Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5

Original poster

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

105 replies

TheLadyEvenstar · 28/07/2011 22:15

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.

OP posts:

LyingWitchInTheWardrobe2726 · 30/07/2011 11:03

michglas... because they've fathered that child and the child has needs. Those needs don't just disappear because the custodial parent prevents access to the other biological parent.

michglas · 30/07/2011 11:07

Yes I get that but what happens if the mum pleads the father to leave her to raise the child in her existing marriage and refuses a DNA test, is it the dad's fault if he does just that and then finds out years later the child is definitely his. Should he be punished for not having paid throughout the years? I think we have been really reasonable paying for her phone contract for the last 2 years.

LyingWitchInTheWardrobe2726 · 30/07/2011 11:36

michglas... I understand exactly what you mean. For decent people, it wouldn't be an issue but this woman obviously doesn't fall in that category. For the sake of the children I think that paternity tests should be done as a matter of course, at birth by the hospital or for registering the birth or whatever. I'm just so disgusted by adults who don't act in the best interests of the children they choose to bring into the world. ;(

Whatmeworry · 30/07/2011 11:52

^Children are not pay per view.

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

Disagree. No taxation without representation, as it were. Too many abuses otherwise.

LyingWitchInTheWardrobe2726 · 30/07/2011 12:03

How about "You break it, you bought it" as an analogy? Does that work for you?

Whatmeworry · 30/07/2011 12:20

How about "You break it, you bought it" as an analogy? Does that work for you?

I have the option to take the thing home with me and repair it in that case.

fuzzywuzzy · 30/07/2011 13:03

I get CSA payments, it's based on exs income only.

NRPS should pay for their children it's the childs right over their parents to be financially taken care of throughout their childhood amongst other things.

A resident parents income shouldn't have any bearing on the fact that a NRP should pay for his children, because a resident parent is paying day to day care for their child anyway.

The end of a relationship is not the end of ones responsibility towards ones children. That includes financial responsibility.

The CSA payments I get contribute towards my children's upkeep, no way would my children be able to live on them alone, I contribute the bulk of the financial, emotional and physical support for my children.

When I reach a stage in life where I no longer need to incorporate CSA payments to the household pot, I will put them in a separate account for my children, so when they're old enough they will have a monetary contribution from their father to help them in life either towards uni or whatever. Because I know for a fact ex is not going to be there for them in any form if he can get away with it.

bubblesincoffee · 30/07/2011 21:03

but what happens if the mum pleads the father to leave her to raise the child in her existing marriage and refuses a DNA test, is it the dad's fault if he does just that and then finds out years later the child is definitely his.

Umm....YES! Of course it's the Dad's fault! If he believed that there was a child walking round that was his, he could have fought for a DNA test through the court, he could have told the husband who would presumably want to know the truth as well, he would fight for access!

Just because he chose to be weak and walk away doen't mean he shouldn't have to pay. The woman he had a child with sounds like a truly vile person, and I understand that your dh was in an awful position, but the fact that she was so horrible is all the more reason why he should have fought to see his child. How could anyone leave their own child in the hands of someone who could behave like that?

You ask, should he be punished for not having paid throughout the years. Really? You think having contact and paying for a child he Fathered is punishment?

Should the child he helped create and then walked away from be punished because his Father couldn't be bothered to fight to see him and his Mother is happy to use him as a pawn in her sick little games?

He is the only one in your story that deserves any sympathy.

DrCoconut · 30/07/2011 21:57

It seems odd that maintenance is no longer counted for benefits/tax credits assessments. Surely the idea is that the nrp supports the child so the state doesn't have to? This is not a dig at benefits or tax credits as I have been on IS before and get a small amount of extra tax credit since DS2 arrived (just on the £10 a week before). But say rp1 gets a good sum from an ex, works pt (doesn't need to do ft) and gets a load of tax credits based on that pt income only. As well potentially as free prescriptions etc. rp2 gets no maintenance and has to work ft to make ends meet. Despite having less money coming in s/he gets no or less tax credits than rp1. S/he also pays for NHS charges, doesn't get concessions at swimming and all the things rp1 enjoys. The first household has loads of time and money to devote to the DC, the second does not. That is unfair and needs addressing.

ThisIsExtremelyVeryNotGood · 31/07/2011 07:13

YANBU. Existing children should always be the first priority of all adults involved.

WRT NRP's new partners having to contribute, I do think there is a discrepancy in how it's dealt with by the "system".

I am a single parent. I work full time and receive tax credits both to top up my income and to make a massive contribution to my childcare costs.

If a new partner moved in with me and he worked, his income would be taken into account when assessing my tax credits, tax credits that I get on the basis of having children. My tax credits would be reduced, effectively forcing him to make a financial contribution to children that aren't biologically his. He would have to accept this as part of moving in with me.

If a new partner moved in and (for whatever reason) didn't have a job, I would lose all my childcare related tax credits, because tax credits say that he can care for the children (again, who are not biologically his) while I work. Again, both I and this hypothetical partner would have to accept this as a condition of him moving in.

So, as a RP my new partner's income/circumstances would be considered in respect of the state financial help I receive for my children, and they would have to accept that as part of being in a serious relationship with me. Why then are the income and circumstances of NRP's new partners not considered for CSA purposes?

In my own personal situation, I don't suppose I would want my XP's partner's income to be considered, I don't want her money. BUT, it is extremely frustrating that he can effectively live off her income and not work, meaning he is not required to pay maintenance, and there is nothing I or anyone else can do about it.

Andrewofgg · 31/07/2011 08:57

No, Whatmeworry, an RP has no right to say No access till you pay up and an NRP has no right to say No money till I get access. The CSA or whatever it is called this year ignores representations from NRPs about access and courts hearing arguments about access should ignore arguments about money.

Mirroire · 31/07/2011 12:23

Unfortunately there seems to be no "one size fits all" when it comes to maintenance issues. A system that is fair for one person may be grossly unfair for another. My DH has always paid the same maintenance for his dd, despite his earnings having gone down. We are now in a situation where our son is less fortunate than his half sister because we cannot afford to give him the lifestyle that she has.

Putthatbookdown · 31/07/2011 15:41

My parents split up when my sister and I were in our teens and we both how selfish they were- I think most but not all people who have children and divorce/split have a real nerve actually - with so many as soon as a little problem comes their way they cannot stand it. Of course there are genuine ones but most cannot stand the give you need to raise a family-they deserve all they get from the CSA.

Southernisle · 31/07/2011 16:33

Just using the calculator that links to the CSA website:

If xh earns £30,000 after tax, ni, pension contributions net weekly income would be approx £438, he would have to pay £88 per week for 2 children. £4,576 per annum to raise 2 children.

And men moan about this cost?!?!?

avoidingwork · 31/07/2011 16:39

Im having an issue with this...well, issue...at presenjt. It seems to be one rule for one and one for another.

I am the second wife and we have both contributed as best we can to dss' financial support.

His mother is now remarried and they all live in the new husband's house. He refuses to have any part in financial support (i.e dss has to "get off his arse and get a job", "stop sponging", "pay rent" )

I think if I marrued his dad and realised he is now part of my family and responsibilities, then that man should too...given he has married his mother.

LyingWitchInTheWardrobe2726 · 31/07/2011 18:28

I'm struggling to see what the issues are of the biological parents paying equal financial shares for their offspring? I don't think it should be up to the step-parents to pay but the biological ones should be MADE to.

If step-parents want to do something for their step-children, that's neither here nor there, the biological parents are obligated to find the money and pay it. That's the only fair system.

AmberLeaf · 31/07/2011 18:40

avoidingwork how old is DSS?

avoidingwork · 31/07/2011 19:31

16...just left school

HarperNine · 31/07/2011 19:39

Have only read op so apologies if already covered, but there was a series recently "you cant take it with you" with gerry robinson where some step parents would leave everything to cats, charity etc ... So maybe during life yes part of the package but in death no, it was an interesting watch!

Truckrelented · 31/07/2011 20:04

How does it work then if:

A father is paying the mother child-support for their two children.
The mother has more children with a new partner, would the two children from the first relationship have the money just for them?

Or would it go in the family pot? If it did wouldn't the father be subsidising the newer children?

pootlebug · 31/07/2011 20:06

Truckrelented, the father would carry on paying maintenance for his two children at the same level as before. What the mother does with the money (i.e. who or what she spends it on) is up to her.

Truckrelented · 31/07/2011 20:13

So it's likely the money the father paid wouldn't all go to his children but be split amongst all the children.

So the step-fathers wages, in my opinion, should be split amongst all the children as well.

AmberLeaf · 31/07/2011 21:09

avoidingwork Dont you think the new DH may have a teeny point?!

I know my mum forced encouraged me to get work once I was that age [just weekend/one evening as I was at sixth form]

Im assuming that newDH brings money into his home that DSS benefits from?

BreakOutTheKaraoke · 31/07/2011 23:07

I think a new partners income should be taken into account. Any children the new partner brings with her will be counted, and given a reduction for, and a new partner on the RPs side will be taken into account for tax credits, etc, they will be expected to be financially responsible for the kids. Why shouldn't it work the other way around too? Its yet another way things are weighted towards the NRP. At the end off the day, when people move in together they take on the households finances. Feeding and ensuring all children are clothed and looked after should be one of the priorities.

MojitoTime · 01/08/2011 00:41

Breakoutthekaraoke - if that were the case then it would still be unfair in a lot of situations. Eg husband and wife split up - Husband pays monthly maintenance of £200 for 2 years then meets a new partner. New partner earns the same as him, so under your ruling they would now jointly pay £400 to the ex wife. Ex wife remains a lone parent so still has full amount of benefits and is £200 a month better off.

Fair?

Flip

1 2 3 4 5

Swipe left for the next trending thread