To think he should still pay maintenance if he takes a 'career break'

[PIPERHELLO]

Just that really. He's very well paid (six figs) and planning a career break. I am struggling to find a definitive answer online as to whether he can be forced (by court / Child Maintenance service) to continue paying maintenance if he voluntarily leaves his job.

Thanks.

Another weird and wrong thing imo is how family income is assessed for student finance. Resident Step parents have their income included, and if they earn too much, the step kids are entitled to less help from the state and the expectation is that the step parent will contribute towards the costs of the student. This takes no account of whether the step parent has kids of their own to support. It makes no sense that the govt does this for student finance but not child maintenance.
I think everyone should be properly financially responsible for their own kids, no weaseling out of it and step parents could then chip in as and when they wanted/were able.

I can't understand the attitude of saying that a partner's children are absolutely no responsibility of the step parent though. I can't imagine marrying a man and not thinking of his kids as my family and people that I have a commitment to. People who want no part of this have no business marrying someone with kids.

Not RTFT but I think if you choose to stop working, you should have to continue to honour your maintenance obligations

Does this only apply to men? What about the women who choose to stop working? Even with kids it is a choice, many women work full time around children.

IWanna the student finance thing is a huge bugbear of mine.

My dh is a step parent to mine. Dd is at uni and gets less than half of the maintenance loan. Her biological father relinquished responsibility for her at 18 so,it's my dh who subsidises her. He's more than happy to because he knew we came as a unit but it irks me that her actual father gets away Scot free

I can't understand the attitude of saying that a partner's children are absolutely no responsibility of the step parent though. I can't imagine marrying a man and not thinking of his kids as my family and people that I have a commitment to. People who want no part of this have no business marrying someone with kids

I would have said I couldn't understand it either a few short months ago...

My partner has 2 children. Left his ex about 8 years ago, amicable split, met me 2 years later. All hell broke lose.

She stopped contact (he was paying maintenance and the mortgage at this point for reference) and he took her to mediation. She offered him tiny amounts of contact which he took because he was skint and desperate to see his kids. Didn't want to drag her through court, because they wouldn't have awarded him much more.

Things carried on, his eldest child decided to stop seeing him (because of her mothers influence) youngest kept seeing him.

Youngest then moved in with us, mum absolved all responsibility, paid minimal maintenance, whilst dp kept paying maintenance for other child (which was considerably more).

we as a couple paid for everything for dss, uniform, trips, holidays, clothes you know everything you do for your children, our money is pooled so I have contributed to this. This was fine and I was happy to do it as he was part of my household. We moved house based on his needs etc, closer to his school and friends.

He has now moved back in with his mum because he felt "uncomfortable" with us. We know full well this is bullshit, but let him move out because he's old enough to decide to do what he wants.

he still, however expects us to fund his lifestyle because his mum wont. She is apparently skint, I don't know how true this is and I don't care.

He barely speaks to me when he sees us, he uses dp for what he can get out of him and then goes back to his mums. Only speaks to us if he wants something his mum wont buy for him.

I have decided I wont support an attitude like this, dp can pay for whatever he wants, but it comes out of his own account, I am not funding a rude entitled teenagers lifestyle.

I found it hard to come to terms with my decision as I have supported his children all along, when he was paying the mortgage and maintenance, I supported both of us. In some way I have always contributed, but its got to the point where I have done so much, and I get nothing back. Not even a hello sometimes.

The thing is, the way I feel about DP hasn't changed. I wont break up my family, because a teenager has an attitude which will likely fade with time. I Imagine when he grows up, he will realise this is foolish and things will likely go back to how they were.

That's why some people don't want to take responsibility (financially or practically) for other peoples children.

Like I said, I never understood either until I went through this!

as for "single parent benefits don't exist" - well not as such no, but I would assume a single parent family would get more in tax credits / universal credits etc than a family with two working parents, this is because the income of 1 person would be lower than the income of 2 people

Those are massive assumptions. Plenty of single parents earn way over thresholds to receive benefits (and are penalised for doing so - think about how child benefit works, for example. A single parent earning £60K gets nothing but a couple earning £49k each still get it) and plenty of 2 parent families have only one parent working (yet no one ever suggests that a family receiving benefits on one wage is 'wrong' in the way a single working parent receiving benefits is 'wrong').

We are low income. Sdd was with us every f-m during a a levels and much of the holidays.

When she went to uni we said she should use our address as she would get full loans etc as we couldn’t afford much more than a token payment. Mum said no. Then told sdd dh won’t pay etc. Sdd moans at dh about how little he pays.

Btw dh has always been low income, even when he was married to his ex. She knew that, so it’s no suprise. She and her new dh earn quite a bit, hence no student loans.

I'm sorry things have been so tough for you there. In all honesty I wouldn't be financing my own kids lifestyles if they were rude and only seeing me to get money. Obviously I would still meet their essential needs, but not phone contracts etc.
I guess it comes down to treating your step children like you would your own, in terms of having the same expectations and consequences.
Your step children have been messed up by what has happened between their parents. And some teens just are awful for a while. I hope they get better for you as they get older.

Those are massive assumptions. Plenty of single parents earn way over thresholds to receive benefits (and are penalised for doing so - think about how child benefit works, for example. A single parent earning £60K gets nothing but a couple earning £49k each still get it) and plenty of 2 parent families have only one parent working (yet no one ever suggests that a family receiving benefits on one wage is 'wrong' in the way a single working parent receiving benefits is 'wrong'

but generally 1 person will earn less than 2 people. And if they don't then is there even a need for benefits on top?

I agree that child benefit is ridiculous and shouldn't be assessed in that way.

I don't know who has inferred that single parents receiving benefits is "wrong" but its certainly not my POV. I don't think anyone receiving benefits is "wrong" unless they're claiming fraudulently.

Iwannasee to be honest, I would be exactly the same if my own child was like this. DP is too nice for his own good, and doesn't want to not see his youngest child, so he will go along with it. You're right, they've been entirely messed up, manipulated etc.

I haven't ever said a bad word to them about their mum, but I know what she has said to them about us. I have seen her behaviour with my own eyes, so I know what she's like. I've always stayed on the moral high ground because as much as I think she's an absolute prize dick, she's still their mother. To be honest, DP has never said a bad word about her to them either.

I hope it gets better, as it would be a shame to throw away what we have had for the last 6 years, but I'm not going to get on my knees and beg for a relationship, and i'm not going to pay for one either.

I can't understand the attitude of saying that a partner's children are absolutely no responsibility of the step parent though

I find this expectation is incredibly unfair on a lot of step parents though. You only have to look at threads about step mother's here to see a lot of them are forbidden any form of parental responsibility over the children, they aren't welcome at parties, school plays etc..., are told they are stepping on toes whenever they attempt x y or z but yet suddenly when it comes to money it's okay for them to take that responsibility?

I personally wouldn't mind at all as I have a great relationship with my step kids and their mother but I can imagine those who don't and have had a tough time of it would be pretty put out that they'd be expected to contribute financially but not when it comes to anything else.

@PIPERHELLO

For clarity has he actually refused to pay maintenance out of his savings during the break or have you just assumed he won't because it was coming out automatically before?

He's a complete arse if he's refusing, it's not like the bills related to your children will vanish for 6 months.

He has intimated that he will simply stop for however long he is not working, and take on more of the childcare. Which I can see the positives of in theory - would be nice for them to spend more time together etc - but it's not terribly realistic to imagine that my earning can be fairly dramatically ramped up / down to fit his career hiatus. Also, more importantly, I'm worried that it will be very disruptive for our little one.
It's all interlinked, but it's the impact on our son that I am most worried about. Sadly I think the money situation is slightly muddying the waters here, in the sense that he wants a career break and sees taking on more childcare as a way to stop paying.

:(

“When you move in with someone you expect to contribute to the household though dont you?”

I suspect you’re not expecting a tax bill for their child benefit if you’re a high earner though... and that it might not occur to you that you’re now expected to fund university for children that aren’t yours...

Btw, I’m not saying that new partners of NRPs should be financially responsible for the existing children... just pointing out that it’s a weird inequality.

tabulah well surely you both take that into consideration if you move In with someone with children?

ok I get the university thing, but it is something people should consider as its likely they wont change the criteria!

There is a weird inequality, but in reality there is a difference between living with someone with resident children, and living with someone with visiting children isn't there. I would say its obvious that it would be very different.

You sound like a reasonable person OP, if he has offered to do more of the childcare you need to discuss with him how the shortfall can be made up and perhaps see if you can come to an agreement whereby he provides a mix of childcare and some maintenance.
It is unfair to suddenly decide to abdicate responsibility, and for my own part if I were to dwell on the injustice I think I would go mad, so I choose to plod along and focus on the best life for my child and I. It is getting to a stage now though where I am considering contacting my MP, starting a petition and there have been good ideas on here as to what changes can be made. I think my own push would be along the lines of parental responsibility making parents "jointly" liable whereas at present we are jointly and severally liable. So if one parent leaves, they should also be held accountable for that child's wellbeing. If I leave my child home alone I can be prosecuted- but my ex can't as he is considered to have discharged his responsibility by ensuring the child was in my care at the point he walked out years ago.
One last point - maintenance is supposed to defray the expenses of the PWC - it is not actually money for the child. So to the PP who suggested the PWC provide receipts for food purchases and the children be weighed at the end of the year - would extra maintenance be payable if it were deemed that the teenage boy in question (for example) had consumed more than the evidenced food purchases?
I also think if Innercircle is a woman I'm a teapot.

“in reality there is a difference between living with someone with resident children, and living with someone with visiting children isn't there”

Should there be though? If both parents have an equal responsibility then shouldn’t both their partners?

Also, remember the parents can have a 50/50 split and one is still the RP and one the NRP.

I know more than a few families where the NRP pays the legal minimum of child maintainance despite their household income and lifestyle being considerably raised by a new partner’s income while the RP’s is actually lowered by their new partner’s income.

So yes, people do discuss it and accept it... but it’s not a fair situation.

both parents don't have equal responsibility in a lot of cases though do they? they both have a legal responsibility for the children, but practically and financially their responsibilities are different unless 50/50

I don't think its right to have an RP/NRP when its 50/50 care, it should be equal and one parent shouldn't have more "power" than the other and this, a lot of the time, is where the richer parent gets screwed for cash from the poorer parent even when they take half the cost, and half the responsibility anyway.

I haven't said its a fair situation, its not and I personally don't think there will ever be a universally fair way to work maintenance out because there are too many variables.

Equally a lot of RP's will get a lot of maintenance even though they have for instance re married someone who is pretty well off, whilst the NRP is on an average wage.

Like I said, too many variables. Some people end up completely screwed over, and some people benefit massively.

I do think though the NRPs partners income really is irrelevant. They didn't choose to have the children, or to live with them. Their income shouldn't fund those children unless they want it to. A lot of the time they are already subsidising a partner because of the maintenance, or a messy divorce, or losing their home or whatever.

I think a lot of women expect they will be the RP, become the RP and then whinge about how much kids cost, how little freedom they have and complain about the NRPs social life. But those same women wouldn't even consider 50/50 care, or even more than EOW a lot of the times.

don't think its right to have an RP/NRP when its 50/50 care, it should be equal and one parent shouldn't have more "power" than the other and this, a lot of the time, is where the richer parent gets screwed for cash from the poorer parent even when they take half the cost, and half the responsibility anyway.

How is a parent being "screwed" for cash? I would give my last pound for my child. Why is it that a set percentage of a NRP salary is seen as being screwed? I also doubt that the NRP is taking 50% responsibility. I've heard stories- oh yes I've heard stories but I've never seen it happen.

Because if you have 50/50 care you pay 50/50 costs. One parent shouldn't be paying the other anything. You pay for / look after your child entirely in your time, and the other parent does the same in theirs. There is no RP / NRP. One parent doesnt do more / have more time or more say than the other.

Just because youve never seen it doesnt mean it doesn't happen.

As for saying the nrp probably doesn't do 50% - that makes no sense. If theyre not having 50/50 time then its not 50/50 is it and of course theres an RP and an NRP. With true 50/50 everything's equal? Im not sure you understand what im trying to say.

Because if you have 50/50 care you pay 50/50 costs. One parent shouldn't be paying the other anything. You pay for / look after your child entirely in your time, and the other parent does the same in theirs. There is no RP / NRP. One parent doesnt do more / have more time or more say than the other

How does that work where there is a huge disparity in income? There would be cries of LTB if a husband earning £80K demanded a 50/50 split of expenses when his wife earned only £20k. How is this any different?

I went through a period of 50/50 but I still paid all childcare - because my ex wouldn’t and I risked losing the place for the whole of the time. And I still paid for all school uniform, shoes, haircuts, dealt with appointments, took time off when the children were sick because my ex refused to do any of it. It is not enforceable in court. 50/50 is being used by many men to further abuse and control their ex partner,

Just to add that if the OP's ex wants to do more childcare to justify lack of cs, the OP risks giving up valuable childcare spaces that she can't get back if he decides on a whim to go back to work!

What you had wasnt 50/50 then was it? Maybe time wise but not in any other way.

Disparity in income is irrelevant. Youre not a couple! Each live to your means. Why should 1 parent pay for half of everything do half of childcare and then subsidise the other parent?

Im not suggesting op does 50/50 im just saying it can work for some people (and obviously doesnt for others!)

Why should one parent, earning thousands more than the other pay the same towards the upbringing of a child as a far lower earning parent? Sure,y the lower earning parent is subsidising the higher paid one? 50/50, unless both parents earn roughly the same, will alsways penalise the lower earner. Child related costs should be split proportionally according to income.

I think you have to look at whether the lower earner helped facilitate the career of the higher earner, when assessing what's fair. Maybe one person took on extra responsibility to help their partner or brought assets into the marriage that over the years got subsumed into the general pot, but which gave the higher earner a kick start. Each divorce is individual.
Am thinking of my friend who brought a house into the marriage, moved abroad to follow her dh's dream, went part time to care for their kids and is now getting the bare minimum he can get away with.
Also someone who looked after their dying mil. The DH wouldn't have been do free to concentrate on his career if he'd been doing this instead.
There's also the fact that wealthy couples might have school fees or their children have expensive hobbies. Not fair on the lower earner to pay 50% of that.

Because youre not a couple. Its not up to 1 parent to subsidise the other!

I honestly dont think its fair for one parent to do their bit as such and then pay for the other parent to do theirs too! In thta scenario theyd be better off being RP.