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 ··· 8 9 10 11 12 13

Original poster

Mothers income invisible? Child maintenance

315 replies

CocoEnglishChanel91 · 28/08/2015 08:58

Advice please. My boyfriend and I have no children. His son lives with his mum, who earns £20k a year, plus WFT Credits, Child Benefit - and is living with her new partner, a police detective sergeant who earns £50k. Combined household income (including benefits) pushing £80k.

My boyfriend earns £28k per annum, sees his son every week, has great relationship with him. He has to pay over £200 per month to his ex, and has the Child Maintenance people crawling over and vetting his income.

Yet the £80k going into his ex''s household is classed as not being relative. Surely it is?

He's not trying to escape responsibility for paying for his son. Far from it. He's paid consistently from the off (over 15 years ) but it seems ludicrous to me that his ex can have whatever household income she likes and that's not a factor.

It just feels very unfair to be, with everything seemingly weighted on his ex's side.

Why is the parent with care's income not relevant? Doesn't the child have two patents?

From people with experience is what I say about patents with care correct? And could it impact on me if we move in together?

Thanks

OP posts:

beaucoupdemojo · 30/08/2015 21:21

Osolea, are you Ian Duncan Smith?

SurlyCue · 30/08/2015 21:21

What do you mean osolea? How do you know what benefits people get versus the costs they have? Also what do you mean by "full" benefits?

3CheekyLittleMonkeys · 30/08/2015 21:23

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

3CheekyLittleMonkeys · 30/08/2015 21:24

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Osolea · 30/08/2015 21:28

A NRP is just as able to claim benefits based on his living circumstances and income as a RP is.

They can't claim them for the child and use them to subsidise themselves though, can they? Only one parent can claim enough housing benefit for a child.

Osolea, are you Ian Duncan Smith?

No. I have more hair.

By full benefits I mean full benefits. As in not top ups to cover a small portion of your rent or working tax credits to top up your wage. Enough in HB, IS, CTCs, CT that you can live without working.

Osolea · 30/08/2015 21:32

Beaucoup, I think it is a luxury to be a SAHP, and a SAHP chooses to take a big risk when they give up their job to be supported by someone else.

I don't think choosing to take that risk so that you can have the pleasure of staying at home with your dc should mean that your partner has to support you indefinitely, even after you've split and they need to provide themselves with a new home.

SurlyCue · 30/08/2015 21:40

I think it is a luxury to be a SAHP, and a SAHP chooses to take a big risk when they give up their job to be supported by someone else.

Yes it is also a luxury to have a full time 24/7 free childcare provider that negates your need to pay for or provide your own childcare for half the week (your half) it means you save the cost of that care and also have the flexibility to work early til late, do lots of overtime, travel for work, network, and generally build your wealth, pension and employability. All due to a partner who was willing to support you and care for your children so you could do that.

beaucoupdemojo · 30/08/2015 21:41

But it shouldn't be a risk taken entirely by the sahp even though it benefits both partners. That being the case the sahp shouldnt be financially disadvantaged in the case of a split. When you are married, you make life choices based on the idea that you are a unit. Those choices have life long consequences and divorce shouldn't mean that one party gets to opt out of the consequences when the other person still has to live with them.

StealthPolarBear · 30/08/2015 21:45

Exactly surly. Presumably it's a choice made by both parents reflecting how they want their family to work.

Osolea · 30/08/2015 21:46

Yes, how lucky all those parents that don't get to see their children every day are! I wish I could give my children away and just get them at the weekends.

Oh, hang on. No, I don't.

I forgot that when I was a SAHP it was all because I was so devoted to my ex and just wanted to make his working life easier. It was nothing at all to do with the fact that I wanted to be at home with my babies while they were little and it is irrelevant that I decided it would be better for my dc to have me at home when my ex wouldn't have minded whether they were with me or in in childcare.

StealthPolarBear · 30/08/2015 21:53

Ah well. I suspect a hell of a lot of women compromised their career or earning potential in order to raise their children as both parents felt best.

beaucoupdemojo · 30/08/2015 21:56

But I daresay he enjoyed the benefits of them being with you.

Dh and I both like that I sah with the dc. I didn't do it with his career in mind, but his career has benefitted from it. In turn, his increased earnings (from being able to work abroad/stay late etc) have allowed me to sah longer etc. Of course, there have also been downsides. But my point is that we are a team - sink or swim together based on choices we made.

Dh misses the kids when he is at work. That is one of the downsides to long working hours but he doesn't seem to want to swop with me

m1nniedriver · 30/08/2015 21:56

I wonder how many RP would accept less maintenence if the NRP reduced their hours at work so they had more free time to see their kids?

SurlyCue · 30/08/2015 21:57

Ok it is very clear you are projecting your own experiences and it seems you are getting angry and not willing to engage rationally so i'm going to leave this discussion with you.

However i will pick up on this point
It was nothing at all to do with the fact that I wanted to be at home with my babies

undeniably this is a factor for many parents. However there are also some who would love to return to work but the cost of childcare makes it unfeasible. It isnt always a case of wanting to be a SAHP. However if it is the case that you do want to be, this does not delete the benefits to your partner and their career of having 24/7 free childcare available.

SurlyCue · 30/08/2015 22:00

I wonder how many RP would accept less maintenence if the NRP reduced their hours at work so they had more free time to see their kids?

Loads do. It is exactly what happens when NRPs increase the time they care for their children. Common sense really.

lunar1 · 30/08/2015 22:00

This thread has gone in a bonkers direction!!

FWIW, I became a SAHM because dh got a job that meant we had to move away from friends and family so we had no support network. He was in a 5 year training programme, was pretty much on call 24/7 for lots of it and could never guarantee to be free for me to work. It paid off and he now has a fantastic career. If he'd fucked off after the 5 years of support I'd given him he would have owed me and our boys big time, I'm building my career again but it will take years and I won't ever get back to where I was. There is no way he could have achieved what he did without he sacrifices I made.

LobsterQuadrille · 30/08/2015 22:03

my ex wouldn't have minded whether they were with me or in in childcare

No, mine wouldn't have minded either. I had DD in a country where there is no welfare state, where the average mother takes six weeks' maternity leave (and there is no paternity leave) and consequently childcare, which is expensive, runs 52 weeks a year. If you unexpectedly become single, as I did, you don't have many choices. Maybe this is why it didn't seem that hard in many ways - once your options narrow and you have to get on with it and your ex H doesn't pay anything, nor does he want to see his child, you write him out of the equation.

Maybe I am lucky because I didn't need his money and I am damned if I'd beg for it. I feel lucky that I have had DD every day and night - no wondering where she'll be at Christmas or for holidays, no stepmother, no moving belongings back and forth between two houses. To me, these things are priceless.

NeedsAsockamnesty · 30/08/2015 22:04

They can't claim them for the child and use them to subsidise themselves though, can they? Only one parent can claim enough housing benefit for a child

That is because they are the NRP, the R in that stands for resident. If the child started living with them then they would be the resident parent and could then claim.

Osolea · 30/08/2015 22:09

Really Surly, I'm not getting angry, I just think there are so many variables that it's impossible to come up with a set of rules that can apply to every separated family and be fair to all of them.

I don't think NRPs should have to pay to support their exes if they never really wanted their ex to give up work in the first place but went along with it to keep them happy, but nor do I think SAHPs who were encouraged to Sah by their ex be left with nothing if they are left.

SurlyCue · 30/08/2015 22:10

What about your DD? Are they priceless to her too? I speak as someone who would gladly see my exp fall off the face off the earth. But for my children i am glad he has (finally) decided to be involved. It was very easy when he wasnt involved and DS knew no different. I knew where i stood and that i was getting nothing from him. But my DS didnt know his father. His other parent. Thats a big deal IMO.

Osolea · 30/08/2015 22:11

That is because they are the NRP, the R in that stands for resident. If the child started living with them then they would be the resident parent and could then claim.

The NRP still has to provide a home suitable for the children to stay in at weekends and on holidays if they want to actually parent though, don't they? I appreciate that not all do, but the majority of parents are decent and will want that. Only one parent gets state help though, so again, it is never fair to everyone.

NeedsAsockamnesty · 30/08/2015 22:17

I wonder how many RP would accept less maintenence if the NRP reduced their hours at work so they had more free time to see their kids?

Every single one that has a CM arangement worked out by official assesment or based on income.

NRP's income reduces then so does the CM.

According to gingerbread the majority of single parents recieve very low weekly amounts from CM and by low I don't mean £50pw (going by memory) if I remember correctly huge numbers of them get nil or £5/£7 dependant on if they have Csa or CMS assessments. And they have little to no control over how much they get because it it income and circumstance assessed.

SurlyCue · 30/08/2015 22:18

Well if you dont want your partner to SAH then you can always just carry on as if theyre not. Take children to childcare provider, leave work at 5 to collect on time, dont do any after hours networking, no travel for work etc. pretty much make sure your career is in no way improved by your partner SAH. That way they have no claim at all on support in the event of a split.

LobsterQuadrille · 30/08/2015 22:18

What about your DD? Are they priceless to her too?

Very fair point. However, when ex H moves to another country (not the country we were in when I had DD, and not the UK) and leaves no forwarding address, tries to force me to have DD adopted prior to that, tries to have his name left off the birth certificate .... you cannot force a father to be involved. I have no idea where he is. He could contact us but chooses not to. It hurt for a long time but DD is nearly 18 and is used to the set up. It's that "wanting what you have" thing - and acceptance that you cannot control what other people choose to do but you can control your reaction and how you deal with it.

m1nniedriver · 30/08/2015 22:25

Well DPs exw certsinly hasn't taken it well. Glad to hear there are some with sense

Flip

1 2 ··· 8 9 10 11 12 13