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?

The only spiteful one is the NRP who chooses not to support their own children
Conveniently ignoring what @funinthesun19 meant about paying to maintain the children’s second home, which is not free to run despite what many seem to think.

@Youseethethingis

The only spiteful one is the NRP who chooses not to support their own children Conveniently ignoring what *@funinthesun19* meant about paying to maintain the children’s second home, which is not free to run despite what many seem to think.

If the NRP wants to maintain a home they need to get a job, or pay maintenance to keep their job. If they don’t want to do that they’re unlikely to be a positive influence in the childs life.

Conveniently ignoring what @funinthesun19 meant about paying to maintain the children’s second home, which is not free to run despite what many seem to think.

Exactly They’d be complaining once again if the NRP now doesn’t have anywhere adequate for the children to stay when with them.

@DifficultPifcultLemonDifficult

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.

You're ignoring the fact this punishes the children though aren't you?

If the NRP wants to maintain a home they need to get a job, or pay maintenance to keep their job. If they don’t want to do that they’re unlikely to be a positive influence in the childs life
If the NRP wants to maintain a home they need to get a job. If they want to live off the state and their ex they are unlikely to be a positive influence in the child’s life.
See how that works?
I’m not taking about the scumbags who wriggle off the hook here by the way, I’m talking about people who hit hard times and apparently deserve to have everything taken from them rather than give their ex less or no money while they sort themselves out.
I’ve seen too many threads go that way and it completely ignores that the NRP is expected to provide everything the child needs during their time too.

You're ignoring the fact this punishes the children though aren't you?

No I'm not ignoring that, but its the choice of the NRP.

You're ignoring the fact this punishes the children though aren't you?

This was what I was trying to get at.

@DifficultPifcultLemonDifficult

You're ignoring the fact this punishes the children though aren't you?

No I'm not ignoring that, but its the choice of the NRP.

Well it's not, it's the choice of the government. If an nrp doesn't work, you're essentially stopping them getting a job, and taking the parent away from the child. It's a viscous circle really.

No however i do think there should be a minimum payment from nrp. Even £10 a week. I strongly disagree a parent should havecan complete opt out of supporting a child.

Confiscating a driving licence or passport is just stupid. It would encourage NRP not to pay because they have no means to get a job or actually turning up to do a job.

Those who don't want to pay will never pay.

This is very interesting because I see people saying that a step parent shouldn’t be responsible for someone else’s children (their partners!) but if a man moves in with a woman and HER kids, not his then he can have his child maintenance REDUCED for his own kids because he’s now responsible for his partners kids even if they are getting maintenance from their father. So how is that fair!

@Youseethethingis

If the NRP wants to maintain a home they need to get a job, or pay maintenance to keep their job. If they don’t want to do that they’re unlikely to be a positive influence in the childs life If the NRP wants to maintain a home they need to get a job. If they want to live off the state and their ex they are unlikely to be a positive influence in the child’s life. See how that works? I’m not taking about the scumbags who wriggle off the hook here by the way, I’m talking about people who hit hard times and apparently deserve to have everything taken from them rather than give their ex less or no money while they sort themselves out. I’ve seen too many threads go that way and it completely ignores that the NRP is expected to provide everything the child needs during their time too.

An RP on benefits is using that money to buy their child food, clothes, uniform etc. It isn’t comparable.

"Confiscating a driving licence or passport is just stupid. It would encourage NRP not to pay because they have no means to get a job or actually turning up to do a job."

I can say it would make me chuckle if that happened to my ex as he doesn't pay a penny but goes off on holiday every year.
I think that the type of people who would have their passport/drivers license taken away were never going to get a job and take responsibility anyway they are people who are just out and out bums, scum of society.
So yeh inconvenience them.

Confiscating a driving licence or passport is just stupid. It would encourage NRP not to paybecausethey have no means to get a job or actually turning up to do a job.

This would only be done if the NRP wasn't paying their, often pitiful, maintenence. If they aren't paying their dues then they should be inconvenienced.

AS a SP absolutely no.
You may fall in love with someone with children but they are never your responsibility unless you have them 24/7.
I have and still do support my DSS but only because I was given full custody as his Dad works out of the country mostly and his Mum just awful.
She did try and go after my wage when we first started dating but that got her nowhere, at that point his Dad had him Thursday - Monday, all school holidays every week and paid voluntary maintenance to try to improve his life at his Mums..
But I don't feel that a step parent should pay unless they want to.

@DifficultPifcultLemonDifficult

Confiscating a driving licence or passport is just stupid. It would encourage NRP not to paybecausethey have no means to get a job or actually turning up to do a job.

This would only be done if the NRP wasn't paying their, often pitiful, maintenence. If they aren't paying their dues then they should be inconvenienced.

And so should their children apparently. Nice.

The whole system is screwed. In theory no I don't, but on the other hand, a father can be living with a new partner who earns £££s, meaning he can afford not to work, and also means his children with his ex won't get a penny. How is that fair? Similarly though I don't think it's fair for step parents to take on paying for his children. Not sure of the answer gah.

And so should their children apparently. Nice.

They are already being inconvenienced by not benefitting from maintenence, if the NRP is that adamant they aren't paying that they would rather lose their licence, then that is solely the fault of the NRP who is the one choosing to inconvenience their kid.

@DifficultPifcultLemonDifficult

And so should their children apparently. Nice.

They are already being inconvenienced by not benefitting from maintenence, if the NRP is that adamant they aren't paying that they would rather lose their licence, then that is solely the fault of the NRP who is the one choosing to inconvenience their kid.

Well yes, so what's the solution? Inconvenience them more, of course.

It's the fault of the NRP for not paying but it's the state who are giving the second punishment to the child. I don't agree with punishing children for their parents actions.

What about parents who get sent to jail because of their actions? Isn't that the state punishing kids? What about when social work removing children from their parent? Isn't that punishing the kids too?

At what point do you think adults should be responsible for the effects that their actions have on their kids?

When student maintenance loans are assessed, it's the household income of the parents / primary parent which is assessed, to decide what should be paid to the student (and ergo, what extra amount the family will have to contribute). So if there is a live-in step-parent, their income would be included in the calculation and would affect the total loan available to the student.
This is for young adults, so I do not see why a live-in step-parent of younger children should not also be liable for CM payments if they are in the same household as the actual parent.

Actual crime is different, neglect is different as well.

It isn't punishing a child to protect them from someone dangerous. Your argument is ridiculous.

"It's the fault of the NRP for not paying but it's the state who are giving the second punishment to the child. I don't agree with punishing children for their parents actions."

Of course you aren't.
Most feckless father that don't pay for them don't see them either.
You can't blame the state for a father's (in most cases) actions.
Solely on him I am afraid.
It's time to teach people responsibility for their children whether they like it or not.

Isnt it neglectful not to pay for your child?