my bfs other baby mommy

[Nicc21]

Please does it make me a bad person because i dont want mine and my boyfriends hard earned money to go to a woman that has kids for fun and borderline neglects her children???

It wouldn't be 33k anyway. If you applied now as if you'd never recieved any payments you'd get a whole years payments from now until April, which at £649 per week equates to roughly 10k per year.

that should read when not working, rgeardless of situation I should have deleted.

that is true Doin, as new claims begin april

maypole As the child's mother is a single parent on benefits, I'd have thought he'd qualify for free school dinners (assuming he's even started school yet).

lol at maypole's post and Richlinn's being next to each other.

Frankly, I think £50 a week for a child is very, very low.

It's not a fortune, no. But considering it's to cover half the costs of one under-5 it's not too bad. Assuming this woman's rent and council tax is covered by benefits, that she receives Income Support, that the father isn't exactly raking it in and that she receives money for her other three children, then she's not too badly off at all and she'd be wrong to complain imo.

Out of interest, how much more than £200 (+ Child benefit) a month does a 4yo cost to feed and clothe?

Well, it's a lordly sum if you think that children are only entitled to crumbs from the table if their parents don't live with them.

Which is basically the principle enshrined in CSA calculations. No one expects maintenance to be a realistic sum which actually makes a proportionate contribution to the upbringing of a child. They just expect it to be a token amount on the whole, a gesture rather than a real, significant contribution the way it used to be. So two hundred squids is a nice gesture, one I wouldn't sniff at (better than nothing, which is what most lone parents get) but it's hardly a "fair" sum for bringing up your child. And if someone does it so badly that they're not even worth that token amount, then , er, you should be seriously looking at doing it yourself.

I get the impression that these aren't exactly crumbs from the table though, not relative to the OP's household income.

A "fair" amount would be 50% or more of the money required to keep a child over and above that which the resident parennt would be spending anyway to keep themselves; so money for food, clothing, childcare, energy, housing, water... But the OP's partner can't afford that, so the state picks up the tab. I resent that tbh, although I can't see any acceptable alternative.

Jenai you don't just feed and clothe a 4 year old.

You arrange all your life around your children, if you are the primary carer. Your career, your housing, your social life etc.

Whereas if you are a secondary carer, you can much more fit your care of that child around your job, accomodation and social life. This means that secondary carers are more marketable than primary carers. Thus they are able to earn more money and accrue more status and assets than prrimary ones.

This is true whether the primary and secondary carers live together or not. Nowhere in maintenance payments is that recognised.

If parenting were merely about feeding and clothing kids, it would be easy and cheap and there'd be no such thing as a glass ceiling.

Jenai re the "wide lens"

Basil's post at 14:25 sums it up

Well I guess the acceptable alternative, would be for men and women to do 50% of the childcare, household work and paid work once the breastfeeding stage is over, so that they are both capable of looking after their child(ren) , less likely to get divorced anyway, but then do 50 50 childcare if they do get divorced so that no-one needs to pay anyone anything and both parties do a fair amount of parenting and get a more or less equal wage so the child is not disadvantaged in any household.

I await the fall of patriarchy and a shorter working week, so that that can happen though.

You see OP, the alternative to 'fathers' not paying their 'baby mommies' enough money to support the children that they've fathered is that taxpayers have to pick up the slack.

And I say no fucking thanks to that and a big yes please to making adults face up to the consequences of their actions.

Actually popping back on - I would like to see shared care as a default position - with no NRP and the needs of both households considered.

I agree with that too MJ, but - can - worms - all.over.the.place...

And I mean that it would bring out of the woodwork a number of NRPs who would rather stay just that, - present company excluded of course, including me...

If your boyfriend feels that the mother of his child is neglecting said child, then might I suggest he applies for custody?

Otherwise - children need to eat. They need clothes. They need a roof over their heads. This costs money. If this is a problem to someone, then they should think most carefully whether or not it is the right thing for them to be in a relationship with someone who has children. You see, when you are with someone who already has children, then you have to accept that supporting that child goes with the territory and this will inevitably mean that it 'eats into' the money available. That's called Having Children.

But please, may I ask one thing - no more "baby mommy". This is not the Jerry Springer show. This woman is the mother of his child.

Well the deed has been done. Your BF made a baby and he has to take responsibility for it. If the baby mommy was doing it for the devious means of making money your BF should have been clever enough to see through it and use some condoms.

Well, you don't just feed and clothe children. Depending on the condition of the local library, there's the occasional book to buy. There's shoes. There's outdoor clothing. There's keeping the house warm. There's bedding. There's a child's bed. There's electricity. Depending on where you live (the difference it makes living near charity shops with fair pricing is unbelievable), and whether you have internet access, there are potential savings to be made, sure.

That makes perfect sense to me Basil - and is pretty much the set up I (and a lot of my friends) have. If we conveniently ignore the months/years when we put our careers on hold that is (I don't live in that ideal a world!). If we were to split, I'd expect a similar set-up with ds living 50/50 with me and his father if at all possible (and if ds preferred that solution).

But in this case, the baby's parents have never lived together and considering that the mother then went on to have another 3 children within such a short period, it seems unlikely that she's going to be contributing much herself paid-workwise. There is no way the OP's partner can pay the full cost of raising this child basically.

How much do people think he should be paying?

I would like to see shared care as a default position for all couples with children who live together.

Then shared care would also be a continuation of the status quo if those couples split.

However, where shared care is not being done when the couple live together, then it is completely unreasonabel to argue for shared care default poisition when the couple split. Children need stability and continuation of what they're used to and if one part of the couple hasn't invested as muhc time and emotional energy into the parenting of the children as the other has, but has actually benefitted from the free labour of the other person, by being enabled to earn more and prgress in their career at the expense of their partner's career, then it would be outrageous to reward that lack of investment in the care of the children, with joint care and control.

I have no problem whatsoever, with the notion of a default joint care and control of children, where shared parenting has actually genuinely taken place within the relationship while the relationship lasted. In fact, that's my ideal scenario. But at the moment, the lion's share of childcare, is still done by women and if men want 50 50 custody, then they need to step up to the mark and do 50 50 parenting while they're actually living with the mothers of their children. And if that happened, there'd be fewer divorces anyway IMO.

I do the majority of childcare for our DCs because someone has to care for them and someone has to work and I had the more family friedly employer.

If we split (which I hope will never happen) DH would want 50/50 care - because as much as he can within the confines of his employment and I would allow it.

I am a co-sleeping extended breast feeder - but DHs contribution to their upbringing is as valuable as mine, he works to support us and that includes supporting me to mostly be at home

And this is where I see the aims Of feminism creating a fairer life for all, irrespective of gender.

It doesn't matter who provides more "childcare" but whether both parents contribute to their childrens upbringings equally - albeit in different ways.

A lot of posts deleted by MN here. I think the best advice is go to
-C.S.A
-social services
-Jeremy Kyle
-C.A.B
-a solicitor
I also think Nicc21 that you should really take a look at your bfs morals, I think that if he really cares and worries, he should do more. Forget about the ex's moral standing, let the Social services and so on deal with her, and find out more about full residency with you guys?????

the free labour of the other person, by being enabled to earn more and prgress in their career at the expense of their partner's career

You see his loses me - I think dh has the raw end of the deal - he would absolutely love to be at home with DCs rather than in work - and I know many of my friends husbands feel the same.

To call being at home with DCs free labour, insults the role of the carer as well as the role of the person providing - neither is worth more than the other.

and AF I like your opinions but I don't think think disliking your partners ex - or indeed your exes new partner - makes anyone a misogynist.