Are Maintenance Payments Based on Household Income or Individual Income?

Person_one

DUTR wrote: »

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

Ignoring random pointless Baby P mention...

What about adopted children then? You have no blood relation to your partner either but most people manage to rustle up some feeling on those two occasions.

As I said before, there are plenty of people able to treat step children as their own. I know quite a few and they can't be that rare.

fannyanna

Person_one wrote: »

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

I'm not talking about treating children differently.

I'm talking about the expectation that a step parent should financially provide for a child that is not theirs.

Whilst I agree that on one level you simply can't avoid this (as you indirectly pay for them) I strongly disagree that a step parent should directly contribute financially to a child that is not theirs.

You have hit on a very important point through. It is very, very different to be a part time step parent to a full time step parent. I take my hats off to anyone that is a full time step parent.

fannyanna

Person_one wrote: »

As I said before, there are plenty of people able to treat step children as their own. I know quite a few and they can't be that rare.

This is completely true but not everybody is the same.

Some step parents love their step children as their own.

Some step parents try and make the best of their situation but will never love the child(ren) as their own.

Some step parents simply don't want to know.

When we live in a world where some biological parents don't even want to know about their own children can it really come as that much of a surprise that not all step parents relish their role and love children as their own.

Person_one

fannyanna wrote: »

I'm not talking about treating children differently.

I'm talking about the expectation that a step parent should financially provide for a child that is not theirs.

Whilst I agree that on one level you simply can't avoid this (as you indirectly pay for them) I strongly disagree that a step parent should directly contribute financially to a child that is not theirs.

You have hit on a very important point through. It is very, very different to be a part time step parent to a full time step parent. I take my hats off to anyone that is a full time step parent.

I don't think the CSA should start chasing step parents, but I think if you marry someone and decide that from now on you're a team, a unit, a united front, then each of your individual obligations essentially become joint obligations.

Its no longer a case of 'I pay maintenance, I own a house, I have debt', they all become 'we' issues, surely? How can 'we' make sure these children that we as a family have an important obligation to aren't shortchanged because one of our jobs has gone.

I don't think private education for a 6 year old is even a very good idea, but I do think that the dad and stepmum, as a unit, have a moral obligation to find a way to help support his child.

Person_one

fannyanna wrote: »

This is completely true but not everybody is the same.

Some step parents love their step children as their own.

Some step parents try and make the best of their situation but will never love the child(ren) as their own.

Some step parents simply don't want to know.

When we live in a world where some biological parents don't even want to know about their own children can it really come as that much of a surprise that not all step parents relish their role and love children as their own.

Adults who know they can't accept a step child or who don't want to have any responsibility at all for the wellbeing of one shouldn't marry people who have children. Its not compulsory.

I wouldn't want a partner with children, I don't want to be a stepmum, so as soon as I find out someone has children I don't pursue them any further.

fannyanna

Person_one wrote: »

I don't think the CSA should start chasing step parents, but I think if you marry someone and decide that from now on you're a team, a unit, a united front, then each of your individual obligations essentially become joint obligations.

Its no longer a case of 'I pay maintenance, I own a house, I have debt', they all become 'we' issues, surely? How can 'we' make sure these children that we as a family have an important obligation to aren't shortchanged because one of our jobs has gone.

I don't think private education for a 6 year old is even a very good idea, but I do think that the dad and stepmum, as a unit, have a moral obligation to find a way to help support his child.

So then you're happy for the step parent to make important we decisions with the NRP......things like how they are disciplined, what school they go to etc.

I've read A LOT of posts on this forum from PWC's who are angered by the fact that their exe's partners (their children's step parents) wish to have some kind of say in the childs life.

fannyanna

Person_one wrote: »

Adults who know they can't accept a step child or who don't want to have any responsibility at all for the wellbeing of one shouldn't marry people who have children. Its not compulsory.

I wouldn't want a partner with children, I don't want to be a stepmum, so as soon as I find out someone has children I don't pursue them any further.

So in your eyes someone can't marry someone else with children unless they're going to love them as their own and make sacrifices for them as their own.

There's going to be a lot of single parents in the world!

princessdreamer

It is very sexist, a step father moves in and he pays the whole family unit. A step mother comes along and she guards her family against her husbands children lol. As for the ones saying they indirectly pay (how?) the money comes out of the fathers pot and the majority of the time covers no where near half the cost of raising a child.

Person_one

Person_one wrote: »

Adults who know they can't accept a step child or who don't want to have any responsibility at all for the wellbeing of one shouldn't marry people who have children. Its not compulsory.

I wouldn't want a partner with children, I don't want to be a stepmum, so as soon as I find out someone has children I don't pursue them any further.

fannyanna wrote: »

So in your eyes someone can't marry someone else with children unless they're going to love them as their own and make sacrifices for them as their own.

There's going to be a lot of single parents in the world!

Um...

Adults who know they can't accept a step child or who don't want to have any responsibility at all for the wellbeing of one shouldn't marry people who have children.

princessdreamer

Flame suit on, if you are not willing to provide for your partners children he already has you should not have more because one day you could end up being the other family when he moves on. Statistically second marriages have a much higher failure rate.