Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Step-parenting

Connect with other Mumsnetters here for step-parenting advice and support.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

CMS and step family

318 replies

tiredofthegrind · 07/05/2023 07:45

I have NC for this post as I don't want my family to see it

I have one DD13 and split up with my ex when she was 3. Relations between me and my ex aren't great but got bit better since he remarried as his new wife and I get on alright with her.

He pays £500 per month and has her every Friday to Monday plus a evening or two for dinner in the week. He's not a high earner about 21k a year so we came to this arrangement privately which is fine as it tops up my benefits but money is tight and I can't up my hours at work (I'm part time) because then I get sanctioned on my benefits and I like having time off for me which as a mum I think is fair.

About 6 months ago my daughter told me that my ex's new wife is on a giant salary £65,000 a year ! My Dd found a work letter lying around addressed to his new wife and yes she shouldn't have snooped but teenagers are like that and it shouldn't have been left out so didn't tell my dd off for it.

It just really fucks me off that I'm stuck in a rented shitty flat while my ex lives in a massive house with new family and they are raking it in, playing happy families.

My friend said I should text my ex to say that maintenance needs to go up to include his new wife's salary and say that if he doesn't comply I will go to CMS and get her earnings attached or stop contact until he can provide for his daughter .

I know he will say they have just had a baby but that was his choice and I shouldn't suffer because of that. When we first split we agreed that we wouldn't have more kids so that we can put all of our time and energy into our DD and he's gone and done this so I don't have time for his selfishness or pity party.

The snag is his new wife is very nice to my DD has bought her whatever she needs or wants and always checks with me first before she does things, includes her in everything. Something my ex never did and it used to fuck me off.
Since they are now married and had another child she's clearly not going anywhere I think she has a financial responsibility to pay for DD now she's officially her "step mother".

She clearly does too as she was putting money in DD bank account for my daughter to spend. I have raised this with my ex before and got nowhere. I don't want her to suddenly stop being generous to my daughter but we actually could do with the money to pay for bills food and my daughter doesn't need the money. And it's not fair that they get to spoil my daughter and do lots of holidays trips away with her and I can't and I look like this shit parent.

I'm really struggling with costs going up and they both have helped me with bills in the past but I want something more regular in place so we don't have to scrap by or ask. I think his wife would be sympathetic if I explained it to her but I want to know my rights in case she digs her heels in.

AIBU

OP posts:
Tandora · 07/05/2023 09:04

SquidwardBound · 07/05/2023 09:00

Child maintenance is NOT a benefit.

Show quote history

Again, semantics that totally obscure the reality of the double standards. The point is , It’s a question of whether moving a partner in changes your available resources for the purposes of calculating things like benefit entitlement or financial obligations. Of course the reality is that it does. Funny how the gov recognises that when they are ones who have to cough up.

SquidwardBound · 07/05/2023 09:04

Not least because children with higher earning SFs (who don’t have to give them money) often lose out. Whereas children in households where their mother won’t work, but whose father earns six figures get full entitlement. And he may choose to contribute in top of that.

Tandora · 07/05/2023 09:06

SquidwardBound · 07/05/2023 09:02

That’s not a double standard.

It’s the stupidity of student finance being based on assumptions around nuclear families.

In a stepfamily the income should not be at any household level. It should be the child’s parents’ combined income.

Show quote history

That is the current policy. Whatever you personally think about the rights or wrongs of the diff policies, the ones that currently exist clearly reflect a double standard.

SquidwardBound · 07/05/2023 09:08

Tandora · 07/05/2023 09:04

Again, semantics that totally obscure the reality of the double standards. The point is , It’s a question of whether moving a partner in changes your available resources for the purposes of calculating things like benefit entitlement or financial obligations. Of course the reality is that it does. Funny how the gov recognises that when they are ones who have to cough up.

Show quote history

It’s not semantics.

Benefits are state welfare.

Child maintenance is an ongoing financial responsibility a parent has towards their children.

SquidwardBound · 07/05/2023 09:09

Tandora · 07/05/2023 09:06

That is the current policy. Whatever you personally think about the rights or wrongs of the diff policies, the ones that currently exist clearly reflect a double standard.

Show quote history

Do you understand what double standard means. You’re comparing apples and combine harvesters.

TidyDancer · 07/05/2023 09:11

I don't get why you don't work full time? If you can fund yourself on part time work then fine but you've said you can't. I don't understand why, if you're struggling, that your first instinct isn't to earn more? You can't possibly think your ex's new wife should fund your choice to work part time?

Your DD going to uni is years off yet, we should have a different government in place by then so lots change. Don't get caught up thinking too much about that so early.

ChampagneBlossom44 · 07/05/2023 09:11

You are a bit disgusting to be honest. They already have your daughter with them almost half the week, unless your ex is earning quite high I would be surprised if CSA wasn’t lower than what you receive from him directly. Breathtaking entitlement to want his wife to top up your benefits. Be better & set your daughter a better example than what you have done so far

Tandora · 07/05/2023 09:12

SquidwardBound · 07/05/2023 09:08

It’s not semantics.

Benefits are state welfare.

Child maintenance is an ongoing financial responsibility a parent has towards their children.

Show quote history

Yes I understand the differences. My point was not that they were the exactly the same , my point was- the question is whether moving a partner in changes your available resources for the purposes of calculating things like benefit entitlement or financial obligations. Of course the reality is that it does. CMS is meant to be calculated in proportion with what is fair based on what the NRP can afford to pay.

SquidwardBound · 07/05/2023 09:12

Tandora · 07/05/2023 09:00

did you read my post? I said it’s wrong that child support should be considered a “personal benefit” to the NRP.
Furthermore the distinction the pp was making was bollocks anyway if you look at the full range of benefits that are reduced / changed/ stopped when a partner moves in.

Show quote history

It’s not a BENEFIT.

If it were, UC would be reduced for those women whose exes pay. It’s not.

lookluv · 07/05/2023 09:13

Don't think I have ever seen a more tone deaf OP on this forum. He is giving you over a third of his salary, has his daughter every weekend for 3 days and during the week so nearly 50:50 and give you £500 pcm. The man is a saint and you are taking the piss.

Get off your jack ass an go an get a proper job, your DD is 13 - it is not your right as a mum to work part time and have time off, the tax payer to support you an your EX an his new wife to subsidise your bone idleness.

This has to be a troll - or my exs second partner!

Tandora · 07/05/2023 09:14

SquidwardBound · 07/05/2023 09:12

It’s not a BENEFIT.

If it were, UC would be reduced for those women whose exes pay. It’s not.

Show quote history

Yes you already said that and I already acknowledged it

SquidwardBound · 07/05/2023 09:14

Tandora · 07/05/2023 09:12

Yes I understand the differences. My point was not that they were the exactly the same , my point was- the question is whether moving a partner in changes your available resources for the purposes of calculating things like benefit entitlement or financial obligations. Of course the reality is that it does. CMS is meant to be calculated in proportion with what is fair based on what the NRP can afford to pay.

Show quote history

You do realise we are taxed as individuals. HMRC doesn’t care if your partner moves in when they’re taking income tax.

Tandora · 07/05/2023 09:16

SquidwardBound · 07/05/2023 09:14

You do realise we are taxed as individuals. HMRC doesn’t care if your partner moves in when they’re taking income tax.

Show quote history

Yes that’s true. I guess if you count child maintenance as more of a tax it makes sense.

SquidwardBound · 07/05/2023 09:19

Tandora · 07/05/2023 09:16

Yes that’s true. I guess if you count child maintenance as more of a tax it makes sense.

Show quote history

It is more like a tax. It’s money from his pay that never reaches the household he lives in because it is diverted elsewhere to meet a financial obligation.

It’s nothing like a benefit to his household. Even if the receiving parent feels like it is.

aSofaNearYou · 07/05/2023 09:22

Yes I understand the differences. My point was not that they were the exactly the same , my point was- the question is whether moving a partner in changes your available resources for the purposes of calculating things like benefit entitlement or financial obligations. Of course the reality is that it does. CMS is meant to be calculated in proportion with what is fair based on what the NRP can afford to pay.

It MIGHT increase the money you have available to you - if your partner is willing to share finances in all aspects, which they may not be,

But CMS is meant to be calculated in proportion to what the parent earns, not who they could get money from if they tried. Uni fees should be too, but it isn't a race to the bottom just because they're not.

MNHQ
HopeMumsnet · 07/05/2023 09:22

Hi all,
Thanks to those who have reported. We've had a look and are inclined, for the moment at least, to give this poster the benefit of the doubt, however we are grateful for you flagging it directly and not troll-hunting on the thread.

Tandora · 07/05/2023 09:25

SquidwardBound · 07/05/2023 09:19

It is more like a tax. It’s money from his pay that never reaches the household he lives in because it is diverted elsewhere to meet a financial obligation.

It’s nothing like a benefit to his household. Even if the receiving parent feels like it is.

Show quote history

It’s nothing like a benefit to his household. Even if the receiving parent feels like it is
It’s money from his pay that never reaches the household he lives in because it is diverted elsewhere to meet a financial obligation
Since We are discussing how things should be rather than how they are. Can you explain what objective moral basis there is for seeing things in this way, and whether or not you think it’s very NRP - centric in its focus/ perspective.
Because to me, this is a verrrrry NRP with a new family way of looking at how their support to their previous children should be viewed.

aSofaNearYou · 07/05/2023 09:28

@Tandora What are you even on about in your last comment? Why would it be morally wrong for money to be taken straight from his wages and sent to his oldest children? In what way is that NRP centric? How are you saying it should be done?

There is nothing about that that comes across as NRP centric.

Tandora · 07/05/2023 09:29

aSofaNearYou · 07/05/2023 09:28

@Tandora What are you even on about in your last comment? Why would it be morally wrong for money to be taken straight from his wages and sent to his oldest children? In what way is that NRP centric? How are you saying it should be done?

There is nothing about that that comes across as NRP centric.

Don’t you think it’s better if you and I called a truce? We don’t seem to be able to communicate in a productive way.

SquidwardBound · 07/05/2023 09:30

Tandora · 07/05/2023 09:25

It’s nothing like a benefit to his household. Even if the receiving parent feels like it is
It’s money from his pay that never reaches the household he lives in because it is diverted elsewhere to meet a financial obligation
Since We are discussing how things should be rather than how they are. Can you explain what objective moral basis there is for seeing things in this way, and whether or not you think it’s very NRP - centric in its focus/ perspective.
Because to me, this is a verrrrry NRP with a new family way of looking at how their support to their previous children should be viewed.

Show quote history

I just looked at it both ways.

For the NRP household, child maintenance is money taken from his income to meet an obligation. That means he contributes less to the household as a result.

The man here is paying 1/3 of his net income in maintenance. So he’s only contributing £1 to the household in which he lives.

just like how student loan contributions or a previous underpayment of tax will also reduce the money that actually comes to his household.

For the receiving parent, it might feel
like a benefit. It’s money they get that tips up their household income. But from their ex (who is responsible for his children) not the state.

I am a RP who supports her entire household from her own income. And still I can see that for my ex’s household, the maintenance he pays me is money that he doesn’t contribute there.

aSofaNearYou · 07/05/2023 09:36

Don’t you think it’s better if you and I called a truce? We don’t seem to be able to communicate in a productive way.

Generally, yes. But you're not explaining yourself well on this thread. You're throwing out questions asking why something that is obviously morally right is considered morally right, and not really offering any argument as to why it shouldn't be.

Why on earth would acknowledging that money is, and should be, taken from his wages and paid directly to meet his financial obligation to his children, be morally wrong? Is it just the language that bothers you? Do you need it to be described as "lovingly and gladly given" or something, rather than just factually describing what happens?

Tandora · 07/05/2023 09:36

SquidwardBound · 07/05/2023 09:30

I just looked at it both ways.

For the NRP household, child maintenance is money taken from his income to meet an obligation. That means he contributes less to the household as a result.

The man here is paying 1/3 of his net income in maintenance. So he’s only contributing £1 to the household in which he lives.

just like how student loan contributions or a previous underpayment of tax will also reduce the money that actually comes to his household.

For the receiving parent, it might feel
like a benefit. It’s money they get that tips up their household income. But from their ex (who is responsible for his children) not the state.

I am a RP who supports her entire household from her own income. And still I can see that for my ex’s household, the maintenance he pays me is money that he doesn’t contribute there.

Show quote history

That means he contributes less to the household as a result
Hmm. Im not sure this works as an explanation , because it’s money for the children. People are only obliged to contribute it to households with children.If the man has more children in his new household , that is taken into consideration and reduces his payments to make sure he is making a fair contribution to each household with children.

Tandora · 07/05/2023 09:38

aSofaNearYou · 07/05/2023 09:36

Don’t you think it’s better if you and I called a truce? We don’t seem to be able to communicate in a productive way.

Generally, yes. But you're not explaining yourself well on this thread. You're throwing out questions asking why something that is obviously morally right is considered morally right, and not really offering any argument as to why it shouldn't be.

Why on earth would acknowledging that money is, and should be, taken from his wages and paid directly to meet his financial obligation to his children, be morally wrong? Is it just the language that bothers you? Do you need it to be described as "lovingly and gladly given" or something, rather than just factually describing what happens?

But you're not explaining yourself well on this thread
hmm, can you sight any example where you have felt I’ve explained myself well on any thread?

aSofaNearYou · 07/05/2023 09:43

hmm, can you sight any example where you have felt I’ve explained myself well on any thread?

I always disagree with you but it generally makes sense, but here it doesn't.

The latest is that you're refusing to acknowledge that if a person's money is going towards one thing, it's not available to go towards something else. That's not a fact that can be denied. It doesn't make any sense.

Tandora · 07/05/2023 09:53

it generally makes sense

never would I ever, this has made my day at least 😌.

The latest is that you're refusing to acknowledge that if a person's money is going towards one thing, it's not available to go towards something else
oh no I totally accept this ofc. But my point was CMS is only an obligation to households (past) with children. In the same way if households (present) have children, this is already deducted from obligation to households past and money is calculated to supposedly be distributed fairly and equally across children.