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???

Its not anger Willow, its real life and experience.

Many of us have been both the single mum AND the step parent, I have, and as I said above this isnt bitterness, its tough love.

Being a parent aint easy whichever way it happens and the sooner the OP appreciates that her OH is a father and that he has certain responsibilities, the better. And still there has been no word on applying for full residency....

Being young and new are no excuse. I could have sympathy, really I could, If the OP showed any sympathy for the child involved. Instead she has just dragged the mother through the mud and whinged about the money. She has said nothing anywhere on the thread to correct peoples opinions, reinforce the facts or clarify the situation. She has my back right up, and she neednt have, if she had shown one ounce of compassion.

In all honesty I can say that if I knew a woman on benefits with several children who went out on the prowl all the time instead of taking care of them, yes I would judge her. I'm sorry, but I would. And I would encourage his father to file for custody. He's just a little boy and needs a stable home environment, which he has every right to, and also has every right to be supported by his father.

So you are and are not being unreasonable, in my opinion.

Just to answer AF - you may legally become a step parent with marriage - but in my humble opinion - you become a step parent when you start acting as a parent - I consider I was step parent to dss and dsd long before I married their dad, but I will never consider myself anything to sd1 - as she was an adult and choses no relationship with me - to me she is just DHs daughter and inam sure that all I am to her is dads wife.

I never said that benefits are stopped, I said that they get £2.50 a week. For some reason, despite claiming together my brother has had £2.50 taken from his benefits and put into his partner's benefits, so I know they do the £2.50.

Also agree that you don't need to be married to be a step parent.

I hate this attitude that if you say anything bad as a step parent that you must hate your step children. I love the boys dearly but I don't love some of the things she does (and yeah, some of it affects me directly), she's not them and loving them unconditionally (which I always will regardless of if I'm with their dad or not) does not relate to my feelings towards their mother. (I actually get on better with her than his sister because she doesn't blame me for not being her or wish I was...)

Maybe your friend recommended this site to you hoping to open your eyes and your heart?

I hope she takes the bull by the horn, and takes him to court.

To the OP

YABU - if your partner doesn't pay then the taxpayer does - that's everyone on here.

You knew your DP had a child when you started a relationship - live with it.

If the child is on the at risk register (or even if the others are but not him) then I would have thought that was reason enough for his father to to apply for permanent residency. End of problem. However, in the meantime...

If he has serious reason to believe that the £200 is not being spent on the right things that directly benefit his son, then he should take it up with social services or try to see if you can pay for rent/food/clothing directly. Other than that, there is not much he can do but suck it up. He is probably subsiding some of her other children as well, but hey-ho, what can you do? It's one of the many down-sides of having unprotected sex (and subsequently children) willy-nilly with people you were never truly committed to.

I'm really uncomfortable with reading that the OP should post in Step-parenting for a sympathetic reading of her bad behaviour. What the hell are you guys thinking over there? The Op's BF is presently providing £10 a day for the child - and complaining about it. The OP is expressing opinions she has no business holding re the mother's sex life and although there are concerns about the child's welfare neither she nor BF seem moved to get off their arses and ensure the child's safety by seeking to have him permanently with them.

My sister is a step-parent. I know it's an oft frustrating life - but frustration does not justify every example of bad behaviour.

subsiding, not subsiding.

sashh hear hear.

OP YABU- you knew there was a child before you got involved. The child wasn't going to magically disappear. Of course your DP should be paying for his child.

NorthernLurker no-one on the SP board is going to be telling the OP that she's doing it all right, I'm sure.

I agree she's going in with entirely the wrong attitude, but everyone derserves the opportunity to ask how to get it right.

If the OP posts in SP she will still be told there is a need to pay maint - but by people who understand a little better about why she feels as frustrated as she does.

There is more than 1 way to get a message across.

As for the You are right - the chances of you getting residency are slim why would that be??
The children are on CP register, there are clearly concerns about the children, even if mum isnt guilty of anything, SS have enough evidence to put them on.

Because experience tells me that the courts are extremely reluctant to change the status quo, if SS haven't removed the child it is unlikely the family court will.

Maintenance payments aren't taken into account when calculating benefits, though I think the plan is that they will be from next year. Just to hammer home that this government really hate women.

When did we all start saying baby-momma btw? I've seen it loads in the last month. It makes me stabby. Has it come into fashion again?

in my experience, if there is a child at risk, they are more likely to give him to dad if there is a chance of removal, espcially if ss are in support of it too.

Maint payments should be taken into account - thats nothing to do with hating women (and I say that as a single parent).

SS aim to keep families together - removal is a last resort.

Sorry hit post - single parent for 5 years.

Yes at the moment the DSS will get the maintenance - it is disregarded for benefits purposes.

Well, just to set the cat amongst the pigeons, because I can - I've just used directgov benefit calculator. Assuming I am an LP but using all other truthful data: child ages, my salary, associated childcare costs and declaring I have a mortgage (not rent)..... and I would get the magnificent sum of £649 pw from the state under the guise of tax credits - that equates to £33.7Kpa -all tax free if I were a LP. That would be on top of salary, which is better than national average.

Now I know why people don't work and keep chucking out kids. They're a lucrative little money earner in some quarters.

I can see why the OP feels she is working to keep someone elses child because I bet the tax credits don't reduce because of maint payments.

Morning all, just coming back to this.

Are there actually a couple of posters unthread recommending this DP goes to the CSA to get the measly £200 he pays to support his own son REDUCED to £2.50.

Surely I cannot be reading that a mother would recommend that about any child?

No you have read that wrong.

I will say however that sometimes going to the Csa means the NRP has some control if they genuinely have concerns.

OP ,because you asked AUBA ,well,if you summarise all the answers,you can conclude yabu and take it from there. Take it as a positive thing (ADVICES),cause lots of the ladies ,as i said previously,have/are going through tough time with exP or exH.

Sorry my phone is playing up

Genuinely has some control over where money is spent - can provide, food, clothing essentials.

That may or may not be necessary.

The situation I find most ridiculous is where CTC etc paid on behalf of one child, are attached and paid over to another child, particularily when there are no "joint" children and where there are high levels of contact.

So say a 40/60 split, in 2 low income families, where the NRP is receiving 100% of all benefits HB, WFtC, CB, Ct, and maintenace, while the NRP is sharing a significant proportion of costs (including housing them) and time with the children, but the NRPs partner is having the CTC paid for her children handed over to the first family as well.