To ask what would happen with maintenance in this situation

[MaceWindu]

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?

Eases his conscience but whatever way you look at it, removes a child from their main carer for no good reason, changes childcare, schools, moves in with other children etc. Fine if mum is ill or genuinely unable to cope, but utterly unreasonable to engineer this situation. Hardly ‘best interests’.

Removed from main carer is a bit emotive, they're not being abandoned in a field, just switched to someone who on paper is supposed to be equal.

Not moved for no good reason, but so that the child lives in a (possibly) wealthier home with a full-time SAHP who might be able to give them more attention, both good things. Which could be negated by him being a considerably worse parent, but we don't know that.

Moving home once in a childhood has a cost, but it's one that could easily be offset by benefits.

Not sure how I got into a position where I'm trying to argue his case, obviously I (like everyone else) have no idea what's best or fair, as don't have full information.

I guess I just find it a bit unreasonable that when a man is ostensibly volunteering to be a full-time carer for children, that's necessarily him being a dick. (Given all the circumstances, it's a possibility, I admit. )

He lives two hours away and he has had DC a handful of times overnight. There is no way he is getting any more contact than he already has.

@Firesuit I’m glad in the real world decisions such as where a child should live, are not based purely on who has the largest bank balance.

Because let’s face it, a huge percentage of usually mums, who have had their earning potential curtailed by having the temerity to give birth and subsequently take maternity leave would lose care of their child due to not earning as much as the NRP.

What age is the child he is looking after full time? If he is able to do that, he might be an arse but still be a good carer to his 3 yo as demonstrated by ability to look after another child.

Why should he not have more contact, apart from the 'money', what has he done to not see his child more? It could be good for the child.

God could you imagine children being removed from their main carer because their other parent became a SAHP. Way to punish lone parents who have no choice to work, sometimes under threat of benefit sanctions.

If dc only three could he not stay a week with dad and week with you - 50/50 split

They live 2 hours away! Why would the DC want to be two weeks per month away from the resident parent? What happens with nursery and school?

Children need a stable base at that age.

We split before DD was born. She has never lived with him. She has had minimal overnight contact with him full stop until this point. He lives two hours away. There is absolutely no way 50/50 is in her best interests.

But my understanding of the recommendations for contact for a child between the ages of 3 & 5 is that, contact is little and often. Given the distance that probably wouldn’t be practical in this case. Courts do not remove a 3yr old from their primary carer, unless absolutely necessary. How posters think that a child of that age, can go from seeing their primary carer most days to EOW is just baffling.

Could they have done this to get benefits?

Tax credits etc would be worked out on gross income so they may now qualify where they wouldn't on Cs gross wage.

Wouldn't on Bs gross wage I meant.

I've noticed quite a few comments in the past few days that seem to suggest the best interests and needs of a child should be sacrificed for the benefit of men.

50/50 care simply isn't in every child's best interests. Why on earth some people push it so hard is beyond me. What works for some families absolutely won't work for others.

Since they live two hours away what would happen if OP agreed to 50/50 when the DC starts school because they'll have to stop that? How much more can you allow a child to become unsettled; first you take them from the main carer 50% of the time then you take them from the 50/50 situation and put them back with the main carer 100% of the time because of school. It makes no sense at all to disrupt a child's life in this way.

New couples do scheme to avoid paying maintenance by any loophole they can (ie 50:50) which is then outsourced to paid childcare. Yes the parent in that situation is shitty and the new partner equally shitty for facilitating it. Interestingly it often seems to be professional wealthy couples. Family Courts are incompetent for not recognising and dealing with these games. The judges choose not to.

Mace are you worried that he, B, will actually ask for full custody of DC? Because there is no way any court would grant that. Plus, if C is going back to work so that B doesn’t have to pay any maintenance, and she’s stated she’s not paying it, it is impossible to imagine that she would then turn round and support the same child full time.

Will he claim income support or any other benefits? I know CMS can take about £7/week from some benefits. If I were you I would keep a CMS case open so that when he goes back to work, and he will, they have his details.

just switched to someone who on paper is supposed to be equal

How many couples parent equally? Genuinely so? I have no doubt that there are benefits to children seeing a previously largely absent parent more but at what emotional cost? I did 50/50 in the early stages of my separation at a time when one of my children was just 2 years old. He was, I believe, deeply affected in all the wrong ways - removed from the mother who had cared for him all but full time to be with a father who’s priority was one upmanship over his mother. Moreover, some 8 years later, our relationship is difficult. I do not have the relationship with him that I do with my other children. I do ‘t see evidence of his relationship with his father being any better either. He’s just a bit...lost. I worry for his long term mental health.

Of course, he is who he is. This could have happened regardless. I’m just not clear of the logic of changing the primary relationship - particularly in young children - because the parents make changes to their lives, that’s all. I am obviously biased due to my experiences.

He wanted 50/50 when DD was born. So he has form. I will be annoyed if maintenance stops but I can live with that. EOW with me is not in her best interests.

Sorry, didn't see that before- when he becomes a stay at home dad the new baby will be almost 12 months. I seriously doubt he would enroll DD in playgroup and make an effort to take her to activities etc plus a baby.

"SAHP is usually a short term prospect."

Sadly, not true if you've been out too long, have outdated qualifications and age is against you.

name1 I have my own thoughts on that situation, which I won't go into because I don't want that to derail the thread. But that isn't relevant to this situation. B and C are on very similar salaries. B earns slightly more than C before maintenance, slightly less after. It really doesn't take a genius to work out what their intentions are. Both are on a good salary.

name1 - you sound a lovely step-parent who did their best in a not ideal situation. And you were not being manipulative or scheming. But you may not like this observation very much - your DH cant afford all his children. Perhaps he should have thought of that before having more and expecting both mums to financially support above and beyond his own contribution.

Stopping maintenance as a short term measure due to bankruptcy isn't ideal but it isn't comparable to a situation where the NRP makes a deliberate decision with no intention of continuing to support their children.

With all due respect, named, you had no obligation to pay debts, provide a home for your partner’s children etc. I am not sure why the ex needs to be grateful for all of that (which you seem to imply) and have as many children as you want but you still need to recognise, as a couple, that existing children still need supporting. Your partner could have done something - part time bar job, shelf stacking in the evenings - so he had something to give to his existing children. Instead....nothing.

I also believe it’s not up to the new partner to fill in any gaps, particularly gaps left by an ex deciding not to work. It’s not about either you or the new partner being the bad guy, it’s about parents taking their responsibilities seriously, surely? And yes, of course, that means mum stepping up and working just as much as dad.

Who left who and why isn’t relevant, is it?

Didn't mean to derail the thread MaceWindu - as you all were.

Personally I see any income coming into a household where there has been a joint decision to have a SAHP as family money and I think maintenance should be calculated as part of that regardless of whether it is the bio or step parent earning.