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?

@User5747384

"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

I'm not sure anyone has said they are on the side of a non paying NRP.

Just that the consequences on that have to be delicate because there is a child involved in the middle of it all. It's not because I have sympathy for the NRP, it's really not okay to not pay toward your child, but there's still a child in there who will likely still love their parent and want to see them (perhaps less so as they get older and begin to understand but young children mostly won't).

I think that can get forgotten when trying to think of the best way to punish the non payer. I don't like the idea of the child being collateral in pursuit of that punishment personally. My DS would be devastated not to see his Dad, he wouldn't understand the ins and outs of maintenance and whatever at his age, just that he wants to see his Dad.

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

There are loads of ways the NRP could still see their child so it wouldn't be a pay per view at all, unless the NRP wanted it to become that. It would inconvenience their life enough that they would be far more likely to pay the maintenence that they are due though.

I believe it used to be the case that both incomes were taken into account?

Years ago I worked with a woman who was always complaining about the amount of maintenance that they had to pay his ex, and she said at the time that both their incomes were taken into account. This was about 25 years ago.

Anyway they both quit their jobs.

While I don’t think that both incomes should be taken into account, neither do I think that having more children should reduce the maintenance paid for existing children. If you can’t afford the maintenance for the children you already have then you shouldn’t be having more. The ex and the kids aren’t responsible for that child’s existence.

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.
This!
X 100!

@Happycat1212

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!

It's not fair at all.

It should be SPs not responsible either way around.

I think this is quite complex.
Ideally each case should be decided on merit, but CMS has a formula.
In some cases the NRP could manipulate the figures to pay less. eg, self employed NRP pays new spouse very large salary, and takes minimum themselves. (of course this could have other unforseen circumstances).
Of course the payments could fluctuate depending on income of the NRP, who could also lose his or her job; but that could happen in a conventional two biological parent household

Surely the other issue with things like confiscating X Y or Z is that you mix in the genuine cases with the loopholers.

So someone who has always paid for his children, has them regularly, is a good dad unfortunately loses his job through no fault of his own, can't pay maintenance for a short while but offers to have the children more during that time period, has his license removed which makes it harder to get a new job etc etc...

There does have to be some leeway for genuine cases where maintenance is difficult for a period and I know it's not a popular opinion but I do think it's the other parents responsibility to shoulder that when it happens, just like they'd have to if they were together.

There is always the possibility that the other parent of your child may become sick, lose their job, even god forbid die, leaving you to foot the bill so I don't think it's always reasonable to seek punishment or expect nothing to change in your household the minute anything like this happens when you're separated.

Whether my husband was my ex husband or not he is still the other parent of my child and could have an accident at work tomorrow for all I know, if we were together I'd have to make it work because I am my child's mother, it shouldn't be any different if that were to happen and we were separated imo. I wouldn't just be able to expect his partner to pay because we happen to be divorced.

There are obviously people who take advantage of the system and there does need to be a solution to that, what that is I'm not sure as I just hate the idea of children getting caught in the middle.

It's a difficult one I think with no simple answer (other than it not being SPs responsibility).

It could be if maintenance isn’t paid for x amount of time then action is taken, obviously it wouldn’t be straight away. my ex didn’t pay for 3 years and child maintenance told me they wouldnt investigate because he could be living off a partner apparently 🤷‍♀️ I knew for a fact he wasn’t but they didn’t care.

I think it's impossible for there to be a fair one size fits all solution. The problem is that a one size fits all approach is the only thing available for something on such a large scale.

@Geranibum

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.

Because both are wrong.

@KoalaOok

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.

But our relationship ending wasn't my choice so thinking of all the implications meant nothing as he was the one who chose to end it

No, but I don't think any subsequent children (step or biological), should be taken into account. I isn't my daughters fault that her dad didn't want her, but has then gone on to have 3 sons. Each time this has reduced my payments, meaning we had to drop a after school activity as a result.

My ex has purposely gone self employed to avoid paying maintenance. DP has picked up the financial slack. We don't currently have any children together, but he contributes hugely to bringing up my children.

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

Well that's not right either as most people agree.

This should not happen, but it doesn't mean that SPs paying maintenance should just because this does.

All the talk of stopping drivers licenses and passports is just silly reactionary thinking, and not how laws are made. The sensible solutions are the ones like taking the money from NRPs pension, or building up debt. If you can't keep suggestions relevant to finances then you just come across as petty.

And no, step parents should not pay or be included in calculations for anything.

" The sensible solutions are the ones like taking the money from NRPs pension, or building up debt. "

My ex won't have a pension he works cash in hand when he does work and in regards to debt he has plenty of that that he doesn't pay off.
His last lot of CMS debt was written off.
So it's not silly and reactionary no.
What's the point in building up debt that you never pay off that's ridiculous

@User5747384

" The sensible solutions are the ones like taking the money from NRPs pension, or building up debt. "

My ex won't have a pension he works cash in hand when he does work and in regards to debt he has plenty of that that he doesn't pay off.
His last lot of CMS debt was written off.
So it's not silly and reactionary no.
What's the point in building up debt that you never pay off that's ridiculous

My point is that reform needs to be focused on how people receive and manage money, not taking random things off them, or they'd have done that for all those other debts he isn't paying off.

@User5747384

" The sensible solutions are the ones like taking the money from NRPs pension, or building up debt. "

My ex won't have a pension he works cash in hand when he does work and in regards to debt he has plenty of that that he doesn't pay off.
His last lot of CMS debt was written off.
So it's not silly and reactionary no.
What's the point in building up debt that you never pay off that's ridiculous

Clearly when I suggested it I meant you WOULD have to pay it off and it would not be written off.

But it will be written off because child maintenance ISNT considered a priority. When my ex was on benefits he didn’t have to pay child maintenance at all as I was told he had “priority debts”

@Happycat1212

But it will be written off because child maintenance ISNT considered a priority. When my ex was on benefits he didn’t have to pay child maintenance at all as I was told he had “priority debts”

Or they can go through bankruptcy

My ex won't have a pension he works cash in hand when he does work and in regards to debt he has plenty of that that he doesn't pay off
Irrelevant to you and your DC if the government paid in lieu of maintenance and it was then the governments problem to recoup the money by whatever means over however long.
The main thing in all this should be making sure the children are adequately provided for.

I don't think taking away passports/ driving licence is an effective way of making nrps pay. It might work for some. But if an NRP who will happily not pay will just use it as a further excuse. My ex doesn't have a passport, and you can guarantee that if his driving licence was taken away he would use it as a reason for not getting a job/ seeing the dc.

@Happycat1212

But it will be written off because child maintenance ISNT considered a priority. When my ex was on benefits he didn’t have to pay child maintenance at all as I was told he had “priority debts”

I know that is the case currently, I was asked what consequence I would suggest. I would suggest a debt, a priority one and one that cannot be written off.

I also said the government should cough up the money to the rp in the mean time so the child does not go without. I feel that would be most helpful.

Yes unfortunately it will get wiped.
Some people don't care about racking up debt.
It's just a number, just a waiting game to avoid it long enough for it to be wiped.

The vast majority of the time no, there should be no inclusion of step-parents income.

The only time there is a debate to be had imo, is when the NRP decides to give up their job to become a SAHP. In that situation I think it needs too, because the children should be considered and it’s not acceptable for the NRP to just abdicate financial responsibility.

I also don’t think there should be a reduction when you move in with someone who already has children, or when you have more children.

I was quite lucky when my exes maintenance was cut because of his new children that it only affected “nice to haves”, but for some people, especially those who have to foot the whole childcare bill alone, it could affect essentials.

That said I think the biggest debate needed is why it’s so socially acceptable to not pay for your kids and why there’s no political will for CMS to use their vast array of powers.