Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to think a parent should prioritise all of their children equally

172 replies

noonki · 04/08/2008 20:23

I just read a post in which it was argued that a father should prioritise a child they are living with over children from a previous relationship.

And that financially he should prioritise his new family over that of his old. TBH I am incensed.

I am a stepmum and would be shocked if my DH didn't view all of his children equally. In fact it would make me question him as a father.

He definitely has a different relationship with his first son but I think does with all of his kids.

I think attitudes like this can aggrevate issues such as father's (or in some rare cases mother's) not contributing finacially and emotionally to their children.

OP posts:
VictorianSqualor · 05/08/2008 11:18

PWC?

jammi · 05/08/2008 11:18

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

hughjarssss · 05/08/2008 11:18

No you haven't read the thread, you've read one post Feenie, on that basis what you are saying is tosh and out of context

hughjarssss · 05/08/2008 11:19

VS - parent with care

Dummymumm · 05/08/2008 11:20

my dp is the opposite. he has just spent £40 on dss (18) at the weekend, and left me with £1.50 to see me and 2 dc through the week. is that fair? he also refused to go grocery shopping at the weekend (i don't drive)so we have no food in either

jammi · 05/08/2008 11:22

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

newforold · 05/08/2008 11:23

Can i point out that i don't see maintenence as going to the ex, it is money for bills, food etc.

Also, VS - we have DSD more than her mum but partners maintnence is set at a few hundred pounds a month as she is seen as the resident parent and we would have to prove that DSD is here at least 3/7.
If we went down the route of doing this, DSD's mother has already stated that she would reduce the contact time greatly and generally piss about about again.

In our eyes, if we reduced maintenence because of the amount of time we have DSD her home life would suffer as their household income would reduce. Also, she would suffer emotionally due to the fall out that would occur from arguments between partner and his ex.

I disagree that i should give up my salary for maintenence because partner has a child from a previous relationship.
My income is used to support my DD first, i am the only bio parent in hjer life, once her needs are met, then my salary supports the whole household.
Your argument would conversely mean that if i decided to give up work, my partner would then have to reduce maintenence and support my daughter as well. Because after all, he got with me knowing i have a child......

hughjarssss · 05/08/2008 11:24

The CSA believed everything the PWC said and she ended up taking us to tribunal. We have had a year of hell with the CSA but we won the independant tribunal so hopefully the financial side of things should be sorted now.

VictorianSqualor · 05/08/2008 11:24

I don't get a penny from DD&DS's father and that's the way I&DP like it, so no complaints here.

BUT, if I were to get maintenance from him the fact that his GF has two children would be taken into account, so surely if 'her' children are taken into account so should her wages?

The csa says that on his income of £330 per week, he should pay £60 per week CSA for his two children, but if you factor in her children it goes down to £48 per week, why should the first set of children lose out because he can't keep his dick in his pants?
And on top of that, he could become a SAHD, and she the main breadwinner and he would have to not pay a penny.

All this should be taken into account when starting a relationship with someone who has children, my DP lives with me, and pays for my children, so why shouldn't his DP?

Are NRP's allowed to move on without taking their children with them? yes

Should they be? no.

NotDoingTheHousework · 05/08/2008 11:26

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

VictorianSqualor · 05/08/2008 11:26

*£300

newforold · 05/08/2008 11:29

Oh lord! Have crossposted with half of mumsnet here, must type faster!

Yes, NDTHW, when partner was made redundant a few yrs ago i paid his maintenence until her was back in work again. (about 4 months).
But, we were lucky that my salary is decent enough to do that. Not all second families have a step mum on a high enough salary to allow them to continue to pay the mortgage (step children still need somewhere to stay at dads as well as mums), feed and clothe everyone as well as pay the maintenence to the ex. It was tight but like i said, we are lucky.

To be honest, i think that whatever maintenence system is set up, there will always be winners and losers. There is no conclusive right answer that fits all situations.

jammi · 05/08/2008 11:32

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

NotDoingTheHousework · 05/08/2008 11:34

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Feenie · 05/08/2008 11:35

I read the thread, hugharsss - both threads, in fact. I know exactly which context you said it in. And I believe that what you say is wrong - in any context at all.

newforold · 05/08/2008 11:40

Jammi, i really do sympathise with your situation, i can see why your partner feels the way her does. I've read some of your other threads.

However, i have to agree with NDTHW. I do think that maintenence is part of the day to day household costs and should not be viewed as money for the exes pocket.

hughjarssss · 05/08/2008 11:42

Well then Feenie I feel sorry for you that you don't have the understanding that newforold and jammi have.

Feenie · 05/08/2008 11:44

Yeah? I feel sorry for your dsd, and all the other sc that aren't equal in their parents' eyes IN ANY CONTEXT.

hughjarssss · 05/08/2008 11:47

If you had read the other thread like you claim to, you would see, that as newforold said, dsd is a much loved part of our family and she doesn't need your pity.

VictorianSqualor · 05/08/2008 11:48

Jammi, I agree with the others, shit situation, sometimes the NRP really shouldn't the person it is, but if you choose to get with someone who has children then you must be willing to treat that child as an equal to your own, both financially and emotionally.

My DP has no other choice because he lives with me, and therefore lives with my children so all our bills incorporate my children. The same should be said for my ex's partner, especially as he has taken on her children!

Feenie · 05/08/2008 11:51

When push comes to shove, you have categorically stated she does NOT.

You say "IMO my dp'd first priority and obligation is our daughter."

Well it fucking well shouldn't be. In any context whatsoever. They should have equal prority and obligation.

jammi · 05/08/2008 11:53

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

hughjarssss · 05/08/2008 11:55

Yes Fennie we have established you have read that one post. We believe you.

Like newforold has already said I probably didn't word it right, but if you was to read the rest of the thread, it is clear what I meant.

If it was as nasty as you are trying to make out I wouldn't have MNer's agreeing and understanding with what I said.

So you can stop copying and pasting it now.. yawn

findtheriver · 05/08/2008 11:58

I don't believe that any one child should EVER be prioritised over another. Regardless of where they live.
Treating children equally is NOT, as stated several times on the thread, the same as treating them exactly the same. If a child lives with you, then you'll cook their dinner; if they don't, then someone else will, so clearly you are not able to treat them the same. But the bottom line is, they are all equally important, and it's abhorrent to think that anyone would prioritise one child over others.

Feenie · 05/08/2008 11:59

Shite rewording, then, hugharssss - take it back completely if that's not what you meant.

I may believe you if you said look, I worded it badly - of course my dc isn't my dp's first priority, he sees them both as equals and feels obligated equally to both. But you haven't. You haven't said anything like that. Just the opposite, in fact.