To ask for £900 per month

[Mumom0]

I had a 3.5 year relationship with a man with whom I have now split. I was a single parent working earning about 20 k and as I have 4 kids, also received £970 pm in WFTC. When he moved in I had to inform tax credits of his £35k earnings, therefore losing that money. I said he should pay me £900 per month so my family did not lose out ( this is after all what the govt consider I need to keep my family in basics ) .
He thought this was a lot, as with a previous partner they split the bills so only payed about £600 each towards outgoings.

Since we split he has implied that he kept us, which made me feel cross as I was independent before (admittedly relying on tax credits).

Was I unreasonable to expect him to make up the difference in lost benefits to support kids which are not his, or right to make sure I had money to provide for them?

Has anyone else been in this situation - what did you do?

Ywbu in only asking for 900. It should have been more to cover his expenses too.

I wonder how much he did at home, but even sharing, he also probably got a clean house, clean clothes and food on the table.

Separating finances and putting up with less would mean a mother and 4 children in poverty supporting a man with a huge disposable income.

And disparaging comments about any future partners were particularly nasty. Why shouldn't the op have someone else move in again, if he's a nice man who won't want to live off a single mother of 4?

You didn't say if the 55k was pre or after tax.
We used to have a combined income of 50k pre tax for me, SAHD (incapacity) and DS and it certainly wasn't loads.

Pps who say yabu to ask for that much

This thread has some hateful comments. I genuinely thought lone parents were respected on MN because they do a tough job in sometimes less than favourable circumstances but this OP is getting a roasting because she had the audacity four children despite nobody knowing where the Father is - OP could be a widow, the kids Dad could've left the country with an OW or anyone of the million things that happen in life. The government has established a system whereby despite the massive costs they want and encourage all parents to work and they do so by paying a proportion of the childcare cost. And let's not forget OP is a tax payer too so maybe less of the martyrdom of the tax payer might be called for

Because all absent dads pay child support.

bruthastortoise

Remember, 900 a month is more than a lot of people earn, it's incredibly stupid to make benefits this much just for having children

stop it all, and hey presto, Chantal would go on the pill.

With a bit of effort, you could be an even bigger idiot.

Do you honestly think that there are thousands of women out there popping out babies in order to get hundreds a month in benefits? DAvid Cameron and the Daily Fail have done a good job on you havent they?

What about children born into families who could afford them who's subsequently lose their jobs? Presumably you would see them starve?

who's parents subsequently lost their jobs.

Telling a partner they must replace your lost benefits when they move in isn't a good basis for a relationship. Sitting down and working out their TRUE contribution is. The former ties them into a cash cow, the latter treats them with respect.

I've noticed a tendency on mumsnet to treat men like naughty children who should consider themselves grateful to be housed and fed. As if they couldn't do that themselves.

And why compare what the man in the ops post was getting to his renting a two bed house? Why would he do that? As opposed to a studio or one bed, or rent a room? Basically with the op he was getting half of a shared room in a house with 4 kids, plus one sixth of bills and added to the weekly food shop.

I can see why many men wouldn't find this too brilliant. Maybe different if it was a ten year relationship and he'd had time to get used to the idea of bringing up someone roses kids. But as an immediate benefit replacement mechanism and cash cow? I think such generous benefits have slightly distorted the ops sense of entitlement. What a pity the situation in this country is so normal that people cannot pay for their own children.

SugarMouse1 You sound so very bitter and aggressive in your posts. The vitriol must be damaging your keyboard as you bash at those keys!

I lurked on this thread yesterday and wondered how long it would take to turn into a full benefit bashing exercise.

Fact is that life changes.
This country has a safety net for those situations....we are fortunate it does.
The OP didn't post anything about WHY she was alone with four children.
All she said was that she had four children, keep the vitriol for the fathers who might well not be contributing anything and have walked away.
Don't be nasty about the mother who is at least caring for her children.

My life changed out of all recognition two years ago and I live on benefits now. I cope but I refuse to apologise for needing to live this way at the moment.

OP, you have had a fortunate escape.....one household, one lot of financial income and all bills paid from it.

Remember, £900 is more than a lot of people earn

Well its a good job we have benefits then isnt it, how else would you support ypur children on a low income if your relationship broke down?

Childcare for 4 children if it is needed anyone?

Has the OP commented on whether she receives payment from her DC's father for her children? Because obviously it would be unreasonable to have two men supporting your children if we are talking about the sums the OP is. Or is this crucial information not considered important?

Sorry to miss the point, but Maybe different if it was a ten year relationship and he'd had time to get used to the idea of bringing up someone roses kids really made me chuckle, since some of those children would presumably be adults by then.

Dahlen you have missed the point. Which is that it takes longer than 3.5 years to produce 4 kids. So I think its asking a lot of someone unrelated to them to take on an entire family, in a shorter period than it took to produce them.

But in the magical world of mumsnet, I am sure there are loads of men just desperate to do that. Otherwise they'd be cunts, wouldn't they?

I think the trouble with this thread is that it got taken off on a tangent by the fact that the £900 being discussed came in the form of benefits. If the argument had been purely about what level the OPs X should have paid given his salary, the responses would have been a lot more consistent I think. The fact that his contribution was deliberately contrasted to what was lost in benefits completely skewed the debate and presented the OP in a less than favourable light, despite the fact that all she was really doing was trying to ensure consistency of lifestyle for her DC - something which all mothers should understand.

There is a second point to be had about the source of income for single parent families. The truth remains that unless you had the good fortune to be a particularly high earner before you became a single parent, most single parents cannot cope with the dual responsibilities of childcare and working full time unless they are lucky enough to have childcare provided for free by family or friends. Most single parents are going to need financial support from an outside source. The obvious and morally correct source is the other parent, but as already discussed, 60% of single parents receive no maintenance and of those who use the CSA, half of them receive the grand total of £5 per week or £0. And so we have a situation where single parents are twice as likely as coupled parents to be living in poverty and where most of them require state support to a greater or lesser degree. FWIW, the majority of single parents are in paid employment, and those benefits come in the form of housing benefit help and tax credits because their earned income is not enough to cover a basic standard of living.

In a world where all non-resident parents paid half of the costs of rearing their children, less state support would be necessary and someone in the OP's situation would not have to make the choice of relation and massive loss of income versus steady income and loss of relationship.

There are all sorts of reasons why that won't happen. Wanting to be in a relationship is normal for most people. Second families mean a non-resident parent may be unable to afford to live if he paid half of the true cost of rearing his child. The world is a complicated place.

IMO the only way around this is as a single parent is to choose a new partner very carefully. Asking a man to effectively become a parent to your child both financially and emotionally is a big ask and the effort should be respected and appreciated. You should never settle for anything less though, and if it is not freely given, you and your children really are better off without that person in your lives.

Lighten up LesMissAbs - I was pointing out a piece of unintended humour and conceded it was completely off point.

FWIW, although I don't agree with everything you say, I agree with you wholeheartedly that a situation involving 4 children should be taken incredibly slowly. 3.5 years to have met, moved in together and then broken up is pretty quick going. But circumstances vary and hindsight is a perfect science. None of us are perfect or immune from making decisions that turned out to be bad ones but seemed right at the time.

No worries dahlen and good post above. Except I think you are missing out a huge demographic swathe (but possibly one which doesn't spend much time on internet forums). There are of course plenty of women who earn a higher salary than the op and who go back to work full time. 'High earning' isn't restricted to men! And while the Op would be pushed with 4 kids, is that not what the wftc us designed to do?

We have created a society where the state or someone else is expected to pay for our life choices. Its not surprising it breaks down. I also wonder why the op has no vitriol for the father of her kids, but for a relatively short term partner who isn't their father, and who simply exercised his right to leave such a situation?

I earn more than the OP and went back to work full time pretty much immediately on having my DC. I didn't stop working full time when I became a single parent. I still could not have juggled full time work with full time childcare costs without some form of state subsidy (nowhere near as much as the OP but still essential, because even with that help I was literally going without food to pay my childcare).

There aren't a lot of single parents earning good money. That's a fact. 40% live in poverty. Less than 2% are home owners.

Didn't really answer your question there because you could be forgiven for thinking that high-earning career women don't suffer from family break-up based on what I've just written, which isn't true. It needs more explanation.

THat comes down to the fact - as it did with me - that a relatively high-earning career woman still requires a second parent and a second income to juggle childcare. When a relationship breaks down and that is no longer forthcoming, many women have to quit their high-powered jobs and scale down. Not least because it can be incredibly hard to find childcare that operates before 8am and after 6pm.

Not losing income when a new partner moves in is the bare minimum.

I'd certainly not allow my children and me to have less income so that I'd get a living in partner.
If the situation was reversed I'd feel the worst person in the world if I moved in with a partner with 4 children who ended up poorer because I had moved in, while I was pilling the pounds in the bank.

He's a twat, if you're still reading, OP.
And the pps who say YABU are BVVVVVVU.

Of course he should make up the differemce

I wish I was so wealthy that I could easily look at £900 loss of income and just brush it off as "the price to pay for having a man to live with"....

Us women, we should just be glad a man wants to live with us, and our offspring. We should just lick the table after his meals and pander to his every need, buy his food and cook and clean for him. Right?
Maybe pay his gym membership? Golf?

Expecting a man on a high income to pay his way, or even pay a little more than rent and outgoings, on his high salary, is just beyond, it appears....

I didnt even make that a.month.
Found ops posts quite confusing though with howmuch the bf was paying, but she hasnt come back to clarify

And it would serve you right for trapping him with your nasty, scheming, well used vagina Quintessential

How could any poor dear chap be expected to realize that moving in with a mother of four might mean the end of his bachelor lifestyle?

Coming in late here, and have skimmed.

I am not joining in the benefits discussion OP.

What I do not understand is the basis of the relationship that has now broken down.
When he moved in - was it to become a family unit? A couple who shared everything, and were forming a true family together? If so, then you were being unreasonable to ask for £900 - the total family outgoings should have been divided in half, and he should have paid his share based on reasonable division against available income. I have no doubt it would have been higher than £900. He would have been fully aware that you had no financial support for the children which were not his, but made the decision that you were going to be a family.

Or did he, in his mind, move in on a residential bonk basis? In which case he would have felt beggar all responsibility towards anything about the family as an actual unit.....financially, or morally.
He still got off cheaply, if his £900 covered room & board with live-in housekeeper and sex on tap.

The man is a louse. He patently always was a louse. Why let his remarks sting now!
Let it go, and move on if you are still reading

...trapping him with your nasty, scheming, well used vagina