To think if you get into a relationship with someone who has children then...

[TheLadyEvenstar]

You accept they are part of the deal in other words you can't have one without the other being involved in some way?

This has come from a discussion I am having on FB where someone has said why should a 2nd wife pay for a 1st wifes offspring. the discussion is about csa charges.

I believe that any woman who decides to date and marry a man who has children from a previous marriage has to accept that part of his money will always be going to cover financially for his previous children. This is just fair for the children. It may or may not be fair for the second wife, but she knows what she is getting into. It goes together with accepting the children into the "package".

Lyin -

certainly no more children able to be born to feckless parents who won't pay

And how are you going to organise that?

I don't think a new partner should be expected or obliged to contribute towards the upkeep of another man/woman's child, no.

However, I do think that a new partner needs to accept that any pre-existing children should be the first financial priority of their parent, and as such, any other plans for future children should factor that in. If you want to have children with someone who already needs to support kids from a previous relationship, then do not expect those children to go without just so you and their father/mother can have some more of your own.

When the Csa start taking the resident parents income and their partners income then start taking the nrp partners into account too.

But allthefires, the income of the resident parent whatever it is doesnt and shouldnt negate the NRPs responsibility to the DCs and thats what its about.

Responsibility is a word that is banded about as a stick to beat nrps with.
Maybe I would feel differently if the maintenance took into account the among of meals nrp provided when the resident parent refuses overnight stays yet is happy for bi daily contact and school pick up/drop off only when it suits, the refusal of resident parents to share basic stuff such as clothes like swim kits, and a whole host of other ways the nrps provides for his children do they don't suffer because of their mothers malipulation

Andrewofgg... If they're working, then wages 'garnished', if they're not then benefits cut. I truly don't care a jot at the hardship. It's very easy to prevent unwanted children being born. I know that it's not all down to the 'feckless fathers', there are 'feckless mothers' also, both have the responsibility to provide for the children they cause to be born, regardless of different partners. It's not right.

Step parents can provide financially to their non-biological children if they want to but if they have biological children, they are obligated to provide for those whether they want to or not.

Responsibility works both ways too. Nrp and second partners often work long hours to provide for maintenance for the children and any subsequent children. I know too many woman that rely on maintenance tax credits and housing benefits to support their choice to work part time hours even when their children are older.

I don't think a new wife should have to pay for her partners children from a previous relationship, but then I also don't think that she should be able to expect her dp to pay less if she has her own children, or goes on to have children with someone who already has them.

My ex has always given me roughly what the CSA said he should, plus half of any big expenses. Like we take it in turns to but school shoes, pay half each for school trips etc. My ex and his new dp have had another child, and he tells me that when their dd was born, his dp was expecting him to pay me less. Thankfully, my ex told her no way! My children don't suddenly eat less, or wear less or do less just because she decided to have children.

I was perfectly happy to accept that my DH had an emotional and financial committment to his children.
However - neither of us are happy that the court order that he paid (and I paid when he was unemployed and I was working) should have finished earlier this year (as agreed by all parties with legal advice 14 years ago) - only for exw to apply to the csa and get maintenace payments extended.

I was very happy to have one child live with us and support that child emotionally until he lied and stole and did things that meant I had to have a special number to quote to the police if I had to contact them in an emergency.

Although I agree with the spirit of this post - I am one of those terrible women who now does not want anything to do with one step child.

The other step child is a lovely young man and we have a very good relationship with him and are trying to give him a bit of help financially at uni - although hampered by the extended payments for younger child.

By the way maintenance is no longer taken into account against ANY benefit or tax credit calculation now. Hasn't been for last couple of years.

'paying for the first wife's offspring'

As I mum and step mum, she's not! He is. Yes if they move in together then it may seem as she is, but she's not. The child/children pre-date her. Does she pay for his mobile phone too??

Also, would she really want to be with someone who ignored their responsibilities to their children? Hardly a good indication imo. My xh has had nothing to do with ds2 (ds1 is his favourite) for years, no maintenance, very little contact etc, and I think he's the lowest of the low purely for that reason. Dh on the other hand pays maintenance religiously even when we're stoney broke and doesn't go through CSA so it doesn't get reduced when I had dd and now preg again.

If she feels that way now, then she should cut her losses. Being a step mum is hard work!! I've been with my dh for 6 years, since his dd was 6. It's the hardest thing I've ever done.

Dh on the other hand pays maintenance religiously even when we're stoney broke and doesn't go through CSA so it doesn't get reduced when I had dd and now preg again.

Good on your DH! That's the way it should be!

Agree with bubblesincoffee, that's exactly as it should be.

Sorry, Lyin, your post referred to

no more children able to be born . . .

and you don't say how you would achieve that - oly what you would do if they are. Attachment of earnings exists, with a floor beneath which pay cannot be cut. Deduction from benefit also occurs, but in respect of one child per man only - the same from a woman in the much rarer case where it would apply. I don't see how much further you can go, short of castration and sterilisation of the "feckless" and I don't think we are ready for that.

Sorry Andrewofgg... I wasn't thinking sterilisation, more along the lines that men (and women) who keep having children that they can't financially support should lose them - I mean through adoption. There are so many fantastic couples out there wanting children and being able to offer them a good, decent home.

I realise that I'm straying into 'benefits' and I don't mean to. The people I'm specifically referring to are the ones typified by the media, the men who father ten or more children, don't know how many they even have - and the women who allow themselves to be impregnated by men like this, they have equal responsibility.

Most decent people feel responsible for their children and wouldn't even need to be 'made to' support them, it's automatic. I just think that all children should have that as a right. No more parents who refuse to pay for their child's needs, completely unacceptable.

I posted too soon - I'm not sure with the attachment of earnings how that would work in reality if there is a limit, but with benefits, they should be completely withdrawn, personal property removed and sold maybe? I don't know but I'd really wonder at the mentality of a person who would allow carelessness and disregard to ruin their own lives.

I wasn't thinking sterilisation, more along the lines that men (and women) who keep having children that they can't financially support should lose them - I mean through adoption.

Jesus.....and I thought I was right wing! Sounds a bit too much like China's one child policy to me for my liking. So you get pregnant by accident. You can't afford it by some centrally laid down rules so get a visit from social services along with plod to remove your child. Sorry but it's not a society I'd want to be part of.

I know, it does, niceguy2, but please put it in the context of the man fathering 10+ kids... the financial side is only part of it, what about the emotional investment in bringing up and having an input to a child's welfare?

I did say in my post that I'm not straying into the benefits territory, I'm really not interested in it. My post was from the viewpoint of the OP, the biological parents of a child should be financially responsible for it, regardless of new partners coming into that child's life. That simple really.

squeky, I hear you but thats the way it is, its the law, you need to have eye open on this shit before you get married!

bubblesincoffee - why on earth would your ex tell you that about his new partner (and mother of his child). What a great way to ensure you hate her! I'd bet a large chunk of this months wages on it not being true either...

I'm the mother of his children too EMS23!

We still have a very good relationship, we are friends as well as co parents. We talk about lots of these sorts of things, I've told him the little problems we have as a step family (me dh and the dc) and he tells me about some of the difficulties he has being a step dad to his new partners dc from a previous relationship.

I think he told me partly because he wanted to do a bit of 'look at me and see what a good Dad I am'. Not in a bad way, but I think there is a small part of him that thinks I should be grateful for the fact that he gives me money and pays for more than the CSA would say he has to. It's never washed with me really, children cost what children cost, regardless of what the CSA say, but there are obviously reasons why he's my ex! But he was always very keen to reassure me that the children we have together would not be sidelined because he has another child and a new relationship. I'm grateful for that, because it did worry me while his dp was pregnant tbh.

I'm as certain as I can be that it's true, but whether it is or it isn't is irrelevant really. It makes no difference. I don't hate his new partner at all, I actually quite like her! But then all I'm really looking for is that we can be pleasant to eachother and that she is nice to my children. She more than does all of that, so there's no problem. My ex gets on well with my dh too. If anything ex's dp is the only one out of the four of us that is remotely uncomfortable with the situation, but as far as I know, that is mostly resolved now.

I posted too soon - I'm not sure with the attachment of earnings how that would work in reality if there is a limit, but with benefits, they should be completely withdrawn, personal property removed and sold maybe? I don't know but I'd really wonder at the mentality of a person who would allow carelessness and disregard to ruin their own lives.

Ruin their own lives??!!

I think your plan would ruin far more many lives than the 'crime' of having a child while on benefits!

If a mother and father split up, and the father meets someone new, then I don't think the new partner should have to contribute to the maintenance payments. That would be madness.

If the father and the new partner decide to have children between them, and say the new partner gives up work to be a SAHM, then despite the fathers income becoming the joint income, he should still have to pay maintenance.

However, I think the CSA do say that the maintenance should reduce slightly for each new child that is living in the NRP's house.

I know a lot of people think this is wrong, but the way I see it is, if the mother and father stayed together and decided to have more children, then the first child would be less financially well off anyway, as the income would be split between all the children.

I really don't think it is fair to expect a man to not father any more children in these circumstances. Obviously, those who have 15 children and are living off benefits is a different matter.