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.

Where does it say this?

On the forms for child related benefits where it asks for your partners income - it doesn't say if they are the biological parent of your children - for benefit purposes it is classed as household income there is no question asking if a partner is happy to contribute or not & if you tick the no box you get full benefits based solely on your own income so I think it's quite obvious that the system assumes that a new partner moving in will contribute to covering the costs of the 'household' which includes the children.

There was a thread other day where woman asked if she should pay for partners kids as she was the only one in the house earning. There was an avalanche of answers saying his kid he pays and no .
can't see how this situation is diffrenet but this tome the answers is

If you decide to live with someone who has children, the children are part of the package - you're becoming a step-parent - and that means you take on responsibility for the children. If you don't want to be part of a family situation, you need to pick a non-parent.

rwalker. were those dc actually living with the partner?

But even if not living together, I think as a stepmum or stepdad, you're taking on a responsibility to the children involved.

Sorry but I disagree, as a stepparent I'm only financially responsible for my step DCs when they're under my roof/doing stuff as part of my household. I have absolutely no say what goes on when they're not with me so why should I be obliged (rather than having a free choice) to take on that financial responsibility as well?

It’s weird isn’t it? My ex has a new gf who has dc of her own. If he moves in with her his household income will go up, as there will be two working adults, but the amount of maintenance he pays for our ds will go down. So I’ll be the one whose income suffers, even though I’m the only adult with zero choice about the situation.

The child tax credit forms ask about household income, but child maintenance forms ask about biological parent income (for the non resident parent). I understand student finance asks about household income too.

rwalker I remember some of that thread. I don't think there is a morally/ethically fair answer, so I guess it depends on who happens to read it. When families split up people lose out and it isn't possible to stop that happening.

What Barbarian Mum said. Why can it be perfectly acceptable on Mumsnet for women to say they don't want to contribute to their partners children? If it was a man saying the same, he would be totally slated on here.

I don’t think it’s necessarily a man/woman thing, I think the difference is where the children live Day to day, so a step mum or dad who only see’s the children weekends or what ever has less responsibility all round, but if a step parent moves in with children full time it’s different?

I think it’s totally unreasonable to ask someone to pay for kids that are not theirs, makes me reconsider dating single parents tbh.

If you can’t afford kids in the first place, why have them? Children are a privilege not a right.

MyCathateseverybody, I'm not really talking about extras: if you were supporting your partner cos he'd lost his job or whatnot - child support is one of his bills.

I think it is totally unreasonable to decide to move in with someone without discussing and agreeing basics like how finances will work, what being a step parent entitles etc and walking away if you aren't on the same page.

entitles entails!

Allofme1 don't date single parents then, that's probably best all 'round. When a now single parent chose to have a child they most likely made the decision under totally different financial circumstances, as part of a two income household, not expecting their marriage to break down.

Doesn't mean that you or anyone should support someone else's children - does mean that if a single parent is going to be worse off if you move in with them they should decline to live with you - you could choose to offer to replace whatever they'll lose financially to have you move in, but if you don't want to, they'd be an absolute fool to live with you before the children are fully independent.

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.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I think you're right. I would have been appalled by this suggestion a few years ago and told you not to be so judgemental. But I now believe that the number of happy blended families is significantly outweighed by the number of unhappy ones.

If you move in with a parent wether the childrem live there fulltime or just weekends you should expect to take a fair amount of responsibility. My children and I are a package I wouldn't expect a partner to pay school fees but if we went shopping I wouldnt expect them to be working out how much of the toilet paper my kids are going to use!

category even in that circumstance I would say it wasn't my responsibility unless my income was affecting my partner's ability to claim benefits of which I'd expect him to pay as much as he could out of that. When my DH was made redundant we dipped into family savings to pay CM at the same rate as previously which I wholeheartedly supported, but had I been legally obligated to hand over my own cash to a household other than my own - no I wouldn't be happy with that.

This needs to be discussed before the relationship progresses to moving in. In fact it's something that should be discussed very early on. I'm "chatting" (messaging) old at the moment and I've told guys immediately that I have an autistic adult dd that may or may not end up living with me for the long haul so if that's a deal breaker on a long term relationship there's no point getting to know them (however gorgeous the no doubt photoshopped photo is) as I'm not interested in a fling

Moving in with a man who has children really should be as big a deal as moving in with a woman who has children, but sadly a lot of biological fathers, even where they were married to the mothers for decades and lived as a family unit with their children, seem to be regarded as having only a tiny, optional, part time responsibility for their children if they leave the family.

Something is wrong with a system with such double standards - it seems non resident parents often gain financially from moving in a new partner especially if she has children (which reduces his own maintenance payments for his kids, yet he shouldn't, according to so many, pay for hers... wheres the logic? What's the maintenance reduction for?) but resident parents often lose out both ways - lose the absent parent's maintenance if he moves in with a partner who has kids, lose benefits if they move someone in). How has a system which perpetuates that developed?

Surely blending families should reward/ punish/ be neutral for both biological parents alike ...

Certainly parents who leave their children should pay for them properly over and above any other new commitments or choices they make, and resident parents should make objective, cold if necessary financial choices and not move new girl or boyfriends in if it will put their children into a worse financial situation.

I think if you are with someone who has kids you would be expected to cover a share towards morgage/ rent, utilities and food. Buying specific things like toys, clothes for the child, ferrying to activities, picking and doing drop off to school should be discussed beforehand. I would not want to be with someone who would not embrace my kids as part of his family and that includes doing all of the above as I would for his.

I think its very sad if it simply comes down to how much money you have for your children! Does having a happy, fulfilled parent not matter? Isn't it better for children to see their parents in loving relationships even if not with each other? Seeing just how many people on here bring it all down to the best way to get the most money out of either the government or their ex is just depressing.

I think expecting ur new partner to pay for ur children is ridiculous. They are your children! If you were to split up, he/she would have no right to see the children at all.

By moving in and paying half rent etc they already subsidise the children so asking for money for trips, school shoes is utterly ridiculous.

The student finances should be made clear to people years in advance. The drop in maintenance is not one parent expecting the step parent to pay it the system who is expecting the money. TBH the drop in maintaining grant should be clearer and all parents informed. At the student finance meeting at DS1 sixth form there was quite a few shocked parents who were not expecting the shortfall that the government assume will be covered by the whole of the family income.

Yes. The uni finance thing is odd. I’m a single parent, and ds1 is looking at it at the moment. His Dad’s income doesn’t count, as we are not together. But if me and ds2’s dad were still together, his income would, because it is based on household income. As it stands it’s purely based on my income, but even that’s slightly odd, because I’ve had to declare all child maintenance that I receive, including that which is paid for ds2.