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 do wonder why it’s shirking responsibilities if a man chooses to become a SAHP, but fine for his ex to be a SAHP and rely very heavily on maintenance (or be supported by their partner).

I guess it’s all that gendered bullshit really. It seems to me that they both need to be financially responsible for themselves insofar as possible.

If my DH became a SAHD (this would never happen, but theoretically I guess) my DSC would have two parents with no income relying entirely on other adults to pay for them. I might be willing to consider having my husband financially dependent on me, but I wouldn’t be up for supporting his ex (because that is what would be happening). The onus is on both their parents to pay for them. And I do support them financially (they would not have a room each and a nice big house if I didn’t put in the entire deposit plus pay my half of the bills).

Tbh, it would be better if maintenance were in some way actually related to costs. That is the additional costs for having the children more of the time. £7 a week is not in any way reasonable if you have the DC 1/14 nights. Similarly, £700 a month is far more than the costs of having the DC 60% of the time rather than 40%. The problem is that costs are hard to calculate and there’s not much you can do if one parent has very little income.

@Funfairballoon The NRP would be choosing not to drive by choosing not to take financial responsibility for their child. They would be actively choosing to make seeing their child more difficult, if they make that choice the child is most likely better off without their influence.

Do we remove passports and licenses from RP’s who aren’t working and therefore paying for their children? It is it just NRPs?

It’s a ridiculous suggestion either way.

Nrp partners shouldn't be financially responsible for SCs.

Like others have said, both their parents should be. RP and NRP should be working and supporting their kids and not relying on others. If their own partners are happy to do so, that's another matter.

It of course very much depends on the relationship between SC and SP.

And not everyone has a passport or license so what would you stop then? Their travel card, confiscate their push bike?

I do wonder why it’s shirking responsibilities if a man chooses to become a SAHP, but fine for his ex to be a SAHP and rely very heavily on maintenance (or be supported by their partner).

Because the RP is still looking after and supporting their child through the family income. The NRP becoming a SAHP and not paying towards the child means they aren't financially supporting that child at all. Nothing to do with gender.

In the case of my ex and many like him, he and his partner decided she would work and he would look after her kids solely so there was no maintenence to pay. That is wrong on every level.

I do wonder why it’s shirking responsibilities if a man chooses to become a SAHP, but fine for his ex to be a SAHP and rely very heavily on maintenance (or be supported by their partner).

It isn’t, its about an NRP becoming a stay at home parent, it doesn’t matter if that is mum or dad. If that stay at home NRP can’t pay maintenance out of their family budget then they can’t afford to be a stay at home parent.

There is no way to settle this because every single situation is different.

Every single ex is different.

My partners ex will quite happily let her kids go without whilst she goes on extravagant holidays. Do I object to her going on holiday? Not at all! Do I object to her kids not having things (at her house) they need because she prioritises herself - yes of course I do. So therefore I am not prepared to use my own money to fund her lifestyle.
She doesn’t work, rent is paid and has 2 men paying her maintenance- that is absolutely her business and her choice but I’m not adding my money to it. Especially not when I am the main earner and her kids benefit from my income through having a second home here - clothes, food, holidays, anything they need etc. My partner is very proud and rarely takes money from me for them directly but I pay the mortgage and 60% share of the bills. So they benefit from me already.

Now if she were a decent human being and we fell on hard times and she needed me to cover things for the kids then I would, absolutely. Would I randomly just put cash in her bank account - nope.

So in summary it’s too complicated to say it should be a family expense and anyone who comes into the family should be expected to pick up the cost. Sometimes it might just naturally work that way because all income and expenses are pooled. But for those who have separate finances, for very good reasons and those who have ongoing drama with the RP - there just can’t be a black and white answer.

The only answer is that the parent is the responsible person. Now if they’re a total cunt and play the system to get out of paying - thats a different story. And what you’ve got there is two arseholes - that’s not the majority is it

Fathers and step mother shirking is not acceptable

What is the stepmother shirking?

[quote ihavenowords30]@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.[/quote]
@ihavenowords30 exactly. I am fortunate enough that I am able to support the kids myself and my DH (aka their step dad) genuinely treats them the same as our other child that we have together. Unfortunately there's probably other women in a similar position with their exH's who can't afford to make up the deficit themselves.
It hard to believe the pittance total of the maintenance the kids receive compared to the lavish holidays (Pre-covid) and the luxury housing the exH and his wife manage to keep going!

@FishyFriday

Do we remove passports and licenses from RP’s who aren’t working and therefore paying for their children? It is it just NRPs?

It’s a ridiculous suggestion either way.

Are those RPs refusing to use their household money to buy their children food, clothes, uniform, heating etc? No.

And not everyone has a passport or license so what would you stop then? Their travel card, confiscate their push bike?

I would certainly make it more like the American system so that any money they get like lotto winnings or tax rebates etc would go to paying their support rather than in their pockets. There is plenty the government could do, but they don't.

if it inconvenienced their lives then there would be a lot less of them not paying

And lots of children not seeing their NRP I imagine.

I absolutely agree and I don’t think stepdads should reduce money towards their own children and I agree that providing for their own children should be their first priority.
But I also don’t think stepmums should reduce money towards their own children to benefit their stepchildren either. Whether that’s through paying towards maintenance or if the money stays within the household. But somehow it’s more frowned upon if the stepmum doesn’t make compromises for her stepchildren.

DH pays over CM rates, if he lost his business and was actively looking for work I'd probably go half's with dss mum on uniform/clubs ect until DH was back in work. Dss is here 40% of the time so I wouldn't pay maintenance for the one extra night a week it works out as. If DH was not looking for a way to provide for our family (and dss is included in that) I'd probably leave him as I'm not a cash machine and couldn't afford his and dss costs for an indefinite period of time without my dc loosing out.

I think the parents NI number should be linked to the child when they are registered.
Any future non payment is then made up by the government to ensure children don’t end up in poverty growing up but comes out of future pension payments.
If that means a non paying parent has to work til they are 75 or accept a pension of £50 per month well that’s tough.

And lots of children not seeing their NRP I imagine.

The NRP could get a bus, walk, bike or just pay the maintenence due and then they wouldn't have to worry about their license.

And if the NRP needs the passport or driving licence for work, then really if the rp gets it removed then they’re just cutting their nose off to spite their face because then they have zero chance of getting maintenance if the NRP becomes unemployed. It just seems like such a spiteful and drastic thing to do.

What if their job pays the rent or mortgage for the house where their children come to stay? What if they have other children who live in that house who will end up homeless?

@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?

No this isn’t fair at all. Loop holes should be closed, perhaps there should be a way for the NRP to be checked, kind of like when people are suspected of cheating benefits / working cash in hand etc?

The emphasis should be on ensuring the PARENT pays. Not removing the (usually) men’s responsibility and placing it onto the new woman who comes into his life.
This just feels like another way to fuck over women whilst increasingly letting men off the hook.

I really sympathise with your situation OP, mine is the opposite in that my DP works two jobs to be able to live a normal standard of life with the cost of maintenance included. Without his second job he wouldn’t be able to afford more the basics in life - ok that’s his choice because he chose a profession which isn’t very well paid. But the ex chooses not to work, which would help her situation massively too.

I definitely think the system needs a review but it’s already quite sexist, why make it even more so? In this day and age blended families are common, women do most of the child rearing, most of the life admin, most of the housework - should we now be expected to shoulder even more responsibility for our partners?

Then they pay their maintenence and there won't be a problem.

Why is it spiteful to have consequences from not paying, but perfectly fine not to pay?

@funinthesun19

And if the NRP needs the passport or driving licence for work, then really if the rp gets it removed then they’re just cutting their nose off to spite their face because then they have zero chance of getting maintenance if the NRP becomes unemployed. It just seems like such a spiteful and drastic thing to do.

What if their job pays the rent or mortgage for the house where their children come to stay? What if they have other children who live in that house who will end up homeless?

The RP isn’t responsible for a NRP choosing not to pay maintenance.

If the NRP doesn’t want to be homeless they’ll get a job.

The only spiteful one is the NRP who chooses not to support their own children.

I cannot believe there are posters on this thread who think the nrps payments should go down if the RP household income goes up because of a new relationship. While also thinking the NRP partner shouldn't pay.
That is outrageous hypocrisy. How can you not see that.

I didn’t say it’s fine not to pay, but two wrongs don’t make a right do they?

I say all this as someone who receives £0.00 for my children from their father.

@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!

Can you not see how hypocritical this is?

If an RP didn't feed or clothe their child they would get arrested for neglect.

Is that also two wrongs don't make a right? Or is it consequences of not looking after your kid?