Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5

Original poster

He shouldn't pay for your children?

119 replies

jennymanara · 15/06/2019 09:16

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.

OP posts:

ColaFreezePop · 15/06/2019 11:27

@anothernotherone because it's not reciprocal and the statement covers a wide variety of situations.

While a child has rights to have a relationship with both biological parents, the biological parents don't have rights to have a relationship with the child. The child may also have other carers/guardians who are legally responsible for their welfare.

LoeweHammock · 15/06/2019 11:29

I agree that it depends.

If a new partner is paying for your children while their biological father enjoys a disposable income he shouldn't have, then that isn't FAIR of course but what happens most often is that you cannot MAKE FAIR HAPPEN

Given that you cannot make fair happen, if a new partner is comfortable and sees you suffer (as a family unit) rather than ease the burden of somebody he loves then that would be ''red flag'' to me.

However that's if you're assuming the new relationship is for the long haul.

I wouldn't bother with any relationship where that stuff couldn't be discussed at the point of moving in (if that ever happened to me, won't go down that route)

anothernotherone · 15/06/2019 11:33

ColaFreezePop but that's my point. Absent parents should be legally compelled to be available for contact and to pay maintenance. The right is the child's and the responsibility the parents. Yet in practice the absent parent seems to have a right to contact even where a child, if young, doesn't want that, and absent parents are not jailed for neglect for failing to attend contact or pay maintenance.

It should be a child's right and an adult's responsibility, enforceable by law, but it isn't.

SnowWhitesRestingBitchFace · 15/06/2019 11:40

Each to their own but when DH and I moved in together (I had two children and he had 1) we kept seperate finances for a couple of month and realised it just wasn't working. We had a conversation and decided to just combine what we had into a family pot. It has worked for us since then and I honestly can't imagine living any other way.

PregnantSea · 15/06/2019 11:42

I think if you take on a partner who has kids then it's a whole package. You're either committing to being a family or you're not, and if you're not then don't move in together.

Alsohuman · 15/06/2019 11:46

At the end of the day, if you have a long term partner with children from a previous relationship, you end up paying whether directly or indirectly. A lot of the things my stepchildren have had wouldn’t have been possible if their dad was single and had only his own income.

PettyContractor · 15/06/2019 11:56

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.

So all men in this scenario must absolutely without exception pay, because in some cases, women may lose other income? Doesn't sound like a reasonable argument to me. In any case, if women are going to be worse off sharing a household with another adult, rather than better off as is usually the case, surely nine times out of ten they just don't move in? So this is a case that hardly ever happens, and when it does it's something the woman's choosing.

NotSuchASmugMarriedNow1 · 15/06/2019 12:09

Another way of looking at it would be "why would I forfeit £600 worth of tax credits for a man"

Amibeingdaft81 · 15/06/2019 12:10

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

Where does it say this?

Amibeingdaft81 · 15/06/2019 12:12

If a man moving in with you has said from the outset that he is unwilling to contribute - then why the HECK would you want this man to move in with you?

Grasspigeons · 15/06/2019 12:14

Its a funny system really, for benefits and things like access to student finance its all about the household but for tax its all about the individual. It sort of forces dependancy

sheshootssheimplores · 15/06/2019 12:16

My DP helped raised his SD from a young age. Helped pay for her to go through private school etc etc. Directly he and her mother broke up she wanted nothing to do with him. She is still in touch with his mother and will inform him of big events in her life, but nothing more.

I actually feel a bit bad for him but fortunately we have two children together so he doesn’t dwell on it. My thoughts are that it’s absolutely lovely if the resident partner contributes financially to the non-biological children in the household but equally I can understand if they don’t.

anothernotherone · 15/06/2019 12:16

Amibeingdaft81 well quite - I think the problem is people just don't even discuss it, then once he's moved in he contributes nothing/ 1/4 of bills or something, and only then does the penny drop... Both adults assume without having full, clear, honest, up front conversations which reach concrete conclusions, because they're "in love" and dare not scupper that with inconveniences like honesty and reality...

whatliketoeat · 15/06/2019 12:17

My dh is not my ds biological dad. I lost money to live together, he's always covered that loss and supported us financially during difficult times. He treats my ds like we are a package, he loves us both.

Growing up my mum had partners that wanted her, and tolerated us. They didn't really want kids, just a relationship with her. I wouldn't have dated anyone that wasn't going to love my ds like his own and want to be unit.

Graphista · 15/06/2019 12:18

"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" this! And properly enforced too and made socially unacceptable not to. And totally agree that biological fathers shouldn't get a reduction in what child maintenance they should be paying by becoming a stepfather, but I'd also extend that to having more bio kids - if you can't afford to keep supporting the kids you already have you shouldn't be having more!

Also agree that benefits relating to children should NOT be reduced when a new partner who is NOT the children's father moves in.

HollowVictory - yes it's shocking the speed with which people move in with new partners and have more children with NO regard to the older children's needs. Utterly ridiculous!

DuckWillow · 15/06/2019 12:19

Adult now but my Mum was in this position when she met my stepdad, no contribution from my biological Dad.
Stepdad moved in when the relationship became serious and they eventually married. From the moment he moved in he saw us as his responsibility. He paid out for anything we needed.

Thirty years on its not surprising who is called “Dad” and who isn’t bothered with.

A relationship established where it’s known a child is part of the deal comes as a package with that child once ta established the relationship is serious. Any decent person will realise that,

CanILeavenowplease · 15/06/2019 12:21

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

What a weird statement. Most single parents receiving benefits are working already.

Gin96 · 15/06/2019 12:22

I would not move in with a man who had children and expected me to pay towards them, I also wouldn’t let a man move in with me and expect me to pay for him or his children.

RealButterOnly · 15/06/2019 12:29

I don't think we should encourage blended families at all so I think it is very good that benefits etc stop when a new partner moves in.

Too disruptive for children who have already had to endure a family breaking up.

Stay single and in your own home until the children are grown. Maybe old fashioned but I think that is best for the dc who have little say in who the step parents are.

Amibeingdaft81 · 15/06/2019 12:31

@RealButterOnly.

It’s not a popular view and I share it with you. And I’m a single mum of two young children.

It wouldn’t matter if it was the love of my life, I’m not having my children’s lives unsettled.

FFSeverynameisused · 15/06/2019 12:34

I have no experience of this but imo if you are with someone they take on everything, which means welcoming your kids into his life

Lizzie48 · 15/06/2019 12:35

But blended families can work very well. My DSis married a man with a 9 year old DS, who was the RP. She also has had 3 DC of her own with him since then (2 bio DC and 1 adopted). She has a lovely relationship with her now adult DSS (22, in the army with 2 DC of his own).

Just because it can go wrong doesn't mean it shouldn't happen. Adoption can go wrong, too, and so can original birth families. That doesn't mean they shouldn't happen.

username1724 · 15/06/2019 12:35

I agree. My partner is not my dds dad. We pool all our money, and it goes equally on all of us regardless of who earnt it. Some months I earn more, sometimes he does. We have literally never discussed it, other than the initial set up of all money in 1 account, he deals with Bill's, the rest is for FAMILY use. I'd expect the same if he had a child that wasn't biologically mine.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 15/06/2019 12:36

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

I agree, but sadly responsibility's become a dirty word for too many - suggest it on here, and watch the posts roll in about "you shouldn't judge", "this site's for support" and all the rest

And as PPs have said, the M/F double standards are sometimes very noticeable

StoppinBy · 15/06/2019 12:38

I agree, if you take on a partner who has children then in my mind you are taking on their children too.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5

Swipe left for the next trending thread