CSA & Step Parent Salary

AnxiousMum

FBaby wrote: »

No direct response to your question OP, but I really am amazed by the response making it clear that you shouldn't expected to take over your partner's responsibility for his children, whereas when I explained my situation and stated that if I were to be made redundant, I didn't think it would be right for my partner to pick up my children's costs, I got the reply that this was sad and that the moment my partner took me in, he took my children too.

To be honest, I am halfway there with it. I don't think it should ever be the legal responsibility for either step-parents to take over parental responsibilities, however, I do think it would be the right thing for a step parent to help out in a case of emergency (redundancy) as much as possible, on either side. Yet, the government is clear that pwpp are expected to pay up whereas nrpp are not -on the basis that nrpp salaries are not taken into account, at least after reformed, yet pwc cannot claim any benefits in their own right, as partner's salary is taken into account-.

Each case comes as an individual situation - take mine - I have two children from previous marriage, when OH and I decided to have children, I was obviously off work for a while. During that time, my ex decided to withhold child support for first two - as I was home, with no income for a while looking after OUR child, yes, it came down to my OH to support my two pre existing children. Had it not been that I was staying home with OUR child, then I would've been supporting them. However, having said that, my OH has never treated my eldest two any different financially than the younger children, in fact, in early days, often going out of his way to ensure they had a little something from him, apart from providing a roof over their heads, food, clothing etc. while I was home with the little ones.

Marisco

Same situation as my daughter AM. Her oh never resented paying for her 2 from the ex (he's a mega deadbeat:mad:) then when they had their own child, he never treated them any different. In all but blood, he is their dad:)

fannyanna

At the risk of being flamed I also think there's a difference between being a partner of a PWC and being a partner of an NRP (whatever gender).

When you partner with an NRP you know that there will be costs and interaction with children however this is in essence on a part time basis.

It’s completely different when you’re the partner of a PWC. Whilst you are not the parent you are a huge part of the child’s life and rightly or wrongly you are expected to be responsible for that child in many forms – both financially and emotionally. In the majority of cases I’m sure the children see more of their step-parent than they do the NRP.

Whilst obviously an NRPP has to consider there will be an impact to their life I think it’s fair to say that the PWCP has even more of an impact. In my opinion PWCP’s deserve a lot of respect for essentially taking on someone else’s child. I know it is not something I would be able to do on a full time basis and props to those that can.

AnxiousMum

Fannyanna - I was simply referring to FBaby's post, and how she was treated 'differently' when asked a similar question

I fully and wholeheartedly agree with you - my hat goes off to anybody who has firstly, had the courage to go into a relationship where their partner has children, and to those who can (NRPP or PWCP) treat these children just the same as they would treat their own. I for one, don't think I could've, and didn't trust myself in such a rold of responsibility - so made a point of never getting involved with a man who had children! I don't know that I'm 'unselfish' enough to be able to fulfill the job in a fair way.

fannyanna

Sorry if my post came across as a dig in any way. To be honest I haven’t read all the posts properly and just noted that it was straying into a “why treat PWCP’s and NRPP’s differently” and though I’d add my thoughts.

FBaby

I think these are just pathetic excuses to justify a clear discrimination. Because you don't live with the children concerned doesn't make you less a parent or less responsible for their well-being, just like you wouldn't expect the children to say that they love their dad less than their mum because they see them less.

It is not all cases that pwcp take on a parental role model towards their step children. My partner gets along brilliantly with my children and vice versa, but their dad is their 'other' parent not my partner. That means that although they have affection towards my partner, it is nothing comparable with what they feel towards their dad and RIGHTLY so. So why should my partner not get to appreciate the pleasure of hearing a child say 'I love you daddy', know that the children will be there for him forever etc..., yet is liable to financially support them if I couldn't do so any longer. And if this was indeed related to contact, why the same applies whether the nrp sees the child once a month or 3 days a week?

OP, I am not saying that you should be picking up maintenance on behalf of your partner. I personally think it would be nice to try to help as much as possible, but I dont' consider it is your responsibility, my problem is with the fact that the government sees it differently with pwcp (parents with care partner)

FBaby

fannyanna wrote: »

Whilst obviously an NRPP has to consider there will be an impact to their life I think it’s fair to say that the PWCP has even more of an impact. In my opinion PWCP’s deserve a lot of respect for essentially taking on someone else’s child. I know it is not something I would be able to do on a full time basis and props to those that can.

And just to add, not all nrps are happy to see the pwcp be so involved in their kids' life. As a matter of fact, many see it with a very bad eye and i can totally understand that. I certainly wouldn't want my ex's new partner taking on my role. Important decisions about their welfare is between my ex and I, not his partner nor mine. Of course they can share their views, and I do value my partner's, but ultimately, the decision is not his.

I think there is a big difference between a pwcp who take on young children when the nrp is deficient in his role as a dad to a pwcp who moves in with older children whose dad has always been very involved in their lives, yet the government doesn't make that distinction.

13Kent

I do agree that there is a difference, and maybe within the household of the "new family" the pwcp does pay more towards the PWC's children than if he would had he not been living with them. However it is often the case (certainly in our situation) that the PWCP moves into the household of the PWC. In our case the pwcp moved into a 4 bed house - the mortgage on which my OH had paid for many years (his ex didn't work), and before the CSA got involved he continued to pay the full mortgage payments on top of child support even though it was not his choice to leave the household. It was only when the CSA got involved and she moved her partner in (the one she had the affair with which ended the marriage) that he stopped paying the mortgage (and yes that nearly caused world war 3 at the time).

Yes as part of the divorce settlement she took over the mortgage, but she (and her new partner) also got a good chunk of equity in that house which my OH had owned for 10 years. My OH was forced to walk away with nothing, no family life, and no foot on the mortgage ladder, having to start all over again and also find a 25% deposit in order to get a mortgage - not on a one bed flat, but on a property which was big enough to house his children so that he could see them at weekends.

The PWCP may have moved into in instant family with all the responsibilities that entails, including financial, but financially he hasn't done badly having his name added to a mortgage on a 4 bed house (he didn't need to find a deposit to get on the mortgage ladder) which already has a good amount of equity and only 15 years left to pay off - they have the opportunity to be mortgage free years before my OH will be, so in my opinion if he does pay something towards the household living expenses which includes the children's expenses I still think he's not come off badly.

My OH continues to pay nearly £600 a month towards CSA, and they get included in things that happen in our family, so when they are with us proportion of our household income is spent on them too over and above the CSA money. - That's just the way the cookie crumbles! If you get involved with someone with children whether as a PWCP or a NRPP I think you just have to accept that they will be part of your life and you will have some responsibility for them, and that includes financial, and you just have to get on with it. It might not seem fair or right but that's life, and how many of us have a 'normal' life nowadays??

fannyanna

FBaby wrote: »

my problem is with the fact that the government sees it differently with pwcp (parents with care partner)

How does the government see it differently? Sorry if you've already outlined this and I've missed it.

kaya

no you dont have to pay, they are not your children and in law not your responsibility unless you have adopted them