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.

In the resident parent's household the DC are legally "children of the family" which is why a new partner moving into that household is expected to contribute towards that household's expenses, which will by default include bills, expenses etc which encompass the kids.

Likewise the partner of a NRP is often contributing indirectly towards their partner's kids whilst they are with them if they're paying into the NRP's household and paying towards the family food shop, days out etc. But people seem to dismiss that contribution because it's not in the form of child maintenance being sent to the RP's household. My bank balance however made no such distinction.

There has to a point where an adult takes responsibility for their choices and accepts the consequences. In this example the point is reached when you have children and your choices should centre around ensuring that they are secure and have stability in their lives.

Dropping £100’s of income per month and moving into someone else’s home is probably not going to offer security and stability. The adult needs to establish whether that is the case and make the right choice. If they don’t they are letting their children down.

The real villain in the piece is of course the father not paying for his own children. I often wonder where they are in these stories and whilst they must be deadbeats there is not reason to find a replacement deadbeat.

I'm a parent to two teens. In a new relationship of one year. Was with my DC dad for over twenty years, this is my first relationship since we split. We met three years after.

My oldest is due to go to university this year. If I moved in with my partner he would lose £1000's in maintenance loans and bursary's.

His own dad cannot contribute as he is on a DMP.

In two years my DD hopefully will also go to university. There will be a year while they are at university together. If I am living with my DP between them they would lose £10,000 in maintenance loans and bursaries.

I would not expect a new partner to step up and cover those costs. Also, he has not long met the DC so doesn't have a long-standing relationship with them.

All situations are different, but I will not move in with any DP for at least five years. Can you imagine the strain those kinds of figures/shortfall would put on a relationship.

My advice to any single parents is check and double check the finances before you move in together.

I'm sure they do contribute towards the "family"
Ie if the mother has 3 kids and her boyfriend lives with her I'm sure he'll pay half the rent instead of 1/5 of the rent. Same with the council tax, tv licence.
Only because he is not specifically buying the children stuff and maybe paying less towards food doesn't mean he is not contributing towards his step family. The children are the mothers responsibility

It's sad that it's actually remotely complicated for some people. As far as I'm concerned, if you are looking at establishing a family unit, regardless of how it comes about, the needs of any children should be the priority for each adult involved, regardless of their relationship with the children.

Children need their needs met, emotionally and financially. They need to feel loved and appreciated, they need to be provided for and they have a fundamental right to happiness. Any adult who can't make sacrifices, who is not prepared to prioritise the needs of children over their own wants, should simply not either have children or form a serious relationship with someone else who does. If you do form a serious relationship with someone who has kids, the secret to success, and basic morality IMHO, is to treat them as you would your own but don't obligate them to do likewise.

I wouldn't want to but then mine are grown up so I'm enjoying the freedom of my own money, so would choose not to move in with someone who still had younger children.

That said when mine were younger I'd have hoped for the opposite!

My ex pays less maintenance because he lives with his girlfriend’s two DC. Nothing to do with him biologically but he pays less for his own children as a result. I find that quite shocking tbh. He should contribute to the household as a whole I.e rent, bills, food etc but shouldn’t be buying her children clothes and toys or paying for school uniform and trips. Not when he has his own three children who he rarely sees and barely provides for...

So yes he should contribute both because him moving in may lead to a loss of income for the woman
Or of course, the mum who know has support she didn't have before can consider getting a job that allows her to contribute towards bills and support her children.

In the end, when you move with someone, you have to discuss finances as a couple. It might indeed mean the new partner supporting the children, but it might also mean them agreeing to help more with the care of the children so that mum can go back to work PT or FT.

Citygirl2019 you'd have hoped that every parent would similarly use their brains and act accordingly. Why on earth do so many MN posters fail to do that and instead move a new boyfriend in or drag the kids to a new town to move in with a new boyfriend without engaging their brain at all! Men do it just as much, more even, but don't post on MN about it and are often even less responsible, considering the mess not their problem and letting it fall on the shoulders of their children's mother.

Both parents should be acting in the children's interests but so often seem to convince themselves that being utterly self centered and thoughtless is in the children's interests on the basis of "happy parent, happy child" - of course in practice it backfires and nobody is happy before long.

@Citygirl2019

100% agree with the unfairness of expecting a resident step parent to contribute to a student's finance. We had the ludicrous situation in our family when stepchild's finance was seriously reduced yet since his bio child's finance was not assessed on his income this child got full loans and extra bursaries because her mum was on benefits.

I don’t understand that attitude. My DH is not my eldest’s father and from the day he started being included in his life he contributed as if he were his own- I remember when we booked a holiday for the 3 of us, I offered to pay 2/3 and he thought I was being ridiculous.

What you often see on here are women with kids and homes, who move a man in. The man then expects to live rent and bill free apart fr

Apart from food, and gifts. That isn't on, and he is in effect ripping off the state.

I agree OP. But it’s why I’d never create a blended/step family.

I’m happily married, but if I was a single parent I’d remain that way until the children were adults.

I think there's more than one way of looking at this, depending on the circumstances.

When DH moved in I lost most of my tax credits, but for various reasons I really didn't feel it was right for him to pay for my kids. He contributes to household costs, but only his fair share, not half. He has his own children that he pays for. We don't tend to think of our household as a family. My kids were teens when he arrived and so were his so I think it's more difficult to blend.

Plus his ex made a big point of telling his kids their dad had a new family now and wouldn't have time for them. She was then deliberately obstructive about contact and it generally messed with their heads. I wanted to be as supportive as I could to DH that he was still the father of his own children, and that included not taking a penny off him for upkeep of mine.

I can see that it's a grey area. There are some appalling cases that I've seen on MN, where a woman's partner is living a life of luxury (new cars, expensive hobbies etc) whilst the OP is on the breadline. Now, obviously the OP has been foolish to move in with someone who would behave like that, but it is nevertheless disgusting that a man would behave like that to someone he supposedly loves.

@WhataLovelyPear , are you out of pocket as a result, after his share of the food he eats is taken into account?

I hope not.

Personally I can't imagine moving in with a guy who didn't want to be some kind of parent to my kids (and likewise I wouldn't move in with a guy who was the resident parent if I wasn't prepared to take on his kids). I think it would be different with NR Parents.

I think it's ok to feel you don't want to pay towards someone else's children, but in that case you tailor your life arrangements accordingly. That in many cases will include not moving in, or it might mean accepting that if you do cohabit, and your partner has less income because of this, you will need to make a contribution. And the onus is on both, of course. This is something that should be talked about and rules agreed first.

I’d lose 600 a mth in working and child tax if I wasn’t single, also child benefit if new partner was a high earner, wouldn’t get council tax reduction, also my ds uni application would be affected. If a new partner wasn’t happy to “bridge the gap” then they wouldn’t be moving in, that’s the way it is? Surly?

My partner has a son who doesn’t even live with us full time and I contribute financially towards his living costs, clothes, holidays etc. quite considerably as I am the higher earner, plus my partner has voluntarily increased his maintenance as his living costs reduced when we moved in together. To me that’s what makes us a family rather than just two people who live together.

I just don't understand why anyone would tolerate this!
Dh came into our lives a decade ago and once he was living with us, he has treated my dc like they are his own. He owes 4 x what I do and yet he's never once suggested his money isn't family money.
He'd spent his last penny on the three of us and it's one of the many reasons I love him

@IWannaSeeHowItEnds completely agree!

Ex-h's wife has 3 kids they keep approx £8.33 of every £100 he earns per child whereas his own kids get £6.25 each from that same £100 yet her kids also get £8.33 each from their own fathers £100 (he has no further children) so essentially for the £6.25 maintenance a child of mine receives, a child of hers receives £16.66

I have no issues with a disregard being in place for any children they have together as they wouldn't have another parent to support them.

I agree. I can't understand a new partner moving in if they aren't interested in the children or a woman wanting them to move in if that's the case. I would find it very unattractive.

In terms of benefits it should definitely be discussed prior to a new partner moving in.

I don't think there is a right or wrong way to sort finances. I think it would depend on the maintenance the mother got as well as if the new partner is paying maintenance for existing children. But for a man to just put a blanket ban on helping with the children would be unfair.

What's wrong is not fully discussing it before hand and coming to a clear agreement about finances before moving in with/ moving in a new "partner".

If the new adult in the household will negatively impact the children financially they shouldn't be moved in at all. Obviously if they're in a position to and willing to make up for the loss that's different.

Just not moving in together until or unless details are sorted out is the default surely. If you aren't pulling together you aren't partners, it's still a casual relationship and with children in the mix it's irresponsible to move in together at the children's expense.