Are Maintenance Payments Based on Household Income or Individual Income?

DUTR

Person_one wrote: »

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.

Ok, let's ignore pointless baby P ramblings, as mentioned let me pose for you a question
you have two children in a position where you can only save one, once child is your own flesh n blood directly, the other say niece nephew, child of a friend, which one do you save?

Naturally I would hope nobody is ever in this position, but as the post above suggests, part time, yes the children from different parentage will be treated the same in the shorter term.

Person_one

princessdreamer wrote: »

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.

Its interesting actually.

When claiming benefits, household income is taken into account regardless of whether both adults in the house are related to the children. A resident step parent's (married or not) income matters for housing benefit, JSA, council tax benefit, working tax credit etc. They are expected by the state to fund the children of their partner.

But a husband or wife's income is disregarded for maintenance, they are not expected to contribute at all to the children of their partner. What's the reasoning?

Person_one

DUTR wrote: »

Ok, let's ignore pointless baby P ramblings, as mentioned let me pose for you a question
you have two children in a position where you can only save one, once child is your own flesh n blood directly, the other say niece nephew, child of a friend, which one do you save?

Naturally I would hope nobody is ever in this position, but as the post above suggests, part time, yes the children from different parentage will be treated the same in the shorter term.

That is the biggest straw man I've ever seen on here. :rotfl:

msb5262

As far as I can see, the OP's difficulty is this: her child's life has changed because her dad has gone left - it hasn't just directly changed in that her dad lives with someone else, but also indirectly as the ex is now saying his daughter will have to move school because he's gone back on his word to pay half the school fees.

I personally don't believe in private schools and would never send my children there but in the OP's position I'd move heaven and earth to keep the daughter in her present school - and in the stepmother's position I'd do the same. It really isn't worth a holiday or two to see your partner's child upset and her life disrupted further; the awful part is, all this is due to the dad's attitude.

It's not the OP's fault, nor is it the stepmother's responsibility - the dad should be doing whatever he can to keep his daughter's life as unchanged as possible. If that means him working extra hours or having less holidays, so be it.

However, I feel very depressed to read step parents commenting upthread that they don't believe it's their duty to make a direct sacrifice for their stepchildren...my children have a stepmother, and I am a stepmother too.

If you take on a partner with children, you can't behave as if you are a childless couple even if the children don't live with you.

As far as this (extended) family is concerned, the children come first.
ALL the children come first, before any of the adults. Mine, his, theirs...it doesn't make any difference.

Surely that's the only way to do it?

MsB

fannyanna

princessdreamer wrote: »

As for the ones saying they indirectly pay (how?)

If my husband didn't have children all of our bills would be paid 50/50.

But because he has children and the money that he brings into our household is reduced (quite rightly because he has to pay child maintenance) we are not able to split the bills 50/50. I therefore have to pay more of the bills.

If my Husband didn't have children we would have been able to have a baby a few years ago when we wanted to have children. But because of my Husband's children we couldn't afford to do that and we've had to wait until we're in a financial position to do so.

Now that's fine because my Husband has children and I knew that when I married him. So I accept that I have to make sacrifices. Now every now and then it's quite upsetting when I realise the fact that I don't have my own baby, the fact that whilst we're now trying for a baby we have fertility issues and perhaps if we had of been able to try a few years ago I could now have a baby in my arms.

But whilst I do accept the sacrifices I have to make it doesn't mean I have to be over the moon about them and it certainly doesn't mean that I have to love my Husbands children as my own and start spending all of my money on them. I'd rather save my money for fertility treatment!

DUTR

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.

When I left school ,my 1st GF was a young single Mum, was with her 7 yrs, at 16/17 (she was ayear older than me) it is not really the time to be playing Mummy and Daddy, so it did take a strain on things. So after we finished, it did dissapoint me that most the women either had children or soon wanted children, like you I would have had an idea of a 'perfect' life choice, anyways you may meet someone have children, sadly split then you would have the choice of staying single forever more or 'lowering' your standards and making way for the step family.

fannyanna

Person_one wrote: »

Its interesting actually.

When claiming benefits, household income is taken into account regardless of whether both adults in the house are related to the children. A resident step parent's (married or not) income matters for housing benefit, JSA, council tax benefit, working tax credit etc. They are expected by the state to fund the children of their partner.

But a husband or wife's income is disregarded for maintenance, they are not expected to contribute at all to the children of their partner. What's the reasoning?

And the flip side of this is that the NRP's household when it comes to claiming benefits is also assessed on the household income. But in reality the household income on paper is not what is available to them in reality as a % of that income is paid to another household for maintenance purposes.

princessdreamer

You made that choice, if your bills are too high for two incomes try the DFW board, his children come before your need to have a baby.

Person_one

DUTR wrote: »

When I left school ,my 1st GF was a young single Mum, was with her 7 yrs, at 16/17 (she was ayear older than me) it is not really the time to be playing Mummy and Daddy, so it did take a strain on things. So after we finished, it did dissapoint me that most the women either had children or soon wanted children, like you I would have had an idea of a 'perfect' life choice, anyways you may meet someone have children, sadly split then you would have the choice of staying single forever more or 'lowering' your standards and making way for the step family.

As I don't want my own children either, staying single forever would not be a tragedy. Better that than to enter the lives of children I wouldn't actually want to be around.

I hope you tell any single mums you try to date that you are lowering your standards for them and would prefer that they were sans baggage. They deserve to know your attitude.

Person_one

fannyanna wrote: »

And the flip side of this is that the NRP's household when it comes to claiming benefits is also assessed on the household income. But in reality the household income on paper is not what is available to them in reality as a % of that income is paid to another household for maintenance purposes.

Is maintenance not declared as an outgoing?