Are Maintenance Payments Based on Household Income or Individual Income?

DUTR

msb5262 wrote: »

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

The post started off well, but then drifted off onto it's always the blokes fault?
How do we know why the couple split, who is to say the Mum was not entertaining the milkman?
Life is always a chance and risk, we don't know what is around the corner.

fannyanna

princessdreamer wrote: »

You made that choice, if your bills are too high for two incomes try the DFW board,

I'm confused. Where did I say that our bills are too high and we can'[t afford them?

I think if you re-read what I wrote I was providing a response to a question someone posed on how a step parent indirectly pays.

I also state that it's not a problem and that I knew that when I married my husband.

So your point is pretty irrelevant as I've already made that point.

princessdreamer wrote: »

his children come before your need to have a baby.

Nice!

fannyanna

Person_one wrote: »

Is maintenance not declared as an outgoing?

No it's not.

princessdreamer

Its not about being nice, it is about paying for the children you have before you have more. If someone on benefits came along saying I want to have another child, they would be told it was not right as they should pay for the ones they have first.

fannyanna

princessdreamer wrote: »

Its not about being nice, it is about paying for the children you have before you have more. If someone on benefits came along saying I want to have another child, they would be told it was not right as they should pay for the ones they have first.

But he is paying. He pays maintenance via the CSA and then more on top.

So once again your point is irrelevant.

Person_one

fannyanna wrote: »

No it's not.

But then, when parents whose children live with them claim benefits they don't get the costs of caring for the children deducted from their income either.

It seems a little martyrish to blame your lack of a baby on him already having children, plenty of people have babies on very low incomes and manage, and you'd be entitled to child benefits and tax credits to supplement.

msb5262

princessdreamer wrote: »

You made that choice...his children come before your need to have a baby.

I'm afraid this is true - a new baby may be YOUR first baby but it's not the first child in the family.
If you choose to settle down with someone who already has children, you've made that choice and it's disingenuous to talk about "what if" he hadn't had to support his children...he did have to support them and that's the person you picked.
I know it's not easy but it's the decision you made.

fannyanna

Person_one wrote: »

But then, when parents whose children live with them claim benefits they don't get the costs of caring for the children deducted from their income either.

I wasn't looking to start another debate on benefits. I was just stating that there was a flip side to the point that you'd made.

Person_one wrote: »

It seems a little martyrish to blame your lack of a baby on him already having children, plenty of people have babies on very low incomes and manage, and you'd be entitled to child benefits and tax credits to supplement.

Well either way it doesn't matter. I'm only a step parent so my feelings aren't important.

Person_one

fannyanna wrote: »

Well either way it doesn't matter. I'm only a step parent so my feelings aren't important.

Again, a little martyrish there, pretty sure you're the only person on the thread to have said that.

Marisco

NPR's should contribute to their children, there is no excuse not to. However I don't see why an NRPP is expected to pay private school fees, especially if their own kid goes to state school. The op's ex should be paying maintenance based on what he earns, it doesn't matter what his wife earns. If the op then chooses to spend it on school fees, then that is her business. But she should not then expect more money to pay for school trips, clothes etc. If the child lived with the NRP and his wife, then I think she would be expected to contribute, in the same way a man who moves in with someone with kids contributes.