to think that you should establish how well you & your partner will support you/your children?

[OneMoreChap]

You've decided you want to have kids.
You have decided with whom you want to have them.

They are willing to have kids.

If they are a man, should you check that they will support you through pregnancy, birth and early years, and look to see if they are supporting their other children, if any?

If they are a woman, should you check how well they - and any previous partners - are supporting their existing children.

Should both of you look to see how well you can support your children, before looking to benefit support?

[FWIW, I have 2 children with XW; DS & DD both adults now, though in education. I have, quite rightly, spent scores of thousands in supporting both of them to adulthood. XW & I were both professionals; both worked bar XW taking about 18 months out of work late pregnancy early years.]

[rubyslippers]

When you say support do you mean just financially? That's the gist of your post

[TheMagnificentBathykolpian]

Yes. You should. Of course you should do everything you can to ensure that the person you are with is a decent person you will share your life with - most people DO that - or think they have! I don't think many people go into relationships with someone who says "I'll knock you up and then piss off"

But yes, how someone is with existing children should tell you a lot. And if there is something there that you don't like, then it is sensible to think carefully.

But people lie too. That man who never sees his children but he is heartbroken and spent years trying to get access but his bitch of an ex has turned the kids against him... might be telling the truth, might be lying. How to tell?

And then you should cross your fingers and hope that life does not throw anything at you that could possibly change your circumstances in a way that it was not possible to fully prepare for.

death, disability, accident, redundancy, long term illness, twins, triplets, business failure...

[AgentZigzag]

In an ideal world it would be the most sensible thing to do.

However, this doesn't take into account that the world is a shitty and unpredictable place.

Your OP is just too inflexible.

[LineRunner]

What would your evidence base be?

[Vallhala]

All very practical and sensible but has it dawned on you that no matter how capable a person is of providing that support they may at some stage of the relationship decide not to give it? The best laid plans and all that...

Which, in laymans' terms, means that no matter what you plan you can end up up a creek without a paddle regardless.

[Annpan88]

While I think financial supports important, I don't think it would be right to deprive many people who are/ would be wonderful parents of the chance just because they can't support a family on their incomes. There are so many other important aspects of being a parent.

Wages being what they are at the moment means only a small percentage of people could support a family without any relief from the benefit system. There are many families made up of hard working people who have jobs but need a top up, does this mean that these people who could be amazing parents shouldn't have children?

Obviously its different if people don't want to and have no intention of ever doing anything to support their family, but I think a bit of a helping hand for hardworking parents who don't quite earn enough can only be for the good :)

[redexpat]

Well in an ideal world, yes, but it isn't an ideal world and accidents happen. Not everyone knows about family planning, despite the wealth of info out there. Not everyone can read remember. People treat each other like shit, so don't care/think about the consequences.

Also people feel that because they pay into the pot they should be able to get something out of it. Why shouldn't they claim everything that they are entitled to? Circumstances change - you and your XW worked, but I guess you never lost your job, or became ill.

[OneMoreChap]

no, financial is just part of it.

Yes, people lie. But then, it's not always that easy...

If you know - for example - that your chosen partner has 2 kids with both his last two girlfriends, and he doesn't see any of them... is that not a fair sign he's a useless scumbag who at very least isn't taking responsibility for contraception?

If you chosen partner has 4 kids already, and is living hand to mouth on benefits, and sees nothing from any of the previous parents of her kids, doesn't that ring alarm bells?

disability, redundancy, other family issues, like supporting and aged father come to all of us. How we support our children, both in time, attention and financially is important. Those are life choices. And we are responsible for our life choices... aren't we?

[fedupofnamechanging]

Having children is certainly risky for a woman and plenty get pg and then find out that their 'partner' is not prepared to support them when their earning potential is reduced or pull their weight in terms of actually looking after the child. Ironing all this out before hand would certainly help a lot of women.

Also, I think a lot of people believe it is their right to have dc with their new love, even though there isn't enough money to support the children of the previous marriage. I'd be very wary of having a child with someone who doesn't pay for his existing children. When the shine wears off, the new love is often in the same boat as the ex. Still, love is blind.

[OneMoreChap]

redexpat
Circumstances change - you and your XW worked, but I guess you never lost your job, or became ill.

Wrong on both counts, as it happens.

[Tianc]

Ha ha, I've just spent the week doing the family tree.

The only surviving line are the descendants of the feckless black sheep, down several generations who "couldn't afford children" but had them anyway.

You'll be chuffed at what the great grandchildren have contributed to the country, tho. Through tax, their actions in their communities, and individual contributions to their industries/professions (patents, publications etc).

The richer lines sat on their wealth, created fuck all and died childless.

I've never understood this "children as personal financial assets/liabilities" stuff. I'm just grateful to the people do the midnight feeds and bottom-wiping to raise the nation's children. And I'd rather that job was done by people who are good at parenting, not who has most money.

[Vallhala]

"If you chosen partner has 4 kids already, and is living hand to mouth on benefits, and sees nothing from any of the previous parents of her kids, doesn't that ring alarm bells?"

It certainly does. I know such a parent.

Four children, the elder 3 close in age. One of the DC is SN and very difficult to deal with at times, a real terror. This woman is totally reliant on benefits (largely because of the need to care for that particular DC with such intensive supervision) and she lives hand to mouth.

So yes, it does ring alarm bells.

Alarm bells about the absent parent who was violent to her beyond description and who has left this kind, dedicated mother and friend of mine to deal with all this singlehandedly and without a penny's support.

I jolly well hope that if and when she feels in a position to consider a new partner he won't be as blinkered as your post above suggests that you are.

[HalfTermHero]

OP, are you David Cameron ?

[TheMagnificentBathykolpian]

If you know - for example - that your chosen partner has 2 kids with both his last two girlfriends, and he doesn't see any of them... is that not a fair sign he's a useless scumbag who at very least isn't taking responsibility for contraception? true

If you chosen partner has 4 kids already, and is living hand to mouth on benefits, and sees nothing from any of the previous parents of her kids, doesn't that ring alarm bells? yes, it would

However, the majority of people don't fit into the Jeremy Kyle Generation. Most people made plans that they thought would see them right as a family but life didn't work out how they had hoped. The examples you give are daytime telly examples, daily mail examples, they aren't representative of the real picture, imo.

I would say that more people are knocked for six by their partner abandoning them when there was no indication that they were ever capable of such a thing than there are people knocking out kid after kid with everyone knowing that the father takes off and the mother ends up on income support.

[reelingintheyears]

Am i being thick here?

Why are you asking?

Your Dc are grown up now....

Make it a bit more clear for me thickos.

[OneMoreChap]

TheMagnificentBathykolpian
sadly, they're people who were in my wider family.
The 4 kids by 2 previous girlfriends guy got dumped. He's since impregnated 2 more women, and now has 6 kids who he does nothing to support.

The 4 kids on benefits relly, is currently think she wants another "babby" and is trying to get someone to do the right thing. I suspect it may have something to do with the eldest approaching 16, but then I'm a cynical bastard.

Vallhala
Yep her previous partner was shit.
Was he always such, or just after the fourth child?

Tianc
I've never understood this "children as personal financial assets/liabilities" stuff.

Nor I.

I'm just grateful to the people do the midnight feeds and bottom-wiping to raise the nation's children.

So, that would be people like me and my XW then?

And I'd rather that job was done by people who are good at parenting, not who has most money.

Quite right. And not by feckless sods who have no work ethic, no concept of personal responsibility, and who aren't going to bring up their kids as wholly dependent on the state

[OneMoreChap]

reelingintheyears

I'm asking because I shake my head in disbelief that people behave like that.
It's like DV victims that go straight from one wife-beating shit to another.

Can they not see history repeating itself?

[defrocked]

some men will promise the moon on a stick just to get their leg over then leave her holding the baby

[Dialsmavis]

tell that to my arsehole ex. He genuinely believes that him and his new GF's desire to have 2 more children means it is OK for him to not pay anything towards DS anymore. DP and I have another DD but we certainly won't be having anymore because as he doesn't pay his legal minimum for DS we are supporting his children in a way!

[Vallhala]

OP, I didn't know him, she says little of him in that respect. I doubt very much though that she went out looking for a feckless thug who raped and beat her up.

[reelingintheyears]

Sorry you have this stuff in your life OP.....


It must make you despair of the future of the human race.

[motherinferior]

I got pregnant five months into a relationship. Frankly, we just had to take the plunge and get on with it, assuming that we'd probably stay together.

[ballstoit]

onemorechap if everyone kept their promises, there'd be no divorce and I wouldn't be looking at paying £9k to do my PGCE next year (cheers Mr Clegg).

If you want someone to give you a round of applause for paying for your kids and give your halo a quick polish, may I suggest popping along here.

[reelingintheyears]

motherinferior

I so hope you had a happy ending..

[LRDTheFeministDragon]

'I'm asking because I shake my head in disbelief that people behave like that.
It's like DV victims that go straight from one wife-beating shit to another.

Can they not see history repeating itself?'

Possibly not, sadly. This is a really awful topic, but as I understand it, it is quite well known that people who're abused often end up moving from one abuser to another - because they become conditioned to think it is normal and/or that they don't deserve better.

Re. children: yes, I agree it's best in theory for a man or a woman to look at their capacity to support a baby (though I'm not clear if/why men and women need to look for different things ... IMO it should be more to do with you personally than your gender). But some things can't be foreseen. DH and I could afford a baby, but I must be honest, if we had triplets or a baby with a seriously expensive disability, we would struggle. I don't know what the right answer is - should we wait until we're rich enough to provide for any eventuality?