Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

in stopping stepdaughters maintenance payments?

470 replies

postmanbob · 15/10/2008 12:49

namechanged as don't want to be recognised.

DH has a DD(11) from previous relationship and we have 2 DC together, both pre-school age. We have a good relationship with SD and regular contact. My DH has paid maintenance every month without fail since the relationship broke up when SD was still a baby. We met a couple of years after that. Maintenance was agreed between them both and has not been an issue until now.

DH is in the construction industry and we have been hit hard this last year, his job is hanging on a wire and they have been as much as told to take it week by week.

I work very very p/t and my department have had trouble recruiting for a f/t job recently. Anyway, I spoketo my manager, they interviewed me and I have been offered the post. This means my DH will give his notice so he can care for our children. My new job is secure (NHS). The salary will be less than DH and mine but it is secure and we can survive on it.....but we will be unable to make the maintenance payments.

Does this sound dreadful or understandable? We are both very torn on what to do and I have to accept/ decline by Friday. I should add that it will not cause his ex finacial hardship......but I'm sure she will make a big fuss.

OP posts:
StewieGriffinsMom · 15/10/2008 22:40

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Peachy · 15/10/2008 22:44

In fairness whilst working evenings etc is a great idea, its not easy to get any work atm- esp. work around schools / that people can have as a second job, and may simply not be an option

KatieDD · 15/10/2008 22:45

The CSA here do not require a reason not to work, I don't fancy it would more than cover it here.

Original poster
postmanbob · 15/10/2008 22:47

we would be happy to have SD live with us and I would be happy to support her if this were the case....

I think it is a case of 2nd families being seen as less worthy somehow. We could afford the maintenance payments when we decided to have children of our own but thinsg change dont they

DH and I have always been adament that our relationship comes before all the children in that we need to be strong and secure so they have a stable upbringing. DH has already got a fragmented situation from his SD and has always tried to put our stability before anything else. That has made me feel secure and important in his life and consequently I dont feel any resentment towards SD that you often hear about

its simply the fact we do not have the money for anything other than paying for our essentials at the minute.

OP posts:
Quattrocento · 15/10/2008 22:48

Well if your SD is having foreign holidays courtesy of her mum and stepdad then obviously it's fine to cut off maintenance ... NOT. What muddled thought process is that? His child, his responsibility to pay. End of.

I like the sound of the Canadian system. It sounds far more equitable.

TheHedgeWitch · 15/10/2008 22:48

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

TheHedgeWitch · 15/10/2008 22:49

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

LittleBella · 15/10/2008 22:50

Would be unreasonable if you stopped payment altogether. Not unreasonable to reduce payment in line with reduced income. Would be unreasonable to wilfully reduce income solely in order to avoid maintenance payments, which is not uncommon, but is obviously not the case here.

FAQ, slight hijack but how do you live on £16 per week for food for children? Is this per child? And £50 per week for family? I'm trying to do this and have already gone £8 over budget and it's already wednesday. Do you avoid supermarkets? Sorry for hijack OP, but I need to know!

Original poster
postmanbob · 15/10/2008 22:51

stewie - I dont want my pre-school children in nursery and neither does my DH. One of us will stay home until they are in school.

My Dh could get an evenign/ weekend job I suppose.......when would he see his dd then? She is school aged so sees him evenings and weekends.

OP posts:
Peachy · 15/10/2008 22:53

I'm not sure the Canbadian system is great either

seems to me that second income should be considerd for mortgage / council tax bills etc, and then when the 50% has been deducted, the (is it a third?) amunt should be paid should be calculated from his remaining salary. A sort of midway system, I guess.

I think ExP and katie were quite sensible to avoid Dad's if that was their priority- hck yo've got tolive for yourself before you have kids- but personally i'd have quite liked srepkids - always liked being around kids, 'freedom' and being single didn't taste great to me.

StewieGriffinsMom · 15/10/2008 22:57

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Quattrocento · 15/10/2008 22:59

Shouldn't it be irrelevant whether it is a private arrangement or one that is brokered through the CSA? Entrely irrelevant?

Having a child entails responsibility. Emotional and financial. It doesn't matter whether or not that child actually needs the money. That sort of thinking is self-justificatory. How do we know how hard the SD's mother and stepfather have worked for their money? Perhaps they actually used the daycare that seems so abhorrent to you but so normal to many working people, and just got on with things? Even if they won the lottery it wouldn't make a jot of difference.

FAQ · 15/10/2008 23:02

"FAQ, slight hijack but how do you live on £16 per week for food for children? Is this per child? And £50 per week for family?"

the CSA has said that exH has to pay (only got the letter through this week so no money coming from him yet) £16 a week per child.

I obviously have my own (state provided ) income. Average weekly shop for the 3 DS's and myself is around £50.

Actually - correction - is usually £50ish when I plan properly and don't buy lots of extra stuff I don't need when I pop to the shop .

This time of the year soups, casseroles, homemade bread, lots of beans and pulses. I buy loose veg so I only buy what I need - and often scour the "reduced to clear" sections get some great bargains in there sometimes.

I've been really bad lately at sticking to budget - managed it first week of this month - and it's all gone to pot again as I got lazy.

I tend to do one "bulk" shop at the start of each month online with Asda (as I don't drive so massive boxes of washing powder/big packs of toilet roll etc are a bugger to get home).
I sit there and methodically work out which washing powder/dishwasher tablets/whatever is best value (of the biggest sizes) and order them in - my washing powder I ordered at the start of September is still going strong and I average a wash a day.

Any other shopping I pay for in cash - if it's not in my wallet (the cash) then I can't spend it - so I have to decide do I really need x,y,z or can I do without. Oh and then the advantage of paying cash is that each time I've bought something I save anything less than 20p to go into my "emergencies and treats" account - think I've saved well over £50 this year (actually maybe closer to £60) doing that

Peachy · 15/10/2008 23:03

Not really- Quattro- not if personal circumstances mean a payment that is much higher than CSA would ever ask can't be maintained (and this chap is facing ultimate redundancy). If the rpivate arrangement were the equaivalent of the csa amount then absolutely but its not. DH earns just a couple hundred less than OP's dh and takes home £1100- £400 is a massicve portion of that and as such the excess above the csa rate has to be negotiable if income drops.

StewieGriffinsMom · 15/10/2008 23:04

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

FAQ · 15/10/2008 23:04

"Shouldn't it be irrelevant whether it is a private arrangement or one that is brokered through the CSA? Entrely irrelevant?"

No I don't think it is irrelevant when the NRP is paying a massive proportion of their salary to support their child from a previous relationship.

Peachy · 15/10/2008 23:07

Ah I see Stevie

I do think when you marry a father ou have to be aware that his children have to be supported and I wouldn't prsonally have an issue with that, and I do also think all money is family mney (spot the non-earner!) but I do think there neds to be sme differentiation between dad's incme and step aprents iyswim?

Ronaldinhio · 15/10/2008 23:08

sorry are you kidding with this?

i haven't read the rest of the thread just your post but ffs you are properly properly kidding yourself if you think you can justify this as reasonable

catsmother · 15/10/2008 23:11

If you read the rest of the thread Ronaldinhio you'd see that the OP does indeed go on to further explain the difficult situation she's in. You can't call someone unreasonable when you admit you've not read all she's written.

Peachy · 15/10/2008 23:11

Erm ronadlinho I think thread moved on quite a way- OP didnt really explain and no they eren't planning on cutting her off (othrwise i'd be forst in there with a FFS)

ElenorRigby · 15/10/2008 23:12

bob..YANBU
If your DH isnt earning he cant pay maintenance and the CSA would not ask him to do so. DSD is not your child, your earnings will not be taken into account if the CSA were involved. Looks like your DH has been seriously overpaying according to a quick calculation he has paying twice the amount required by the CSA, so by the time he gets to pay maintenance again he will still probably up to date with his financial commitments to his first child. Btw you have not said if DSD stays with you overnight for how long. Overnight stays with you would mean a reduction in what your DH should have been paying.
You are also right as is Hedgewitch, that it totally stinks how people give more value to children of first families to that of second.

Ronaldinhio · 15/10/2008 23:14

ah...yes i can and i have, however i'll read it now

StewieGriffinsMom · 15/10/2008 23:16

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Quattrocento · 15/10/2008 23:19

This is not about treating the second family as secondary in any way. It's about recognising responsibility. How very quaint of me to think that fathers simply shouldn't be allowed to walk away from responsibility. I'd better take my old-fashioned views off this thread.

PoppyCoc · 15/10/2008 23:23

I'm that people dont realise that second families = second rate. That is the general consenus IME.