Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To ask what would happen with maintenance in this situation

145 replies

MaceWindu · 28/02/2018 12:48

A and B are separated, have one DC. B pays maintenance to A.

B has another DC with C. C and B decide B will become a stay at home parent and C will go back to work.

What happens with maintenance for A and B's child together?

OP posts:
Felford · 28/02/2018 12:49

A gets nothing, assuming B doesn't work.

XJerseyGirlX · 28/02/2018 12:49

Watching with interest

Oswin · 28/02/2018 12:51

B has to pay nothing towards his child. Which makes him a scumbag. It's awful.

skilledintheartofnothing · 28/02/2018 12:51

Morally it should stay the same. otherwise B and C have taken a choice to make it easier for their family while disregarding the financial difficulty they would be leaving A and First Child in.

Infact i would think that B and C were possibly conniving dicks tbh

MirandaWest · 28/02/2018 12:51

A wouldn’t get anything. Cs income doesn’t have anything to do with what B pays to A.

ClaryFray · 28/02/2018 12:53

A gets nothing by law.

Morally however it's a shit show.

WidoWanky · 28/02/2018 12:54

My ex did that. The new wife worked while he earned nothing. Child maintenance was under a fiver a week for two kids. He was very proud of himself.

Oooeeeerrrrrindeed · 28/02/2018 12:55

Why does B have to be male?
It is an awful one. It looks as though B&C have made a financial decision to favour their child and disadvantage the child of A and B.
However SAHP is usually a short term prospect.
With all that SAHness perhaps to benefit the first child visitation could be changed to benefit A through saving on childcare (if relevant)?

stitchglitched · 28/02/2018 12:56

Morally maintenance should be factored in to their budget since their household will benefit from a SAHP and no childcare costs and it shouldn't be acceptable to make decisions that involve abdicating responsibility to one of your children.

Legally B can refuse to pay anything.

CoffeenoTea · 28/02/2018 12:56

unfortunately, A gets nothing. A could request that B does more school pick up over nights as now works won't get in the way.

Original poster
MaceWindu · 28/02/2018 12:58

B and C live 2 hours from A.

OP posts:
Whydomypubeslooklikeanest · 28/02/2018 12:59

My ex now does this and pays nothing because he looks after her kids while she works.

This was after he moved in with her and her children and then began paying me less because he was 'financially responsible' for her kids too as he was living there.

Child maintenance is a total joke.

Pseudousername · 28/02/2018 13:00

Just pondering really but is there a D in this scenario that A has a child with, or is A a lone parent?

Original poster
MaceWindu · 28/02/2018 13:03

A has a partner D, yes. D has three DC from a previous relationship for whom he also pays maintenance. A and D have no DC together.

OP posts:
LemonSqueezy0 · 28/02/2018 13:07

A could ask B to continue the payments but legally B doesn't have to pay anything. C could pay, but again legally doesn't have to. I believe under the old csa system C would have been obligated to pay.

Hopefully A and B have a decent relationship and can work this out in some way so the child/children don't miss out

Pseudousername · 28/02/2018 13:08

If B is proposing reducing or cutting financial support for their live-out child, then they really cannot afford to become a stay at home parent to their live-in child.

2boysDad · 28/02/2018 13:10

Couldn't "B" offer to take up the day to day care of the DC he has with "A". After all "B" is now a SAHP to one child, why not two. Then "A" would have more time to work.

Loving the gender neutral thread btw.

RebootYourEngine · 28/02/2018 13:11

Child maintenance is worked out using the NRPs wage so if they are not earning then no maintenance is paid.

stitchglitched · 28/02/2018 13:13

B lives 2 hours away from their kid. Not sure the child being disrupted and moving from their main carer and changing schools to facilitate the lifestyle choice of their non resident parent is really in their best interests.

CherryMaDeary · 28/02/2018 13:15

That is shit indeed.

Seems unfair that B maintains any parental rights in this situation.

2boysDad · 28/02/2018 13:21

Not sure the child being disrupted and moving from their main carer and changing schools to facilitate the lifestyle choice of their non resident parent is really in their best interests.

Maybe.. Maybe not. We don't enough to be able to answer that.

Doesn't alter the fact that B should make the offer and be prepared to do the childcare. It's the least they can do if they aren't going to contribute financially.

Xylo · 28/02/2018 13:23

Why would anyone do that to their child though?

People like that should'nt be having kids.

Notallthat · 28/02/2018 13:24

Legally B doesn't have to pay anything but B and C would have to be vile individuals to do that and hopefully would continue to pay maintenance as they were when B was working.

Original poster
MaceWindu · 28/02/2018 13:24

Because of the distance between A and D and B and C, DC of A and B would have to move to at least living with B and EOW with A. Up until now DC has lived with A, maximum contact has been EOW with B, although this has not been consistent on B's part.

OP posts:
MrsElvis · 28/02/2018 13:24

How interesting. And awful that parents would try to find a loophole to shake off any responsibilities