Are Maintenance Payments Based on Household Income or Individual Income?

FBaby

Step-parents should never have a financial responsibilities towards their partner's children from a previous relationship, it be step-mothers OR step-fathers. However, the legal/goverment system support the first, not the second. In the end, when you choose to have children, you accept to be responsible for them until they can support themselves, whatever the circumstances, changes in life etc... You might go through tough times but it doesn't take that responsibility away from you.

I think as many pwcs/nrps seem to forget about this, ones relying on benefits, the others relying on tactics to avoid paying. Children are not commodities, they are not only human beings who rely on us to get proper care, but also becoming the future generations, who will make decision that will affect us as elderlies.

It really infuriates me when either side comes up with excuses to wash their responsibilities away. It is only because they can get away with it that they do.

princessdreamer

I find it incredibly sad that step mothers view their partners children, their own childs siblings as other. The I'm getting my children an x-box his kids can have something from the pound shop mentality. how do explain years down the line when all the children are asking questions about why they were treated differently. When one says I had fabulous holidays, loads of toys and such while the older one says I had to wear old shoes and go without a winter coat because your mother said we were not her problem.

pinkclouds

princessdreamer wrote: »

I find it incredibly sad that step mothers view their partners children, their own childs siblings as other. The I'm getting my children an x-box his kids can have something from the pound shop mentality. how do explain years down the line when all the children are asking questions about why they were treated differently. When one says I had fabulous holidays, loads of toys and such while the older one says I had to wear old shoes and go without a winter coat because your mother said we were not her problem.

That *would* be awful and morally wrong - albeit legally "right". However, a £50 coat is hardly the same as £15k school fees. (I've estimated these annual figures - the OP has not mentioned her costs.)

DUTR

princessdreamer wrote: »

I find it incredibly sad that step mothers view their partners children, their own childs siblings as other. The I'm getting my children an x-box his kids can have something from the pound shop mentality. how do explain years down the line when all the children are asking questions about why they were treated differently. When one says I had fabulous holidays, loads of toys and such while the older one says I had to wear old shoes and go without a winter coat because your mother said we were not her problem.

That sort of situation is reciprocated anyways, eg the child's mother can get an xbox for the child. Although the better parent is not always the one with the greater disposable income or the one that spends the most on children

Person_one

DUTR wrote: »

Although the better parent is not always the one with the greater disposable income or the one that spends the most on children

I agree with that, however I think the better parent is the one that can be the bigger person and not treat their biological children's half siblings as inferior, second best children but as equal members of an albeit unconventional family.

It is possible, I've seen it, it makes for happy people.

DUTR

Person_one wrote: »

I agree with that, however I think the better parent is the one that can be the bigger person and not treat their biological children's half siblings as inferior, second best children but as equal members of an albeit unconventional family.

It is possible, I've seen it, it makes for happy people.

Is that not nature in play though? Of course one will love their own over and above anybody else's, how many readers of this thread are going to reduce their child's xmas spend in favour of getting some money to a dying child in Africa, they don't want an xbox, iphone , private schooling etc, perhaps just a few litres of water

Person_one

DUTR wrote: »

Is that not nature in play though? Of course one will love their own over and above anybody else's, how many readers of this thread are going to reduce their child's xmas spend in favour of getting some money to a dying child in Africa, they don't want an xbox, iphone , private schooling etc, perhaps just a few litres of water

These aren't just any children you have no connection to, they're your husband's (or wife's) children, your children's siblings, your step children.

fannyanna

Yes and they already have parents to provide for them so why should the step parent also provide. You'd then end up in the situation where the new step sibling is the one going without. Oh I forgot-that's ok though because the first child is always the most important!

DUTR

Person_one wrote: »

These aren't just any children you have no connection to, they're your husband's (or wife's) children, your children's siblings, your step children.

Aye I know what you mean, I was not related in anyway to Baby P, so does that mean I do not feel for his fate?
But OK on a less extreme example, your direct blood relatives are always (or most often) going to be easily put before non blood , even if they are the children of partners, you won't love them as your own in the exact same way. It's just a nature thing

Person_one

fannyanna wrote: »

Yes and they already have parents to provide for them so why should the step parent also provide. You'd then end up in the situation where the new step sibling is the one going without. Oh I forgot-that's ok though because the first child is always the most important!

So if the step child lives with you is it still ok to treat them differently? After all they still have two parents...