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?

It’s not a child’s fault if their NRP went on to have another child.
Agreed.
It’s also not the younger child’s fault that they have an older half sibling either.
Of course maintenance should take into account all the children of that parent! Absolutely no way step siblings should be included though.

Or not having moved so far away as to make it impossible

Unpopular opinion if you can’t fund further children without reducing the standard of living for the children you already have, you shouldn’t be having more. You shouldn’t be allowed to voluntarily give up work either. And residency should be decided on what is best for the children, and should be maintained unless it stops working for them. I’m not sure how RP are managing not to work unless they have tony children either, I didn’t think you could claim benefits anymore. Once you have children you need to do everything in your power to provide for them financially, it’s not a responsibility you should be able to duck out of

@FishyFriday
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 NRP benefits from the income of the new partner. So as a consequence, so should any children he has benefit, be that they do or don't live with them.

The new partner benefits from CM avoidance with greater household income. NRP benefits from the partner's income. Likewise, NRP can become a SAHP with the new partner and not contribute to the first born children.

The NRP benefits from the income of the new partner. So as a consequence, so should any children he has benefit, be that they do or don't live with them
If an NRP has contact, his children will benefit from their partners income.
It just won’t be in the form of money given to their mother.

Also government thinking on CM is very clear (successive governments, not just the current one) by the changes that were made.

It used to be that RP’s on benefits were only allowed to keep £20 a week of maintenance and the rest was owed to the Sec. of State to go toward the benefits bill.

As the amount owed to the SOS increased and increased it was realised something had to be done...

So, they allowed RP’s to keep all the money.... Not brought in sweeping changes to reduce the debt or anything like that. Not made harsher penalties. No tv adverts about the shame of not funding your children. Just accepted that it’s too difficult and palmed off the problem (in 2019 Gingerbread reckoned CM debt is £3.9 billion...)

The maintenance bill shouldn't decrease when the NRP moves in with somebody who has children or has more children with the new partner. If the NRP has another child and breaks up with that partner then that child should obviously be entitled to CM

The partner's salary should only count if the NRP becomes a SAHP or becomes a student (hence owing no maintenance)

The amount DH was paying each month more than covered her costs of DSD given we were also buying clothes, shoes, paying for classes, etc without deducting it from the monthly payment

The rules shouldn’t be made round things like that though because he could stop paying those things anytime, whereas a reduction for more children would be a permanent thing.

No.

This reminds me of the time my DH’s ex complained about us having two incomes while she had one. My DH pointed out that she in fact had two - hers and the four figures a month he paid in maintenance.

@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.

I don't think step dad's should have to accept financial responsibility either, outside of the specific circumstance of them making a joint decision with the parent for them to lose their income, which a joint baby followed by you on maternity would class as. Then I think it is arguable.

There is a lot of two wrongs adding up to make a right on this thread. Step parents income should be irrelevant across the board, so no reducing maintenance based on being a step parent, no "household income" for university applications, and no maintenance due by either gender of step parent.

@Teardrop2021

I think a low limit should be set at £100 regardless of circumstances, you create a life you pay for it all the other bills don't go away and it builds up if it doesn't get paid might stop fiddling the system and get into work properly.

What if the RP gives up work and goes on benefits, they aren't paying for the life they created. Or should a RP have to repay the benefits they got for the child when they eventually find work? If it works one way why not the other?

I think it is all very complicated, reading some of the examples on here show that.

Ridiculous, as a step mum I am in no way financially responsible. Sorry you can't be trying to get my money at the same time tell me I have no role or say in the child's upbringing. Makes zero sense to me. My money and career choices are for my child and family. The split my husband experienced has nothing to do with me. And you cannot control the actions of someone who you are not tied to anymore. It's up to my husband to pay and what he pays is based on his individual circumstances. My child get money from his two parents so its equal. This is all ludicrous. The parents pay for their kids. And there are plenty of families with limited income havi g expanding families. You can't tell someone you are not with if they can have further children or not! It's not your business.

I think it’s worth pointing out that a large proportion of stepmother’s are also, in fact, resident parents. And therefore should be in receipt of child maintenance from their ex.

Why on earth should they be paying that or their income into their partner’s ex’s household?

I don't think step parents should be liable to pay towards maintenance for step children.

I also don't understand why my DH's income impacts the benefits for my DS (his step son). I lost most of my benefits when we moved in together and as a low earner DH had to subsidise DS's living.
DS is due to go to Uni next year and we'll lose out on a lot of his maintenance loan due to DH's wage - even though DS's biological parents are both relatively low earners. In fact his Dads income isn't taken into consideration at all! So DH will have to help me fund DS through Uni. Luckily he wouldn't have it any other way, he regards DS like his son, but what if he didn't want to? Would we have to separate so that DS could afford to go?!

I’m not paying when all I get is vile abuse from someone I’ve barely even met. She did try it and believe me when I tell you she got short shrift. I basically said ‘how dare you call me XXX and treat me like the shit on your shoe and then expect me to support you and the kids. You had your jollies, now support them yourselves’ (meaning her and DH)

I don’t really understand why so many stepfathers choose to take on a dependent partner and her children. I certainly wouldn’t be willing to do it.

I do think that maintenance to an ex should be reduced if the NRP has more children. The NRP has a financial responsibility to all their children. It’s not lesser because it’s a second family. The money just has to go around more people.

I’d say that if my ex had more kids and reduced his maintenance too. That’s life. He’s allowed to move on and do what he likes.

The NRP benefits from the income of the new partner. So as a consequence, so should any children he has benefit, be that they do or don't live with them.

What planet are you on? What on Earth is the logic behind this?

To put it bluntly, why on Earth would anyone in their right mind consider getting into a relationship with somebody with kids, if that meant they would automatically be expected to be financially "beneficial" to them, regardless of set up or circumstances?

There is no justification for that, this attitude is pure entitlement.

I would just like to say that the reduction for further children is a tiny % like literally was a few quid a week for us. It's funny because we weren't going to bother having cms recalculate it but his ex rang them up as she reconned she'd have a claim to some of our tax credits we never had instead it went down by something like a fiver a week at the time.

I don’t think cms should consider step-parent earnings.

I do think cms should consider potential unearned income of the actual parent. So if the parent chooses not to work for whatever reason, cms should look at what their reasonable earnings would have been and charge them accordingly. If a person absolutely can’t support their children they should have to get certification of that fact.

@SimonJT

I don’t think their partners income should have an impact on the amount, but I do think child maintenance should be a family bill, so if the NRP is out of work for any reason maintenance should continue to be paid at the usual rate. Losing a job etc isn’t a get out of jail card for the electric bill, so it shouldn’t get an NRP out of paying maintenance.

So if NRP loses their job, their partner who is probably already struggling paying for all bills and possibly also their own children, should pay money to their DSC RP as well so that he/she is not impacted... how did you get to that outcome?

I also think you couldn't change this for people who are already married as it would only be fair if step parents knowingly signed up to it. Yes they signed up to be step parents but if marriage means a legal obligation to pay maintenance then they should know this beforehand.

Why should a third party be financially liable for somebody else's child ?. That is the responsibility of the parents. They were repsonsible for brining the child into this world and the buck stops with them, totally.

100% this. No, they shouldn't.

@aSofaNearYou

The NRP benefits from the income of the new partner. So as a consequence, so should any children he has benefit, be that they do or don't live with them.

What planet are you on? What on Earth is the logic behind this?

To put it bluntly, why on Earth would anyone in their right mind consider getting into a relationship with somebody with kids, if that meant they would automatically be expected to be financially "beneficial" to them, regardless of set up or circumstances?

There is no justification for that, this attitude is pure entitlement.

Christ. Entitlement is the right word for this!

@Kindasup1

Ridiculous, as a step mum I am in no way financially responsible. Sorry you can't be trying to get my money at the same time tell me I have no role or say in the child's upbringing. Makes zero sense to me. My money and career choices are for my child and family. The split my husband experienced has nothing to do with me. And you cannot control the actions of someone who you are not tied to anymore. It's up to my husband to pay and what he pays is based on his individual circumstances. My child get money from his two parents so its equal. This is all ludicrous. The parents pay for their kids. And there are plenty of families with limited income havi g expanding families. You can't tell someone you are not with if they can have further children or not! It's not your business.

All of this.

I don’t think the point is that the step parent is personally responsible, but that once you move in with someone you become a household. Practically everything apart from maintenance is based on household income. A parent running a house alone pays the same as if they are part of a partnership. I think what people are saying is that the percentage salary paid by the NRP should increase based on household income to reflect their improved financial position. If you move in with someone your income affects their eligibility for benefits including child benefit which is no different really