Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

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:
CherryMaDeary · 28/02/2018 13:27

@2boysDad

But we do know enough. B lives 2 hours away so of course they can't do daily childcare, especially if they'll be looking after step DC.

Trendy1 · 28/02/2018 13:29

Oh Gawd, this reminds me of school lessons that go "If child A had two sweets and B had two cakes, how many books would child D have!"

Sorry to have a laugh, but honestly, would you want to have B and C in your life at all. I would say - no money = no contact.

FizzyGreenWater · 28/02/2018 13:31

Awful people.

Obviously this would never happen, and the fact that it wouldn't is probably a major reason DickB and DickC are pulling this stunt, but I'd simply love to be a fly on the wall if A turned up at theirs with the DC, unloaded their stuff and announced that they'd hada lot of overtime come up, so they'd be back in three weeks to pick DC up - 'What a relief to be able to do this now that I have a SAHP co-parent'.

dicks, total dicks.

worridmum · 28/02/2018 13:31

because its gender neutrual i think B is a female but hey the gender doesnt matter they are still scumbags for not supporting their first child.

Original poster
MaceWindu · 28/02/2018 13:31

Sorry, Trendy, couldn't think of how else to keep it as neutral as possible!

OP posts:
prh47bridge · 28/02/2018 13:32

As others have said, unless A could prove deliberate deprivation of income (i.e. the decision that B will be a stay at home parent was intended purely to avoid any liability for child maintenance) or B has substantial assets, there would be no legal requirement for B to pay maintenance in this situation. B can, of course, continue to pay maintenance voluntarily but they cannot be forced to do so.

Original poster
MaceWindu · 28/02/2018 13:36

C says she will not be having money coming out of her salary to pay for "someone else's child." End of.

OP posts:
Pseudousername · 28/02/2018 13:43

Presuming you are A, given C's response I think you know what will happen then - no financial support from B.

If you are B then you obviously can't afford to give up work to parent your second child if your twatty partner has that sort of attitude towards your first-born.

Notallthat · 28/02/2018 13:43

If that is Cs stance and B goes along with it I'd be very concerned about how A&Bs child was treated at B&Cs home tbh. If B isn't fussed I'd stop contact, won't be good for a child to spend time with people who care so little for their welfare and are happy to show it so obviously.

Pseudousername · 28/02/2018 13:44

Oh, and if you are C you are a massive twat.

steff13 · 28/02/2018 13:49

So, there's no financial support? Even though the absent parent willingly gave up his job? That's not how it works here in Ohio.

worridmum · 28/02/2018 14:01

yeah some states rules of insane though you have to pay child support even if the child is not yours if you have had your name put on the birth certificate (no legal requirement to tell perspective parent) mother does not need to tell said father for 2 years then wham he now HAS to pay child support for "his child" even if biologically or legally its not his oh and the mother can claim back dated CS for the 2 years she didnt tell the "father".

In other states the father has to pay more if the RP decides she wants more children and leaves her work it is not a set %. But this is a state by state thing each state is different some are much fairer then others.

OnionKnight · 28/02/2018 14:02

I don't think you can stop contact because B becomes a SAHP, someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

It does suck though that B can do this.

Abouttoblow · 28/02/2018 14:04

B (and C) need to realise that B can't afford to be SAHP as B has a child to support.

worridmum · 28/02/2018 14:04

DNA tests proving the child is not yours after the 2 years is meaningless as if you have not challenged the birth certificate in those 2 years the child is your responsibility (even if you were not told you had been put on the birth certificate as in some states only the mother needs to be present and she can say what ever she wants and in these states there is also no legal requirement to tell the man if hes on the Birth certificate so he does not even need to know about the 2 year countdown to become liable.

RockPaperCut · 28/02/2018 14:17

B and C are massive twats.

Of course they should continue paying CM. There really needs a to a huge overhaul in how maintenance is treated and it should not be allowed to be optional.

Original poster
MaceWindu · 28/02/2018 14:18

Could B push for main residency in this situation if being a stay at home parent goes ahead? Two hour journey between A and B, DC has always lived with A.

OP posts:
stitchglitched · 28/02/2018 14:20

How can B have main residence if C isn't willing to contribute to the costs of the child and is the only earner?

Belindabauer · 28/02/2018 14:23

This happened to me B pays nothing.
They are not going to want full custody are they, they don't want the responsibility sad but very common.

NewYearNewMe18 · 28/02/2018 14:26

Yes B could, and claim maint from A as well.

stitchglitched · 28/02/2018 14:30

B can ask for what he likes but they aren't going to remove a child from their main carer and disrupt the status quo just because his circumstances have changed.

steff13 · 28/02/2018 14:32

Did I miss something, is there a question as to whether the child in question is B's child? What's with the DNA info?

NewYearNewMe18 · 28/02/2018 14:33

How old is the child out of curiosity.

Can we clarify if A is in full time employment

We've established B is female - and at home as a SAHP in a child rearing role. If B can demonstrate that she was perhaps coerced into leaving the child with A, or can now offer the stability required, judges nearly always back the female

stitchglitched · 28/02/2018 14:35

I don't think the DNA info is relevant, worridmum just likes to pop up to remind people how unfair things are to men.

C is female, B's sex hasn't been mentioned.

missiondecision · 28/02/2018 14:36

Are you c??