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?

Or they can go through bankruptcy

It's pointless to try and use every loophole as a way of proving something is not a viable option. Equally, lots of people don't have drivers licenses or passports, so that would not be foolproof either. Probably more than would choose to go through bankruptcy, I would have thought, as that's no small decision to make.

All that can be done is to try to tighten loopholes. Some will always find them.

Or they can go through bankruptcy

Bankruptcy doesn’t wipe child maintenance debt without the agreement of the receiving parent.

The biggest scandal is that CMS have a lot of powers - including the power to take money from a bank account without even needing a court order - but choose not to use them.

Has anyone ever heard of any non-payer having a charge put on their house?
Or having their driving license suspended?
Or even just having a lump sum taken from their bank account?

The powers are all there. There’s just no will you use them.

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

Why should this always be about money?
With one parent at "home" surely the child would actually benefit from more time with the NRP. The RP will benefit as well, with before/ after school care and holidays covered.

I'm sure a NRP that becomes a SAHP would welcome all their children.

If my income was included to pay for other people's children I wouldn't be moving in with them
Me too. It would result in me not living with my partner even if we had kids together. Or living with him but not marrying him, depending on the rules. I don’t see why I should pay for kids that aren’t mine. A law such as this would break up families and prevent relationships, decrease cohabiting and increase the housing crisis.

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

I think of this more as thinking of all the implications when you have children rather than divorce as obviously divorce can sometimes be just one parties decision.

I had children knowing that my husband (or I) could become ill, lose his job, have an accident, whatever and if that happened it would be up to me to care and pay for our child, not any new potential partner of his if we happened to be separated.

@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.

My ex husband was accused of molesting a child like FUCK am I considering financial implications before getting a divorce

Why should this always be about money?
With one parent at "home" surely the child would actually benefit from more time with the NRP. The RP will benefit as well, with before/ after school care and holidays covered.
I'm sure a NRP that becomes a SAHP would welcome all their children.

I didn’t say it was all about the money. Thats why I specifically said “debate” and mentioned the childcare costs issue.

If the new SAHP ends up covering before/after school and the holidays then it can be a balanced arrangement. I actually know one case where that has happened and it worked out well for everyone.

However, I’ve seen several cases where that hasn’t happened. So, the RP has had nothing other than a cut in income.

I also know one case where the RP ended up having to increase their childcare because the NRP used to finish work early, collect his child from school and then collect his step-child from after school club, but once they became a SAHP they withdrew the step-child from after school care and the RP was left to find childcare until 5pm when they could collect.

I'm sure a NRP that becomes a SAHP would welcome all their children.

Hahaha haha you'd think so wouldn't you! My ex hasn't had the dc for more than 6 hours at a time. He hasn't seen them at all for a year because Covid. When I asked him to have them because I was due to be at work and my mum (childcare) was sick he said it wasn't his job to make sure I could get to work.

I think I know the thread we are talking about - where the new male partner is believed to have taken all the partners DCS on and is now financially responsible.
Complete double standard in my opinion.

In general I say no- however, where the NRP becomes a SAHP and has no income then there does need to be some reckoning. Irrespective of whether the RP works or not.

@Ylvamoon

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

Why should this always be about money?
With one parent at "home" surely the child would actually benefit from more time with the NRP. The RP will benefit as well, with before/ after school care and holidays covered.

I'm sure a NRP that becomes a SAHP would welcome all their children.

I think there is sometimes an argument for this. It's seen as acceptable for a RP to be a SAHP but the suggestion that a NRP becomes a SAHP and has the children more to compensate is often seen as unfair.

I think providing the now SAH NRP offers to cover more childcare, school runs, holidays etc... it can be a workable option, it would depend on the circumstances but I agree it should immediately be shot down as unacceptable.

It's when they become a SAHP but don't do anything else to help either.

I assume people will say that the RP doesn't get a choice in whether the NRP becomes a SAHP or not and so why should they lose out financially but neither parent does when they are separated, RP or NRP. There are plenty of SAH RPs.

"I'm sure a NRP that becomes a SAHP would welcome all their children."

Such a naive thing to say.

Shouldn't be immediately shot down*

The biggest scandal is that CMS have a lot of powers - including the power to take money from a bank account without even needing a court order - but choose not to use them.

Well that simply isn't true - is it?

There are numerous examples of CMS, and before them CSA, taking money out of bank accounts of NRPs.

I remember a high profile case where one NRP had over £180,000 taken from his bank account.

I believe that upwards of a million pounds every year are taken directly from bank accounts every year.

In addition, Deduction From Earnings Orders really are commonplace and are regularly used.

Unless the child maintenance people are also going to reduce calculation when the RP remarries/cohabits then no. Either include all step parents/ involved adults or none at all.

Presumably in the scenarios described where the NRP becomes a SAHP, he or she could take on more contact and be a SAHP to ALL their children and therefore reduce the RP’s outgoings in childcare/travel/food.

@nickymanchester can you show me the evidence of the millions of pounds taken from bank accounts please?
Also the deductions from earnings orders being common place?

In my experience I had to fight hard for both of those and it took years.
He simply changed his bank account when he found out they would take from there.
And after me getting my mp involved sorted out the deductions from earnings orders for him to quit.
He obviously works cash in hand now.
But I am amazed at how you speak of the CMS as though they actually succeed in what they are there for.
Do you work for them...

I believe that it should be based on household total income, once cohabiting or marrying. To not do this, makes a mockery of the fact that a NRP can get reductions if the person they live with has children living there from the amount that is due in child maintenance.

I understand the arguments against, but genuinely think that household income reduces the opportunity for the current piss take of the NRP trying to reduce their CM by any means necessary.

@nickymanchester

The biggest scandal is that CMS have a lot of powers - including the power to take money from a bank account without even needing a court order - but choose not to use them.

Well that simply isn't true - is it?

There are numerous examples of CMS, and before them CSA, taking money out of bank accounts of NRPs.

I remember a high profile case where one NRP had over £180,000 taken from his bank account.

I believe that upwards of a million pounds every year are taken directly from bank accounts every year.

In addition, Deduction From Earnings Orders really are commonplace and are regularly used.

The vast majority of the time they don’t use their power to do so. Instead the allow debt to build, as clearly happened in the case you mention, and then they go through unnecessary court steps when they could go straight to bank accounts.

Same with DEO’s. They can be set up very quickly and simply, yet they very often go through the longer process.

CMS overall are appealing at using their powers, which is why there is such a huge level of debt owed to RPs.

@BusyLizzie61

I believe that it should be based on household total income, once cohabiting or marrying. To not do this, makes a mockery of the fact that a NRP can get reductions if the person they live with has children living there from the amount that is due in child maintenance.

I understand the arguments against, but genuinely think that household income reduces the opportunity for the current piss take of the NRP trying to reduce their CM by any means necessary.

Surely the better thing to do would be to stop allowing new children or step children as a reason to reduce maintenance rather than making SPs responsible for it?

I agree new children or step children living in the NRPs home isn't an excuse to reduce maintenance but it also doesn't make it okay to expect SPs to get involved in payments either.

@BusyLizzie61

I believe that it should be based on household total income, once cohabiting or marrying. To not do this, makes a mockery of the fact that a NRP can get reductions if the person they live with has children living there from the amount that is due in child maintenance.

I understand the arguments against, but genuinely think that household income reduces the opportunity for the current piss take of the NRP trying to reduce their CM by any means necessary.

Wouldn’t it be better to remove the reductions for other children. Or is that not ok because it doesn’t increase the maintenance based on another adult’s salary?

"The biggest scandal is that CMS have a lot of powers - including the power to take money from a bank account without even needing a court order - but choose not to use them.

Has anyone ever heard of any non-payer having a charge put on their house?
Or having their driving license suspended?
Or even just having a lump sum taken from their bank account?

The powers are all there. There’s just no will you use them."

I totally agree

HaloTattle in terms of the RP being a sahm it could be due to maternity leave due to additional children which has been my situation however my dh then supported the family unit and ex still contributed to upkeep and ds was still looked after by both sides. The difference with the NRP becoming a sahd is that their parent doesn't help contribute to the child's upkeep in the same way so therefore the child is disadvantaged and the RP then has to make up the short fall. So the argument could be said why do step dads accept and provide financially and physically to the child's up keep but step mothers don't in the situation where their dp has taken to be a sahd when he has financial obligations to an preexisting child from a previous relationship.

@Teardrop2021

HaloTattle in terms of the RP being a sahm it could be due to maternity leave due to additional children which has been my situation however my dh then supported the family unit and ex still contributed to upkeep and ds was still looked after by both sides. The difference with the NRP becoming a sahd is that their parent doesn't help contribute to the child's upkeep in the same way so therefore the child is disadvantaged and the RP then has to make up the short fall. So the argument could be said why do step dads accept and provide financially and physically to the child's up keep but step mothers don't in the situation where their dp has taken to be a sahd when he has financial obligations to an preexisting child from a previous relationship.

As I said in my earlier post though, it depends what you mean by financial support.

If the NRP became a SAHP, I'd expect them to take on more childcare, school runs, holiday car etc... If their partner, the step mother, is the only one working then they are financially supporting the SC by way of utilities during that time, food during the extra time & holidays, petrol for the extra school runs etc...

The problem often is, imo anyway, that RPs would not want to allow the NRP to essentially become the RP because they are a SAHP. They would rather remain the RP and keep receiving maintenance which I agree is ideal but it doesn't have to be that way.

If the NRP is SAHD, there isn't really any reason why he can't take over as the RP or at least most of their 'jobs'. If they do this, then the working partner / step mother would be financially supporting them in the same way a step father would be for a SAHM.

Obviously that is all dependent on the Dad being decent and actually offering to do this. I understand there are some who use it as a loophole and still refuse to take on more childcare.

Paying towards the kids isn’t linked to having a say in their upbringing. That is up to those with parental responsibility only. So step parents don’t get a say, just the same as parents do get a say even if they don’t pay maintenance.

The current situation where step children are taken into account when calculating (reducing) NRP payment for their own children but step parent income is ignored is totally unfair. Surely at least that should be one or the other. Either there’s a liability for step children or not.