He shouldn't pay for your children?

[jennymanara]

AIBU to think this advice often handed out is wrong?

I see women posting on here who are living with a new partner, and have kids from an ex. They often get no maintenance, in spite of trying to, or very little maintenance.
They post because their new partner refuses to contribute anything towards the cost of the kids living with them.

But the benefits system says that if you have a partner living with you, that they should be contributing towards the costs of the whole family, even if they are not your kids. So a woman with kids who has a partner moving in, may lose benefits because their new partner has moved in.
So yes he should contribute both because him moving in may lead to a loss of income for the woman, and morally you can not move in with someone and their kids and just say those kids are nothing to do with you.

If benefits are going to be lost when a new partner moves in it should be discussed before they move in, surely?
Everyone’s circumstances are so different, it would be hard to say a definitely yes or no.

I agree, but I’m sure many wouldn’t. I can’t see how it’s possible to keep finances separate. For example when I’ve been off on maternity, my dh has to cover a lot more costs for my ds (not his). I can’t imagine being with a man who would refuse to include my ds in our finances.

I see so many posts on MN where a woman has little money, her DP has lots, and she is posting because he refuses to help financially with kids that live with them both but are not his. And so many comment that he is right.
If my DP had kids living with us from a previous relationship, there is no way I would ever leave him and his kids in that situation.
I do think it is the sign of a shitty partner.

I agree with you. I know plenty of men helping to raise children not their own, all pay for those children and treat them like their own, a sign of a good man. Don’t be in a relationship with a woman with children if you’re not going to fully embrace her children

This makes me so ragey. DH is not the father of my children, but when we moved in together it wasn't even really something that was discussed. It just happened. We are a family and our money is OUR money, even though I earn significantly less than him. I cannot stand men who knowingly enter a relationship with a woman who has children, but refuse to treat those children as if they were his own. Just don't do it, find a woman without kids.

If you loss benefits because a new partner moves in this needs to be discussed. I don't expect my partner to pay for ds he has his own children to pay for but we earn similar amounts and are both home owners so separate finances ( not petty amounts seperate) works and is sensible for us

Ive seen many posts on here where well off women don't want to subsidise their partners children and they are told its fine. Only men are bastards by not wanting to pick up the tab for someone else's children.

Personally I don't see how any two people can live together and not share costs equally but lots of married couples now manage it, even though the children belong to both of them.

I don’t understand why people want to move in with people who don’t see the kids as a part of the family they are joining. Nothing less sexy in my opinion

barbarianmum If they are living with the children, then that is wrong.

I get it in the early days of a relationship not paying for someone elses children, in fact to even expect it would be a dealbreaker for me. However at the point of moving in to me you become a family and all that comes with it. I would say though that living together when children are involved is a far bigger step than without and I would expect to be given some responsibility too, be able to tell off the children, be a part of big decisions etc.

I personally didn’t let my ex partner pay for costs relating to my son, I just didn’t feel comfortable taking his money. If it was the other way around I would have happily paid for a partners child, which I know makes me a hypocrit.

Sure I would not expect to go on a second date with a man with kids and be asked to contribute money towards their upcoming birthday party or school uniform. That would be taking the piss.
But moving in with a partner and their kids is showing a certain level of commitment.

The whole system is flawed. A man gets to legally reduce the child support he pays for the children who are actually his, because he's decided to live with a new partner who has DC from a previous relationship. Presumably his ex is supposed to claim the difference in benefits or just cover the deficit herself, so in effect she is paying for his new partner's kids! Meanwhile their dad may or may not be paying cs.

Personally I'm of the belief that everyone should pay for their own DC properly, not this bare minimum shit show we have now. Then new partners wouldn't have to

All that being said, we don't live in that world and I think a lot of parents are really selfish and irresponsible when it comes to their dc and financial support. I wouldn't move in with a man if it made my children financially vulnerable, not would I if it affected mine or a partners child's right to student finance.
People put their own wants ahead of their children's needs.
But I would also judge a man or woman as a total shit for not wanting to support DC who live with them and I would judge the parent as shit for allowing the relationship to continue. Basically everyone in a child's life should want to care for them and protect them.

The moralOf the story is don't move. In with people willy nilly without discussing the financial implications for all parties. People on mn have kids with men and move in with them at the drop of a hat. Seriously wtaf. If you're financially better off on your own, don't shack up with that latest bf. Nor have a 'contraceptive failure' which is usually closely followed by 'I could never have a termination ' next part of the story bf has buggered off. Poster moves onto next fella with another kid in tow and repeats

It depends. Your DP should obviously contribute towards the mortgage/rent, bills etc, anything to do with financing the home, but anything to do with the DCs, if they are not your DPs, should fall on you/ex, ie clothes, activities etc, and realistically both parents of the DCs should fund their own children.

And I would not pay for someone else's kids, sorry. Not my responsibility. But I would not move I with them either.

It's a difficult one, but if someone does not want to subsidise step children, they should have that choice.
On the other hand, if moving into a household with existing children, the lines become blurred. I would assume that the moving in party will have to contribute towards the cost of running the home. That includes food, council tax and utilities. Anything outside of the basics (clothes, holidays, school supplies, ...) should be the responsibility of the parent. The non parent should be allowed to opt out.

I don't think you can say automatically that every man who is living with someone else's children should pay for them. In some circumstances, they have a moral obligation to contribute, but not all.

It's not a step dads fault that his partner doesn't earn enough to support her own children, it's not his fault that the ex doesn't pay maintenance and it's not his fault that the benefit system is designed the way it is.

People sharing a home should both contribute to the costs of sharing the home and children are likely to be supported by that, but the direct costs of children, like shoes, uniforms, school trip, hobbies etc, should be borne by the actual parents.

I'd judge the parents more for not providing and letting the state do it instead than a step parent who didn't.

Too many people rush into new relationships because of their own wants and the children get no choice despite being heavily affected.

I believe in joint finances. Like barbarian mum, I think the majority views tend to that a woman should not have to contribute to her new DP and 'his' children (He is a CF, 'cocklodger', she shouldn't subsidise them and so on) but that a mother and her children are now 'part of the family' and her new DP should be happy to contribute.

I suppose it's possible this is an artifact of the tendency of people with problems creating threads.

As everyone says, the conversation needs to happen as part of the discussion about whether to move in together.

So many people with children uproot the children to move in with a newish "partner" who is in fact not a "partner" but a boyfriend or girlfriend, or move the new "partner" into their children's home without proper thought and discussion.

It goes for men moving new girlfriends in too - obviously has a bigger impact on the children of the resident parent and the resident parent themselves, but even where it's an eow dad the existing children need vastly more consideration and to be the priority for both parents.

Even where both parties are childless people seem so often to fail to discuss inevitable lifestages in advance and be shocked years down the line to discover that their partner doesn't want marriage/ children/ to christen the baby /to move to Australia.

Communication needs to happen before massive life changing decisions are made. Triply so when either party already has children!

The children's father should be losing for them and if moving in a partner not willing to contribute to family expenses will leave the resident parent worst off, don't let them move in!

That said, I struggle to understand how people can move in together and form a household yet expect to keep the other adult's children out of that. To be fair, there's enough posts on MN about people with SAH DPs and their own children who keep finances separate, 'pay' a SAHP next to nothing and see their own family members struggle. People are strange when it comes to money.

Like Iwanna, I'd hope everyone involved in a child's life should want to support them though I know in real life not everyone does.

If what OP says is right then it’s also right for a NRP father’s partner’s income to be taken into account for CMS if they are living together.

It always surprises me that the article in the UN convention of children's rights which states that children have a right to a relationship with both parents isn't interpreted as a legally enforceable responsibility upon the biological parents both to attend contact and to provide financially - with accompanying prison sentence for neglect if failing to furnish their child with their basic rights. Instead it's perversely interpreted as an adult right to contact even when a child doesn't want it, with no properly enforced responsibility for the non resident adult.

Weird.