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.

[exoticfruits]

Once you have DCs they are part of the package-no ifs or buts.

[bubblesincoffee]

Pioneer, a Father or Mother does have the right to have more children with new partners, but it isn't the same as if they were having new children together. If they want to have children as part of a new family, that means two lots of housing costs, the hand me down situation usually stops etc.

I don't think it's wrong for a parent to have a child in a new relationship, but it is very very wrong if they expect their child to suddenly go without something or for their ex to have to struggle for money because of the choice to have more children.

[Pioneer]

Yes I completely agree they are part of the package, but if you are a non resident parent and you have been paying, lets say, £300 a month for 5 years, and then you meet someone with a good job, should your new partner then have to fork out money too? Or should you then have to give more money in maintenance just because you've got a new girlfriend?

I don't think so.

[Pioneer]

I don't think that would ever be the case though bubbles, because the amount that the CSA recommend maintenance is reduced by is relatively small.

Obviously if an NRP was to halve the maintenance or something then that would be very wrong.

FWIW my DH continued to pay the same amount of maintenance to his DD when our DS was born - I was quite happy with this as I wouldn't have dreamed of her livelihood being affected by our choice to have a child.

[kat2504]

I think Pionner is spot on. Yes, the non resident parent has to pay maintenance and any new partner will have to accept this is a non-negotiable part of their household budget.They need to think about affording the maintenance if/when they plan to have children together. But I don't think my boyfriend should have to pay double maintenance now that I have moved in with him, that would be bonkers. He should carry on paying the same as before. What if I earnt £100,000 a year? Should his ex girlfriend suddenly get 15 % of this? Fortunately the CSA does not work in this way.
If we have a child together, he will get a very slight reduction in his CSA payments. Just the same as when a couple have a second child together, there is less income per person in that family. The reduction in maintenance would be quite small. Nobody told the child's mother not to have a baby with her new partner in case finances got tighter at home.

[LineRunner]

Oh FFS it's only the father's income that counts.

[basingstoke]

What about when the NRP gives up work to be a SAHP to children of second marriage?

[Pioneer]

Then they would have no income and would therefore pay no maintenance.

[LineRunner]

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaagh

[x2boys]

definatley only fathersioncome taken into account my dh pays 15 percent of 80percent of his wage as csa disregard 20 percent due to our two children and they dont take my income into account at all

[muminthemiddle]

I agree with lyingwitch
Parents should pay for their biological kids. If everyone was made to do this then all would be fair surely.

[hairylights]

Tabby.

But it's the father, nit the new wife, who is assessed by csa isn't it? This was the case for me and my ex.

[hairylights]

Yanbu not "tabby" (wtf)

[basingstoke]

I know what the rules are. I thought this was a thread about moral imperatives rather than regulations.

[LyingWitchInTheWardrobe2726]

This, Basingstoke? "What about when the NRP gives up work to be a SAHP to children of second marriage?"

I'd say that if the NRP can still afford to provide for ALL of their children then there's no problem. If they can't, then what are the first batch of children supposed to do? Stop eating?

That was the point I was trying to make earlier and not doing it very well... your biological children are your financial responsibility until they cease being children, whatever other life plans you have. That's my take on it anyway. You don't neglect your children from a previous relationship because you have 'new ones'. That's disgraceful and I can't understand how any woman would be happy to make more children with somebody who absolves themselves of financial responsibility to their other children.

As Muminthemiddle makes the point, if everybody is bound by that provision to pay for their own children, it would be fair and it would work.

I don't know if that's what you meant by 'moral', but it's what it means to me.

[EMS23]

Bubblesincoffee - I'm sorry, I didn't mean to negate your role as mother of his children too - of course you are!

Your post rang true to some parts of my life which is why I picked up on what you said as my DH has a similar relationship with his ex as you have with yours and I'm fairly sure I occasionally get painted in a bad light so he can make it seem like he's "being made" to ask her/ do things that she may not like. It infuriates me and he does it the other way too but by keeping us both as far from each other as possible he gets away with it!
I'd like to have a friendship with her - we have children by the same father FGS but he just won't have it and yet I'm sure he makes out to her that it's me that would be uncomfortable. It's infuriating!

Anyway, FWIW, my DH pays way over what CSA would ask of him for his DS. Not "to his ex" - it's for his DS. That's an important distinction in my mind.
I always knew how much it was and until we got married that was entirely his business.
Since we got married we've been very much joint on all money matters and so that outgoing is also mine. Right now my DH doesn't work but I do so if you want to be precise, I'm paying for my DSS. But that's only fair, he's as much my responsibility as he is my DH's (in my mind) and if my DH were to die I'd continue paying it.
Of course, circumstances change and we might review the amount we pay but not because we now have a DD ourselves. His ex has also gone on to have another child and moved her partner in - maybe that will mean we pay less but my DSS still eats/ wears/ consumes the same amount so his money can't really go down without him being negatively affected. The only variable I see is that he now spends a lot more time with us - perhaps for that reason I'd like to pay a bit less as we genuinely spend more on him as he's with us more now.

Argh, it's minefield and there can't be a one size fits all solution because all situations are different.

But, as someone pointed out earlier - I deifnitely could not be with a man who shunned his responsibilities to a child from a previous relationship. I love my DH because he is such a good father. I was very lucky to know what kind of father he would be to our child before we even had her.

[AnitaBlake]

I find it interesting that even in the situation where each parent has the child 50% of the time, there is still a 'non-resident' parent who has to pay maintenance to the 'resident' parent if that person so chooses to apply.

And for those who say that if the NRP and new partner have a child, the maintenence shouldn't reduce, how would you make this fair if the PWC has more children? That household income per capita would also reduce, with an impact to the first child. Should the PWC ensure they increase their income in this case?

There are just so many variables, the CSA takes one word over another, if the PWC fauls to report a change in circumstances, for example the NRP has the child overnight more, the NRP loses money that is needed to care for the child. But there is no comeback on the PWC, whereas if the NRP fails to report an increase, they will persue them to hell.

I actually know a PWC who is being chased for arrears incurred when they were the NRP. The 'benefactor' of the money is now only allowed supervised contact due to extreme PAS, and pay no maintenance at all, and yet is allowed to persue 'arrears' built up while the chilld wasn't even in her care!

[bubblesincoffee]

EMS23 - you are right, lots of what you say rings true to me as well with our situation!

I do seem to bang on on here about how well my ex and I get on, but it hasn't always been like that and it does have it's ups and downs at times.

I especially understand where you say you feel you have been painted in a bad light and that your dh feels more comfortable with you and his ex being kept distant from eachother. My ex is like that too. And while I can understand why he feels a bit wierd about us having a friendship, at the same time, I can't really see what harm it would do. It's like he thinks we would start chatting about what he's like in bed or something! On the few ocassions we have met, we both seem to have gone out of our way to be overly nice and respectful to the other.

I know that especially in the beginning of their relationship, by which time I was living with my dh, he definately painted me in a bad light to her. I don't know exactly what he said, but I feel like I was made out to be some kind of super money grabbing bitch to her, which isn't the case at all. It shows how lovely and understanding she is really to have listened to that and still not have anything against me.

It's lovely that you still pay for your dss, even though your dh isn't working atm. I honestly don't know what we would do in that situation as my ex and his dp aren't married, and she is a SAHM anyway. I suppose we would just struggle, because I do genuinely need the money that I get from my ex. You are right that there is a big distinction between the money being for me or for my dc, and I know for a while my ex found that difficult to get his head round. Especially when my dh and I first got together, as he treated me to a lot (as men in new relationships do) and I'm sure it was hard for my ex to give me money then know that I was going for an expensive day or night out. Wherever possible, I have tried to get my ex to pay for things directly so they can see that I'm not just spending his money on luxuries, so he gives me cheques made payable to the swimming lesson people or whatever.

I was very lucky to know what kind of father he would be to our child before we even had her

This is another really nice thing to read, I hope my dp's partner was able to feel like that too, especially as I know she was let down so badly by the Father of her other children.

It's very sad when there are problems within these kinds of relationships, because I'm sure what we ultimately all want is the best for our children. I would always do anything I could for my ex's child and step children, we are all part of the same famiy after all. And they are important to me - they are my childrens half sister and step siblings.

[michglas]

I really don't agree that both biological parents should be made to pay until the child is 18, what if one biological parent is pushed out by the other through no fault of their own?

[bubblesincoffee]

Michglas, then the child still has to be paid for! It wouldn't be the child's fault either if one of their parents was pushed out, why should they have to go without because of their parents?

Or do you think one parent should live in misery and stay in an unhappy relationship just so that they can afford school uniform and put food on the table?

[michglas]

Okay bubbles, so before we met DH when he was younger had an affair with a married woman (slept with her once). She went onto have a child, he begged her to find out if it was his, let her be involved with the child, leave her husband etc. She told him in no uncertain terms she was raising the child with her husband, and that he was to walk away and leave her to it. He then met me and we evantually moved away.

Roll forward 13 years and the child gets in touch with him as it is now pretty obvious the child is his. The mum had left her marriage and the child has now had a whole string of 'father' figures in her life. He goes to visit and asks to be involved and the mum turns pretty nasty, and makes it clear he is to have nothing to do with the child.

The child then turns 14 and she wants to get to know him again, a dna test is done and the child is his. The mum made it clear to DH that he could only be involved with the child if he is romantically involved with the mum again. The mum turned on him and said that a long-distance parent thing wasn't going to work and her child wanted nothing to do with him, if he wasn't going to be part of their family properly. The mum is now getting married again, after having 3 seperate engagements in the last year, and the child has made it clear that this new man is her dad and not DH. In the meanwhile we have been paying £45 for a contract phone for the child.

However, I have DD1 who is 15 and DH took her on as his own and we made it clear that the same rules apply for them both. We said that when they turn 16, we will not be paying their phones as they are old enough to get a part-time job to pay for their own. The mum is full of threats about how lucky we are she didn't go to CSA etc. I don't think it's right that one biological parent can hold all the cards and on one hand refuse DH anything to do with their child because he's turned the mum down, but on the other demand payments.

[ChaoticAngelofGryffindor]

Children are not pay per view.

Residency/access and maintenance are, and should be, two separate things.

[michglas]

I didn't say it should be pay per view, but why should a biological parent pay when they have been pushed out the whole way through that childs life.

[LyingWitchInTheWardrobe2726]

Bubbles... the woman sounds horrible, she's not doing right by her daughter at all. Did your DH consider getting legal access to his child? The mum seems vengeful and full of empty threats... if she'd gone to the CSA, that would surely have established the relationship and she didn't want to.

I'd like to see mandatory paternity testing in this country. Most couples wouldn't bat an eyelid and it would protect people like your DH and also the countless children who don't know who their fathers are. Awful. Even if your biological parent isn't going to be in your life, you can at least know who that person is.

[LyingWitchInTheWardrobe2726]

sorry, that was for michglas, not bubbles.