Wife's income and child benefit

Marisco

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Agreed, but paying for them is the parent's responsibility, not their partner's.

Yes I know, but what the argument is, is that a PWCP has to pay for the NRP's kids, as they live with the PWC. And to say that someone shouldn't move in with someone with kids, could also be applied to a NRP, i.e don't get with someone that has to pay CM. TBH, I think the numbers of people who give up work and live off their partners, and don't pay a bean, is so small that it's hardly worth arguing about, although it's an interesting debate.

Those who just avoid paying is a different matter, as they will catch up with them eventually, but if someone is prepared to "keep" an NRP whist he doesn't work, then there is very little that can be done, he will have "nil" income so cannot be pursued. Fair? Of course it's not, but neither would taking money off an NRPP for kids that aren't hers.

I wouldn't let it get to me though, unless I was on my beam ends, but if I was a PWC and was earning a good wage and so was the PWCP, then I'd say to the NRP "stick your money, we're fine without it"! It's not worth getting chewed up about and letting it fester for years.

FBaby

Marisco wrote: »

Ah, now that is a different thing completely, what I'm saying is that legally an NRPP should not be forced to pay, what they do morally is entirely up to their own conscience.

Well I should have said legally as if a pwcp earning over £50k was not to declare receipt of CB within their household, they could get into big trouble legally.

FBaby

I do think it's somewhat different when the kids are resident with one parent though, because the NRP, rightly or wrongly can feel that they are paying for the PWC's household bills. I know folk say, well they need shelter, heating etc, but surely that would be the PWC's contribution to the kids upkeep. The CM should be soley for things the kids need, i.e clothes, trips etc etc.

Really? So the fact that the pwc needs a three bed house rather than a one bed shouldn't be taken into account. The fact that they have to do three washing a week rather than one because of the kids' clothes, bedding etc... shouldn't be taken into account? petrol costs for taking them to all the places they need to etc...

Saying that, my experience is that even if you take the above out of the equation, those little !!!!!!s still costs a fortune!

The NRPP does not live with their partner's children and should not be expected to contribute.

That is an argument that I strongly refute. Why should the fact that they live under the same roof makes a difference. Is a step-pwpp more of importance than a step nrpp just because they live together? Does this mean that the pwcp should be entitled to more rights in terms of decisions relating to education, medical care etc... you are either more responsible all the way or not. Making a step-parent more responsible only from a financial perspective is nothing but more convenient for the nrp and nrpp.

TBH, I think the numbers of people who give up work and live off their partners, and don't pay a bean, is so small that it's hardly worth arguing about, although it's an interesting debate.

Maybe it is peanut, but strangely it isn't in my walk of life. My experience is more nrps who are self-employed and declare no income but claim they live off their wife's income when challenged on lifestyle inconsistencies. Still I do know two nrps who gave up their job to become SAHD when their children with their new relationship were born and have stopped all maintenance as a result. These are not totally unheard of on this board either (hence this debate coming off one that was posted last week).

I wouldn't let it get to me though, unless I was on my beam ends, but if I was a PWC and was earning a good wage and so was the PWCP, then I'd say to the NRP "stick your money, we're fine without it"! It's not worth getting chewed up about and letting it fester for years

But are you saying that because it doesn't apply to you? Could the same be said of the nrp and nrpp that if their income is superior to that of the pwc and pwcp, they shouldn't hold a grudge that the pwpp income is taken into consideration?

I do agree that if you can manage to support your children as you wish to without needing to rely on maintenance, then you should move on. However, it remains that everything that is not paid in maintenance for the benefit of the children is inevitably a reduction in diposable income for the pwc family. Is it fair that a family where both work full-time should not benefit from more disposable income than one which only works minimum hours?

It is very complex and yes, there will always be winners and losers, but still feel that all in all, nrpps and pwcps are treated very differently, and I expect this is as a result of residency, which I don't believe is correct. If pwcp are made to be financially legally responsible for their step-children, then they should also legally be able to have rights over the children such as parental responsibility without the approval of the nrp.

13Kent

FBaby wrote: »

Really? So the fact that the pwc needs a three bed house rather than a one bed shouldn't be taken into account. The fact that they have to do three washing a week rather than one because of the kids' clothes, bedding etc... shouldn't be taken into account? petrol costs for taking them to all the places they need to etc...

But equally the nrp often needs more bedrooms to accommodate the visiting children, a safe vehicle to be able to transport those children safely, - sometimes a bigger car if there are more than 3 children in the extended family, and the petrol costs to transport them to and from the pwc's house (which in our case has been a 4 hour round trip on a friday and again on a sunday - the pwc has never made any effort to get the children to us or even meet us half way) - these costs are not considered in the maintenance calculation but are needed to facilitate contact with the children that is comfortable for all concerned.

seven-day-weekend

I get muddled up with all these acronyms (Pwc, pwpp etc).

All I'm saying is, a parents' partner should not be EXPECTED to provide for their partner's children, whether they live with them or not. If they chose to, then that is a different matter (and it is difficult not to if the children are living with you).

I also think it makes a difference if people are married, then they take on the legal position of step-parent and their role is different (imho) to someone cohabiting.

My view are probably terribly old-fashioned and unworkable, however those are my views.

FBaby

All I'm saying is, a parents' partner should not be EXPECTED to provide for their partner's children, whether they live with them or not. If they chose to, then that is a different matter (and it is difficult not to if the children are living with you).

I agree with you and that is why I have been posting, because a step-father (in most circumstances, to avoid acronyms!) can often find himself expecting to provide for his partner's children. If I lose my job tomorrow, it won't be my kids' dad who will have to make up the difference, certainly not my ex's new partner, not benefits, but my husband alone because that's how the system is set up.

Yes he knew that this could happen, but similarly to a step-mother when she marries, yet she will never be in a force position to have to support her step-children even if her husband loses her job.

FBaby

13Kent wrote: »

But equally the nrp often needs more bedrooms to accommodate the visiting children, a safe vehicle to be able to transport those children safely, - sometimes a bigger car if there are more than 3 children in the extended family, and the petrol costs to transport them to and from the pwc's house (which in our case has been a 4 hour round trip on a friday and again on a sunday - the pwc has never made any effort to get the children to us or even meet us half way) - these costs are not considered in the maintenance calculation but are needed to facilitate contact with the children that is comfortable for all concerned.

I think that's where there is a lot of differences. Some non resident parent consider that maintenance should pay for everything, so will not do the travelling, minimum comfort for the children in terms of accommodations, no contribution to school trips, activities etc... Personally, I think the above should be dependent on how much maintenance is paid.

Then you have those who pay for everything in addition to maintenance and probably end up paying twice as much.