working parent and one SAHP. Is this far?

Couple with two children sperate, both remarry and have one further child each. One child stays with mum (SAHP), other goes to dads (working parent). Both new families have one working parent on £30K per year. Working parent pays £150 for the child living with mum, Mum only pays £20 (£5pw as not working) to the dad. Family one living on £31560, family two £28440.

In both circumstances, the two families both have the same amount of income, children living with them and working parties, yet one ends up better off then the other.

There would be harsh criticism of a man who "took on" a woman with children and refused to support them in any way

Well I guess it would depend for me what you deem as 'refusing to support in any way'.

I wouldn't want to pay my husband's maintenance no and I don't believe it's my responsibility to do so nor should my income be taken into account, however I certainly don't refuse to support my step children in any way whatsoever.

For example, we split bills 50:50, I don't expect him to pay more for his children, same with food shopping etc... I have often bought them things out of my own pocket, clothes I've seen that they'd like or whatever and I will always help if I can and when I'm needed with things like childcare, school runs or whatever, for his ex too. I feel as though that is sufficient and is me supporting my husband and his children. I don't feel that that needs to extend to supporting them financially through my income.

I do agree that it is not fair to use loopholes like becoming a SAHD, although I do believe that that is not overly common (not exes not paying I know that happens a lot but becoming a SAHD to new family to avoid maintenance) and I definitely agree that step children in the NRP household should not reduce payments, as a PP said you're either responsible for step children or you aren't.

However, I'm not sure there would be an easy way to implement what is fair in each individual scenario unfortunately, I'm sure there individual cases where there may be a case for the SPs income being used (the SAHD being one), but I don't think there's an easy way to implement it on a large scale therefore it's easier for the rule to simply be step parents do not pay.

I also don't think their income should be taken into account in regards to university either, it's all very inconsistent. I think it needs to be a blanket 'no' across all scenarios.

@hashbrownsandwich just read your situation, that's awful and a clear example where more in depth situations need to be looked at with different rules.
Fathers and step mother shirking is not acceptable when they are actively avoiding stepping up and coming to a reasonable agreement for all children.

Like the majority of previous posters , I don't believe that CMS should take account of the step parent's income. Instead, CMS should be closing the loop holes that self employed fathers can exploit to lower their apparent income and in the cases of fathers who simply stop working to look after their new wife's children, CMS should be able to suspend the father's passport thus preventing those lovely family holidays that they somehow manage to finance.

@GloriousGoosebumps

Like the majority of previous posters , I don't believe that CMS should take account of the step parent's income. Instead, CMS should be closing the loop holes that self employed fathers can exploit to lower their apparent income and in the cases of fathers who simply stop working to look after their new wife's children, CMS should be able to suspend the father's passport thus preventing those lovely family holidays that they somehow manage to finance.

New wife's children or their own children?

Taking away passports I don't agree with, you're only punishing the other set of children there which isn't really fair.

but I do think child maintenance should be a family bill

I don't actually agree with this tbh.

I think financial responsibility for a child should be looked at in the same way as if the parents were still together or neither had remarried.

So say if father loses his job or becomes ill (I appreciate that not all cases of this are genuine which is shit), then he will need to help in other ways, i.e. having the children more so his ex can work overtime if needed. That's what they would have to do if they were still together or if Dad hadn't remarried.

It's unfortunate yes but I do think there has to be some level of acceptance when you choose to have children that your financial situation may change in the future whether or not you are still with the other parent and that ultimately if they cannot or won't pay then the book stops with you, not some other third party.

I don't actually think it's reasonable to expect there to be absolutely no impact to the exes household if the father loses his income although I think that's a pretty controversial opinion!

I agree with taking the passports away. I would also go as far as taking drivers license away as well.

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

An electric bill or mortgage payment is totally different to CM. Both the NRP and the SP are in need of heat/light/housing and hence both pay toward this. A SP isn’t gaining anything from CM paid to their spouses Ex. It’s not a ‘joint’ debt/bill.

A better and more accurate example is a credit card debt the NRP accumulated before the marriage. If NRP loses their income for any unavoidable reason (obviously if a choice is made by the couple for NRP to lose income that’s totally different) then should the SP be obligated to pay that credit card debt? No, whether IRL they do or not is up to them.

Also please remember that not all ‘SP’s’ are child free high earners. Following your logic a struggling PT working mum with her own kids would be forced to pay her husbands CM if he loses his job.

Fathers and step mother shirking is not acceptable

Tbf the step mother isn't shirking anything.

@DifficultPifcultLemonDifficult

I agree with taking the passports away. I would also go as far as taking drivers license away as well.

Yep, and if the NRP didn’t want the children/adult to live with to ‘suffer’ they would take responsibility and pay for their children.

@DifficultPifcultLemonDifficult

I agree with taking the passports away. I would also go as far as taking drivers license away as well.

Yeah, make regular contact difficult. What a winning solution that is

So I remarry and as a result payments reduce?
Why?
Regardless of my relationship status my child still has another biological parent who is responsible for them. With the often absymal level paid in support many of the nrp get an amazing deal.

I do agree the feckless who cook their books more action should be allowed to be taken. I grassed my ex up to the tax man for that 😂 told him I was going to do it. Thought I was joking and wouldn’t have the balls to do it.

Couldn’t live with a man that tried to shirk his responsibilities and I think good luck to the daft sods who do it cos their day will probably come when he’s fed up and moves on.

I think situations like removing DLs etc... Has the potential to turn into a pay per view type situation which most people I think agree isn't right or in the best interests of the children.

Obviously non payment of CM isn't in their interest either but I'm not sure fighting one with the other is great.

Yeah, make regular contact difficult. What a winning solution that is

It is because the NRP would fight to keep their license, there's currently not a lot of comeback for shirking responsibilities, if it inconvenienced their lives then there would be a lot less of them not paying.