What's the obsession with maintenance?

[geckofrog]

This is the step parent board so I know it exists in most step parents life but almost every thread on here what ever it is is always answered with does he pay maintenance? Cms calculation is minimum.

Why do so many posters assume the partner of the stepparent ISN'T paying enough?

Nope.

There are no moral rights.

Simply because each situation is different.

Yes of course they are, but in the one outlined above where an NRP is able to reduce their income because of the much higher earning new partner, it is not fair on the children of that NRP if they suffer as a result. Unless someone is going to hugely increase funding for the CMS so it can look at nuanced individual cases, we have to have broad strokes approaches as we currently do, which rarely brings fair outcomes for anyone. I was simply reacting to the emphatic assertions that a step parents income should have no bearing at all on the situation, whereas I think it is INDIRECTLY related if it allowing an NRP to work less and thus reduce their contributions. In that circumstance, there is an argument for looking at household income in ascertaining due maintenance.

To be fair if you have 50/50 care no maintenance is due. I share care with my ex he pays for clothes and splurges. I tend to organise basics like uniform , school lunches, activities. I claim child benefit , he wouldn’t be entitled to as higher earner.

I think we both feel a little hard done by but mostly we are civil enough and dc are happy.

No.

Why should the stepmother have to pay money to her partner’s ex instead of him?

The children’s father should be ensuring that he is properly supporting all his children. If that means he cannot become a SAHP or go part-time: tough luck.

All the moral imperative here falls on his shoulders.

It’s not that high - it’s quoted above.

@InefficientProcess . Just saying 'no" doesn't win an argument. Any woman who continues in a relationship with a man knowing that he is not adequately supporting his children would presumably likewise think it's not her responsibility to support them instead.

I don't disagree that it absolutely SHOULD be down to the NRP and not the step parent but if the reason that the NRP is not paying adequate support is because (for example) it makes the new household easier in terms of childcare if he drops hours, then morally, the household income should cover the drop in maintenance . It's not about the new wife supporting the old wife it's about the NRP's responsibility to his children and if he reneges on that due to the circumstances of the new wife allowing him too, I think that is reprehensible. I can't imagine being the new wife and thinking "ha! Yes, what a prize I've got in this man who screws over his first kids to keep house for me / our new baby". If the NRP hasn't dropped maintenance then no, I don't think surplus money from the new partner should be remotely factored in, but if it's dropped due to a set up outlined above then yes.

A NRP dropping his income or going part time or whatever is a choice of his own.
It is not be proxy the fault of his wife 1st or 2nd.

He is not a puppet, he has managed to create life, he has agency.

We have got to stop blaming women for the actions and consequences of men.

So yer - no it's totally appropriate response.

Ffs and of course a man should pay/ contribute for all his children, but that doesn't cross over to his wife by osmosis.

It’s also the case that his circumstances have changed. If his income has dropped because he’s chosen to have more children and that’s how childcare works… that is life.

Maintenance is based on his income. Legally. Morally. Stop holding another woman responsible for this.

It doesn’t get set in aspic or have some one way gate placed on it where it must only go up, never down. That’s life.

Well we're going to have to disagree on this one. To reiterate..I do not think that simply by being in a relationship with an NRP the step parent's income should be taken into account but if the NRP chooses to reduce his income to benefit the 2nd household in some way, which is otherwise well supported by the step parent, and passes that reduction on to the first children then maintenance should be covered by their household income just as his car insurance, or phone contract might be. To do otherwise is manifestly unfair to the "first" children.

@BibbleandSqwauk the thing is.

No one is saying that a dad shouldn't pay for his kids. Not one comment on here has said yes the systems great, mums and sm alike say it's shit.
But if dad choses not to work or gets sick or cut his hours that is a him choice. It's a shitty one and it's unfair on the children but that's not on the women he's with

I don't know many women that would want their partner to stay home with the kids full time tbh considering even if mums work full time - they still carry statically speaking the lion share of the "home work" - gender norms are changing sure but the percentage I imagine is actually quite small due to that reason alone.

And your bang on the money in terms of dad should be providing for his children and it should be planned for.

But as a sm who is a high earner - I was a little horrified when my dh ex got excited when she heard we were getting married because she thought this would up the child maintenance. His salary isn't low, and he pays a good amount above cms (as he should) but then that wasn't enough so she approached cms saying well he's getting married so her (my salary) should be taken into account.
The person informed her this wasn't the case and reminded her to keep things pleasant or my dh may just dropped the maintenance down to the cms amount.

She was a lot less positive about us getting married at that point.

The maintenance amount hasn't to this day changed (and yes we had subsequent children together) , but my arrival on the scene seemed to prompt a automatic response of well the living condition disparity between our houses isn't equal and you must put it right. When actually the things we have and where we live is down to me.

When actually nothing had changed in the status of my dh or what he pays. In fact I would say mums life got a hell of lot easier because I helped mum with costs of Christmas the last 4 years from my own money (we keep separate finances me and my dh) along with several things I pay for my dsd exclusively from my own pocket.

And I don't do this because I'm morally bound or otherwise. I do it because I can and I want to.

Now if suddenly it changed and based on household income to include my income - I would go very part time (like mum). But I'm 100% certain dh would keep paying the same amount he's always paid, way before I was ever on the scene.

Like he did when he lost his job, when he had a period of sickness etc because he planned and made provision for rainy days. Because it is his role to provide for his children.

And if you asked my dh ex - she would tell you she thinks it's deeply unfair she can't claim my income on maintenance. If I had a shitty or badly paid job I doubt she would have the same position.

But none of this situation has ever impacted or related to any issues we have had my dsd other than to put dsd in the middle of something she shouldn't be responsible for.

The obsession with maintenance is because we post on here for advice about getting it. As quite often we don't get it.

The non resident parent is either hiding money, not paying, or paying less than they should be.

Until you have been in that position where you're not getting it its easy to think the CMS are all on the resident parents side. They are not they do fuck all usually.

It's taken me five years to get the CMS debt cleared when my child's dad earns over £120k a year. And has done since before we split.

Proper don't come on here to just say my ex is great 👍🏻 he pays and does what he should.

I get that.

But here is the thing if a sm is posting for advice on the step parenting area - that's not related to finance and then instead has people asking questions about maintenance they are too not getting answers they need.

It's shit my ex is shit and I get cms amount for my dd. But fuck me if people want to be pissed off about cms absolutely behind you, but fucking kick the right person ffs

@Redlarge

I'm
Sorry you are going through this.

My ex is a high earner I have managed now after five years to get the outstanding debt cleared. Similar to your amount.

In my experience, court etc, the only way to get them to take action was to harass the CMS every week asking for updates. Every week. On hold for an hour till I spoke to someone. They ignore emails or contacts on the website. They can't ignore a call. Get names of everyone you speak to. Log all the calls with dates and times and who you spoke to and what was agreed. If you don't they just fob you off.

Eventually they started to investigate him financially and low and behold he's paying the debt off. Obv has decided he has more to lose if they start digging.

@namechangnancy I get that. I really do I am a step parent also. I think until non residents are held accountable it won't change because it's such a problem. But yep kick the right person.

Mine are grown now so CMS is a non issue but my DH has always done the right thing. He paid CMS to his DSS till he was 18 because it was the right thing to do. He wasn't even obliged to but it was the right thing to do because he is to all intents and purposes my DSS dad in raising him since he was very young.

Which makes me even more angry/upset/sad that my child's own dad is such a prick about it all.

@gocompare I hear you. It's fucking hidious.

Personally I think we should be like America in that regard - take away non paying parents passport, put them in jail if they don't pay etc unless under very specific circumstances.

I realise though my ex not paying very much doesn't matter because of my pay etc so it's not such a massive impact to me as it would be with others. God knows how cms was cobbled together tbh.

@namechangnancy I agree with everything you've said, including the bit about maintenance changing if the NRP is sick or redundant. My only caveat is IF the NRP chooses to reduce his working hours and maintenance to benefit the second family, that is unfair and a higher earning, decent step-parent would cover the difference.

Too much faff, not enough prison space, not an immediate benefit to children and RPs.
I think that the government should pay child maintenance at whatever rate the NRP owes (apart from the insulting £7 rate, they can do better than that) and then the debt owed is to them and not to innocent children who are growing up in poverty because of this crap.
If government is unable to make the fuckers pay then it is linked to their national insurance number and starts coming out of their future pension/benefit entitlements.
Punishment/deterrent is no use to the children in the here and now.
When I rule the world, things will be different.

But I would also caveat that it would depend on whether the NRP was originally given the opportunity to either have 50/50 access or be the resident parent when child arrangements were sorted (assuming they were a hands-on parent pre-separation of course). If I'd known my DH had wanted 40/60 or 50/50 care but been refused for no valid reason then I as a step parent wouldn't feel obligated to cover the difference if my DH subsequently became a SAHP. Especially if the RP wasn't reasonably doing what they could to maximise their earnings - they can't use the "enabling the NRP's career" argument if they're actively preventing a decent NRP from doing their fair share of day-to-day care, school runs, appointments etc.

I've posted the above on the assumption that my DSC wouldn't be plunged into financial hardship; if they were then there'd be nothing to consider and of course I'd help support them. But there are so many variables to take into account when assessing what's morally right.