CMS and step family

[tiredofthegrind]

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

Soooo what difference does this make to the fact that if he's paying maintenance for his older kids, that money can't go towards his own household? The children are not his only obligation, he also has to pay for himself and, by default, half of the household bills.

Yes he still has to pay for himself which is why CMS is calculated as a small fraction of his available funds, because he still has to pay for current household bills. However, money available after paying current household bills is usually significantly increased after a partner moves in (if they are also earning) which is why benefits (incl personal ones) are mostly reduced/ stop after a partner moves in).

No. It’s to ensure that both parents’ income is distributed such that the contribute financially to all their children.

It’s not households. It’s parents.

It’s not redistributive like the welfare state. It is about individual nonresident parents taking responsibility for their children.

Remember that NRPs pay for their children in their own household too. Housing costs, food, activities. Before they do any of that, they contribute CM to the children’s main household.

New partners are not responsible for that.

The NRP household also does not have entitlement to the child-related welfare payments made by the state. Even if the resident parent earns literally millions and doesn’t qualify, the NRP is treated as a childless adult for welfare purposes.

Yes he still has to pay for himself which is why CMS is calculated as a small fraction of his available funds, because he still has to pay for current household bills. However, money available after paying current household bills is usually significantly increased after a partner moves in (if they are also earning) which is why benefits (incl personal ones) are mostly reduced/ stop after a partner moves in).

IF they choose to share all resources. They may not do, especially given that one of them has significant outgoings that are theirs and theirs alone.

You keep using the fact that benefits go down as the standard that all other policies should emulate - it's the other way around, that's the policy that's wrong, not the one where parents are held responsible for funding their own kids.

Taking on a partner who is an NRP is like taking on someone with significant, long term debt. They will contribute less to the household as a result. But that doesn’t mean you’re responsible for their debt.

YABU and massively so! Your ex’s wife owes you nothing.

Your DD shouldn’t be snooping and she definitely shouldn’t be telling people how much SM earns. She should have kept it to herself. You should have told her that sort of information is none of her or your business and it’s very rude to talk about it, and you don’t want to know in future. By not saying that to her, you’ve just given her the green light to look at people’s letters again. Great job.

Back to the stepmum. As I said, she owes you nothing. Your friend is wrong and you can’t claim anything from her. Your friend sounds like a shit stirrer egging you on to try and persue the stepmum for money. Only the person who is your child’s parent is responsible to give you money, which is your ex. He provides £500 a month and that’s all you’re gonna get. Maybe less now if you cut your nose off to spite your face and run to the CMS because you think you might get a cut of the stepmum’s money.

She provides a good lifestyle for your DD when she is with her dad. You should be happy for DD about that and focus on your own life with her without wanting the stepmum to help you too. There’s literally nothing you can do to get anything from her so just move on from the news and swallow your jealousy.

She’s got a baby of her own now too. Why should she give her child less in order to make you (a completely unrelated woman) more comfortable? Honestly, she doesn’t go out to work to provide for your household. DD benefits from her salary when she is with her dad. And even then that shouldn’t be shirking the dad’s responsibilities towards her. When DD is with you, it’s up to you to provide for her along with the £500 you maintenance from her father.

Ask yourself this:
If you ever meet a partner earning £65k, would you then say to your ex that he can reduce the maintenance to a very small amount, or even zero because you have a high earning partner now? Doubt it! and I doubt your friend would tell you to cancel your claim for maintenance either. Funny that.

It’s not redistributive like the welfare state

what is your point you are trying to make here? I don’t understand the relevance. (Ps Tax is also redistributive).

It’s to ensure that both parents’ income is distributed such that the contribute financially to all their children
it’s not about them both contributing financially, it’s not about them contributing if they are able to do so in proportion to what they can afford. Affordability changes when a new partner moves in. People are wealthier individuals when they are in partnerships, this is a fact.

Remember that NRPs pay for their children in their own household too

Yes and as stated several times this is taken into account in CMS payments which reduce when parents have more children.

*pursue, not persue

interesting you bring up “debt”, my colleague was unwilling to get legally married for the longest time as her partners income would be then be taken into account in terms of her debt repayments. She’s in her 40s now though, so I’m not sure how that financing works now.

CM is more like tax than benefits for the NRP. But it is NOT tax.

It is a financial obligation. His ongoing financial obligation because of previous lifestyle choices.

one that means the income he contributes to his household is less. It makes no difference that he is better able to survive himself or to support his children because his new partner contributes her own money.

It’s simply not her responsibility.

Even more so when the children’s mother is looking to have another woman’s income pay for her choices not to work.

Yes and as stated several times this is taken into account in CMS payments which reduce when parents have more children.

By a tiny fraction, not by half of what he's contributing to the other child. But you wouldn't like that, would you.

None of the policies around paying for children add up to a coherent message.

His ongoing financial obligation because of previous lifestyle choices
I am horrified that you would refer to any child as a “previous lifestyle choice”.
It makes no difference that he is better able to survive himself or to support his children because his new partner contributes her own money
disagree . if he is better able to support his children , he should better do so, all of them equally, this is the principle on which CMS calculations are based on. For example my friends child support went up when it turned out that her ex was receiving a substantial private pension from his late wife’s death. That was her money, it’s supporting him, and it is calculated in the amount he can afford to pay and therefore should pay for his children.

CM is more like tax than benefits for the NRP. But it is NOT tax
I still don’t see the relevance of the points you are making here to the substantive argument. What we call it is neither here or there, the point is on what principles is it and should it be based.

Even more so when the children’s mother is looking to have another woman’s income pay for her choices not to work
I agree sounds like OP should be working. But honestly this is such a sexist discourse , this isn’t about pitting one woman against another, it’s about ensuring that men pay fairly for all their children equally in proportion to what they can afford. Partnership affects that affordability. Thems the facts.

But honestly this is such a sexist discourse , this isn’t about pitting one woman against another, it’s about ensuring that men pay fairly for all their children equally in proportion to what they can afford. Partnership affects that affordability. Thems the facts.

But it's not what he can afford, it's what SHE can afford, and only available to him IF they choose to share all finances. They may not.

For example my friends child support went up when it turned out that her ex was receiving a substantial private pension from his late wife’s death. That was her money, it’s supporting him, and it is calculated in the amount he can afford to pay and therefore should pay for his children.

Wow. That’s so so wrong. Because ultimately it’s a dead woman providing for another woman’s household. Your friend knew that and still accepted the money.

I think you simply are so busy clutching your ‘won’t anyone think of the children’ pearls that you can’t see how utterly misogynistic your insistence that women must subsidise men to meet their financial obligations to their own children is.

The man is better able to provide a home, food, and such like to those children because a new partner is paying for them. Why do you want her to take on an even greater proportion of the financial responsibility for that so that a man can meet his financial responsibilities.

In your argument, both women have all the responsibility and the man is treated like he’s brilliant because one woman is paying his bills so he can give money to the woman who brings up his children. That’s awful.

and parenthood is a lifestyle choice. Children are people. But being a parent is a choice adults make. The ongoing financial responsibility is part of the lifestyle choice that is becoming a parent.

Its what he can afford based
on pooling resources with a partner. Of course the law can’t account for every individual private arrangement , but , like it or lump it , if you are legally married the law assumes that you are pooling resources . this is a fundamental principle on which all kinds of policy decisions (for very good reasons) and so it should be for the CMS . Unfortunately, however, we live in a profoundly patriarchal society in which children are apparently treated as reducible to “debt” produced by men’s “lifestyle choices”.

that you can’t see how utterly misogynistic your insistence that women must subsidise men to meet their financial obligations to their own children is
im not saying that though. You are by refusing to hold men to account to paying for their children in proportion to what they can afford.

parenthood is a lifestyle choice

dobt even get me started in this. No it bloody isn’t 😡

I also suspect that you wouldn’t be arguing that his CM should be reduced if he has a new partner who doesn’t work and is financially dependent on him.

That reduces his ability to provide for his children, but I doubt you’re going to say the reduction in lifestyle should be distributed across both households.

What THEY can afford. Based on their income.

Not what they can get off another woman.

A very good point.

No , not for a wife, as we no longer live in a world where women need to be and are expected to be financially dependent on men (unless they have children). CMS is only for previous partners with children. For new children, yes, it should be reduced as is currently the principle.

Ok this is just becoming repetitive.

No , not for a wife, as we no longer live in a world where women need to be and are expected to be financially dependent on men (unless they have children). CMS is only for previous partners with children. For new children, yes, it should be reduced as is currently the principle.

You haven't understood what they said.

You are arguing that CMS should go up if they live with a partner who is adding to their income. Would you say it should be reduced if they live with a partner who is taking from their income. It's the same principle.