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?

@DifficultPifcultLemonDifficult

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?

Its weird that people are on the side of the NRPs who don’t care about their own children, even weirder on a parenting site.

@DifficultPifcultLemonDifficult

Isnt it neglectful not to pay for your child?

Well that depends on the circumstances, doesn't it?

An rp who entirely relies on state benefits isn't paying for their child but it doesn't make them neglectful.

Saying you don't think punishing children is a solution doesn't make you "on the side" of non paying NRPs. What a bizarre assumption

@Funfairballoon Is that RP refusing to use that money to feed, clothe etc their child? No.

Why are you in support of NRPs who don’t care about the welfare of their children?

@Funfairballoon

Saying you don't think punishing children is a solution doesn't make you "on the side" of non paying NRPs. What a bizarre assumption

You’re on the side of the NRP who actively chooses to punish and neglect the needs of their child/ren. The child is only punished if the NRP chooses to punish them.

[quote SimonJT]@Funfairballoon Is that RP refusing to use that money to feed, clothe etc their child? No.

Why are you in support of NRPs who don’t care about the welfare of their children?[/quote]
Why can't you read?

I clearly said they're not lol.

I'm not in support of them at all, but neither am I in support of punishing children for their parents actions.

I said it depends on circumstance.

Read it first before you jump down my neck.

"Its weird that people are on the side of the NRPs who don’t care about their own children, even weirder on a parenting site."

Totally agree

Why am I "on their side"?

I've never said there shouldn't be consequences. I said I don't agree with that consequence.

Fuck me.

It doesn't make them neglectful because they are buying their kids food and clothes from money they get from a system they have paid into.

A NRP not paying anything towards their child either from their job or the benefits they get from the system they have paid into is a completely different thing altogether.

Why are you so adamant that NRP shouldn't have to pay towards their dc? Its a really weird view for someone who is all about not making the kids suffer.

@Funfairballoon

Why am I "on their side"?

I've never said there shouldn't be consequences. I said I don't agree with that consequence.

Fuck me.

So what consequence would you like for the NRPs who choose to neglect their childs needs?

@DifficultPifcultLemonDifficult

It doesn't make them neglectful because they are buying their kids food and clothes from money they get from a system they have paid into.

A NRP not paying anything towards their child either from their job or the benefits they get from the system they have paid into is a completely different thing altogether.

Why are you so adamant that NRP shouldn't have to pay towards their dc? Its a really weird view for someone who is all about not making the kids suffer.

Oh look another one that can't read lol.

So what consequence would you like for the NRPs who choose to neglect their childs needs?

Personally I feel the government should pay the rp the maintenance and then the nrp should be chased for the debt like any other commercial debt they don't pay. It shouldn't be avoidable as it currently is.

@DifficultPifcultLemonDifficult

It doesn't make them neglectful because they are buying their kids food and clothes from money they get from a system they have paid into.

A NRP not paying anything towards their child either from their job or the benefits they get from the system they have paid into is a completely different thing altogether.

Why are you so adamant that NRP shouldn't have to pay towards their dc? Its a really weird view for someone who is all about not making the kids suffer.

I'm not adamant they shouldn't pay at all. Please can you state where I have said that?

No course you can't because you made it up.

You are the one arguing that it would be the state punishing the kids for the neglectful actions of the NRP rather than it being the fault of the NRP making those decisions.

If a dad moves in with a new woman and her kids, the maintenance for his biological children gets reduced. Ridiculous

@DifficultPifcultLemonDifficult

You are the one arguing that it would be the state punishing the kids for the neglectful actions of the NRP rather than it being the fault of the NRP making those decisions.

I agreed that of course the non payment would be the nrps fault but it would be government deciding the punishment.

I'm not saying they're innocent. Of course if you want to twist it you will...

@Funfairballoon

So what consequence would you like for the NRPs who choose to neglect their childs needs?

Personally I feel the government should pay the rp the maintenance and then the nrp should be chased for the debt like any other commercial debt they don't pay. It shouldn't be avoidable as it currently is.

Ah, so after six years the NRP no longer has to pay back any of the maintenance they chose not to pay. Thats hardly a consequence.

I didn't know 6 years was a thing, no, I obviously don't mean that.

But keep twisting.....

Nope. Flat no but nor do I think Te step parents income should count to universuty financial assement.
It's actually a simple contract: rights equals responsibilities. If you have parental rights you are responsible also. So adoptive parents have rights and so are responsible for paying for that child.
A step parent has no rights over their step child and therefore no responsibility.

@Ylvamoon

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.

I don't 'a lot' single, RPs chose to work part time or not at all...

It's more likely they are limited by childcare issues!!!!

This is daily mail level trash you're spouting.

So to summarise, if an NRP lost their job and income they should

• lose their home
• ability to find work (broadband, car)
• make their partner pay even though the partner is now carrying the financial burden of that household including the costs incurred running a home large enough for DSC as a whole income has been lost, not just child maintenance
• not have their children anymore because paying maintenance is more import than money in the meter

And this is because the posters absolutely have the best long term interests of the child in mind.
Ok then.
I like my plan of docking pensions better.

@Funfairballoon

So what consequence would you like for the NRPs who choose to neglect their childs needs?

Personally I feel the government should pay the rp the maintenance and then the nrp should be chased for the debt like any other commercial debt they don't pay. It shouldn't be avoidable as it currently is.

Yes. Absolutely spot on. Consequences to actions.

The main focus should be on children (who didn't ask for any of this) to be provided for.

Exactly. Disagreeing with the consequence doesn’t mean you’re on side with the NRP not paying.

I don’t agree with taking driving licences and passports away, because it is ultimately punishing the child in other ways. It wouldn’t just be the nrp at fault if that happened, the rp would bear some responsibility for it too because they are the one who decided to pursue the punishment, knowing what complications may arise for their child.

@DifficultPifcultLemonDifficult

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?

I certainly don't think it's fine not to pay but I also don't agree with a pay per view system when it comes to children seeing their parent which this ...

or just pay the maintenence due and then they wouldn't have to worry about their license

Sounds like it would turn into.

Not because I think NRPs who don't pay should be let off but because children should still be able to see their other parent if they want to regardless of whether they are rightly or wrongly paying maintenance. That's my opinion anyway.

I'd be pissed if my ex didn't pay maintenance but I wouldn't want to make it harder for my child to see him because that would hurt them as well regardless as to how much of a twat he was.

No, SP shouldn't pay, the parent should think of all the implications of their divorce before they proceed. This includes financial implications should one lose a job/find a new partner.