If you can't afford one child, you shouldn t have had another one (I quote)

[travispickles]

So as some of you know I have DD of 10 weeks and DP has DS of 10yrs. CM has gone down by 20 quid a month and DP receiving angry texts (see above). She is demanding he makes up the shortfall or she will refuse to bring him into town when she is coming anyway but make us drive the two hour round trip. What she doesn't know is he has just been made redundant so starting Sept he will be sahd looking after baby. CM will go down to minimum. Thing is, I will only just earn enough to keep roof over our heads and she doesn't work although she is a qualified teacher. Do I have right to refuse to pay any of my income to her?

I'm all for it Reality - its 20 quid! But I'm with you about the work thing, she gets ALL the rights and wants very few responsibilities. As it stands I pay for my baby, DP pays half of house and bills but he'd be doing that anyway. Perhaps she shouldn't have had an affair and thrown him out...

The thing is, if they'd stayed together and had another child, then by definition, there is less money for the first. Simple maths. Not sure why people expect things to be any different when parents separate.

And you're not obliged to give her any of your income. If she wants more money she can get a job, same as you

I know how you feel. My Dh has gone self employed so maintenance has gone down slightly for his son while he is starting his business and we've had greif. (i'm currently 34+4) Her text is rather hypocritical as she obviously can't afford her child if she doesn't work! Tell her to get stuffed your working to pay for your DD she's not. She could look at it the otherway round and if they were still together she'd have to go to work if he'd been made redundant. It's something that can't be helped that no one wants! i hope your DP finds another job soon so you can relax a bit. Under no circumstances should your money be going to her it wasn't your choice to have the child and you'll have enough to worry about trying to keep your roof!

Exactly allnew! Maintenance doesn't get dropped by that much when the NRP has a 2nd second child. The measley £20 that it gets dropped by doesn't clothe feed and house your child!

and I actually think it is more expensive for the NRP to have another child with a new partner (e.g. no hand-downs or equipment to re-use from the first child, a the PWC will have kept all that. Also any bikes etc. bought for birthdays/christmas go to the PWC's house, can't be handed down etc etc

Tough one hey? If my DD's dad who is now with a new partner, had a baby and decided to be a sahd and therefore couldnt afford to help to support the child he had with me I'd be fuming. I'm sorry but in my eyes that is irresponsible. In my situation I wouldn't be able to simply decide to stay at home and not work, because I have to support my daughter - so why should he be able to cop out.

On the other hand, your step child's mother doesnt work herself... so how does she have the right to tell your DP to give her money when she doesnt have any herself??! Why doesnt she work?! It sounds to me like no one wants to step up and support this child, quite sad.

But no, I don't think your income should pay - it's not your child and you'll have enough on your plate supporting your own child.

It's up to the child's parents to support it.

I think you shouldleave the two parents to it to argue it out. Don't get involved. Work hard, support your child.

-On another note though I don't agreew tih you comment about how she shouldn't have left and had an affair etc etc... it is the child here who will suffer as a result of your dp not paying maintenacne. I don't see why the child should go without because it's mother has questionable morals.

I also agree that it is down to BOTH parents to support the child. It's not for the PWC to see the NRP and state as a meal ticket nor is it OK for a NRP to shy his / her responsibilities just because he/she is no longer with PWC.

Personally I don't think your OH has the option to be a stay at home dad when he has a child to support. He needs to be earning something to support his child, just as the PWC should be doing something too, especially if there is only 1 child aged 10.

But I also don't think it's down to you to take on the responsibility, your responsibility is towards your child.

There's something all wrong about the way CM is organised, isn't there

There was a wonderful post here a few months ago, on a similar subject. The poster said that "if a married couple have one baby, then another, and then another, it means there's less money to be spent on Child 1, with the arrival of each subsequent baby."

And that's true of couples who are separated. If either party goes on to have another baby with a new partner, then there's an extra mouth to feed, and the available money is divided up a little further.

When a couple split up, the finances are determined by the circumstances at the point of the break-up. Life changes, situations shift, and surely the finances can't be set in stone forever? Too often you hear that a man pays such a large amount to his ex, that his 'new' family is almost on the breadline. You can't 'ring-fence' the maintennace that was agreed when the split happened, expecting it never to change, no matter what.

Having said that, if I were a mother who's payments reduced just because my ex's new partner had a baby, then I probably wouldn't be too happy ........ the present arrangements for calcualting maintenance don't appear to suit many people, regardless of which side of the fence they're on.

PS - Travis: your DP's ex has no legal claim on your income, so please don't worry about that.

The thing is, I want DP to stay at home with our baby, who will only be 7 months when I go back to work. Having looked at other child care options, I am not happy at the thought of my very young baby being looked after by chavvy young girls at the local nurseries (many of whom I taught and would be loathe to trust with a dog). He was a SAHD for his first child when he was young, and he is excellent with young children. Why shouldn't I have that option too??

...because he has another child to support.

Could he not work part time, even just a few hours, so that his son can see that he still wants to provide something for him?

I've been mulling this over. Travis, I realise that it's not your DPs fault that he's being made redundant, and that it might work well for your family if he becomes a SAHD. So you'll be the breadwinner, with your salary covering all the usual bills and overheads that DP's salary did before his redundancy - except for the maintenace ...... which DP doesn't have to pay if he's earning, and which you have no legal liability to pay on his behalf.

I'm not suggesting you've manufactured this situation to duck out of paying maintenance to the ex, nor do I believe your DP would elect to be a SAHD to avoid payment. HOWEVER, like it or not, he does have a child to support, and for him to choose not to seek paid work after his redundnacy, leaving his first child almost unsupported, is questionnable.

I understand totally how frustrating it is, to have to run your life around circumstances that took place before you were around. In an ideal world we'd all be 'first wives' without step children, but sadly that's not the case.

I think your DP should consider some part time work, so that he can still provide for his son. Us 'second wives' don't always have the same range of options and choices, it's just the way it is.

Typo: I meant to say "maintenance ..... which DP doesn't have to pay if he's NOT earning"

I suppose the other option is 50:50 access....

Like that we can decide how we spend our money on him...

Be careful with 50/50 access. My husband looked into this when his marriage broke down, and was advised that he would still need to pay maintenance, which seems insane, but other people gave been given the same advice. Also, would you really want your stepson with you for half the time, when you are trying to enjoy your new baby?

I really feel for you Travis, but like lots of us stepmums, your options are a bit limited.

Yes with 50:50 access your DH would still have to pay maintenace if his was earning, and PWC would have to pay him nothing, plus she'd get all the child benefit

Oh right. Erm, how...?? Bugger that then. Thanks all!

Well the reason is that because the csa is set according to ridiculous rules that must be adhered to at all times, with any sense or reason going out of the window. And don't forget that in the world of csa we are firmly stuck in the dark ages where feminism and the idea of not depending 100% on a man has never been heard of

What about a good childminder? It seems to me that with two children to support, and what with his ex not working - the romantic idea of being a sahd isn't really an option.

How much money are we talking that he gives ex? Obviously it depends on how much it is but it seems to me you need to get away from the idea that he is giving 'her' money. The money is to support his DD and unless it's more than half of the costs of the child I don't see how you can begrudge her it. Do you not think your husband is responsible for half of the cost of a child that he created?

How iwll you feel if he leaves you in 5 years time and doesnt give you anything towards the cost of the child you have together?

When my DH was on long term sick and not receiving enough money to cover the support he pays for DSS, we continued to pay this from my salary. Yes it meant that we had to cut down on other areas, but I see the monthly payments we make to DH's ex as a responsibility that must be paid like mortgage, heating etc. I knew when I met DH that he had a child and therefore the responsibility for that child falls on us as a couple not just DH as I 'took on' DSS when I married DH.

The support we pay for DSS was reduced when DS1 and DS2 were born but DH still pays above the amount CSA would require him to pay.