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?

If there's suddenly less money to go round, shouldn't everyone's "slice" reduce accordingly?

Magic - I agree with you. It doesn't seem very fair, and makes 2gorgeousboys almost seem like a martyr to her DH's first family, at the expense of her own children.

I always think maintenance should be paid, but if circumstances change, then sometimes payments have to change.

Oh god yes! BOTH parents should be working if they can. I am in the situation where my DSD's mum doesnt work, my partner has to support the child because she refuses too claiming that the child needs he mum at home (DSD is at secondary school and is rarely at home with her mum anyway, usually with friends)

But what i'm saying is that it just won't do for neither of these child's parents to be working, it seems that neither of them want to support her financially. And that being the case, i don't see how travis' DP can go ahead with being a SAHD for the benefit of the new child, when the other one apparently has no financially secure parent to make sure it's ok. Who is going to pay for the child?!

I think Travis's DP and the ex should both seek some sort of paid work, to support their child. The burden should not fall to Travis for heaven's sake!

Could Travis's DP be a SAHD during the day, and possibly find a few hours' work in the evening? I appreciate that this might not be possible, but whatever happens, Travis SHOULD NOT have to support a child that doesn't belong to her, who has two non-working parents - what is the world coming to?????

Not a martyr just recognising that DSS is part of our family and therefore support for him should be maintained. This was a 6 month period whilst DH was off - if he had been made redundant we may not have been able to sustain this permanently but I think that we would continue to pay something. If DH and I made the decision that he would not get another job then why should DSS suffer?

I appreciate what you are saying about less money if they were still together and that DSS is benefiting from 3 working parents and our DCs only 1 though they have not suffered in any way and if they had started to be affected we may have had to rethink!

I think it is wrong for a father to decide not to work if it means he can't support his child. And it is irrelevant whether or not the mother is working. Even if she is earning a lot, surely a father should have some input into his child's life? IMO, he is favouring the new baby over his existing child and I can see why the ex-W is furious.

I appreciate the OP would rather her DP looked after her baby - I was not keen to put my babies in childcare. But in this case it looks like he would have to abandon the older child to do so and that doesn't seem right.

"I think it is wrong for a father to decide not to work if it means he can't support his child. And it is irrelevant whether or not the mother is working. Even if she is earning a lot, surely a father should have some input into his child's life? IMO, he is favouring the new baby over his existing child and I can see why the ex-W is furious"

Isn't it hugely sexist to suggest that it is wrong for a father not to financially support a child, but totally acceptable for a mother not to work?

My other response to that post would be - what about the case of a working PWC who has children with an ex (who pays maintenance) and then decides, upon having children with a new partner, to give up her job? Isn't that then also 'favouring' the new child under your own reasoning tryingtoleave? Should the NRP be 'furious' under these circumstanes? - or is it ok because she's a woman??

I totally agree with majicjamas and allnew!

I agree travis's dp should support his child. If he wants to be a SAHD that's fine but he has to figure out how he will support BOTH his children. If he and Travis decide it suits their family for Travis to the the sole breadwinner that's fine but it does mean that Travis has to support BOTH children. Maybe the law allows NRPs to wriggle out of their responsibilities but it is not neither moral nor fair to expect the taxpayer or the PWC to shoulder the burden alone.

Also agree in Travis's case the PWC should be working too but that still doesn't mean Travis's dp can opt of of his responsibilities. We all get taught at our mother's knee that two wrongs do not make a right.

Being part of a step-family makes things more complicated but that's the deal when you become a step-family.

Is it at all possible that your DP can do before and after school care for DSS every day so that his mum can work full time hours with no child care costs? Then both families would get the advantage of the SAHD.

MJ, I think in regard to it being 'ok' that he didnt work to look after the first child but not the second: In the first instance, it was a decision by two people with one child that he could best support the family by being at home. i.e. the mum worked out of the home and he worked within the home. There were no other children to support and that is what worked best for their family unit. In the second instance there is a bigger picture. The first child isn't benefitting at all from him being a stay at home dad, and is in fact worse off... It seems very much that he is favouring the second child and of course Travis is cool with that because she has her own child's best interests at heart.

I definitely do not think that she shouldbe supporting the first child in any way. I myself am sick of helping support my DSD while her mum doesnt work. But I don't think it's fair what her DP is planning to do if it means he can't provide for the first child.

If he's going to be at home could he tell his ex that he'll provide the child care for the first child if she goes back to work?

X posts with moomaa - great minds hey!

?If he and Travis decide it suits their family for Travis to be the sole breadwinner, that?s fine, but it does mean that Travis has to support BOTH children?

Nooooooooooo. Travis should NOT have to support her ex?s child. I agree that the law should not let NRPs wriggle out of paying, but that doesn?t mean that other people should pick up the tab on their behalf.

Travis?s DP and his ex should both seek paid work to support their child. They have a moral responsibility to do this. But if he CANNOT find a job, then the maintenance does not become Travis? problem .

I am so grateful that the law doesn?t take into account the money that NRPs partners earn, otherwise my DH?s ex would spend her life having babies, facials and lots of coffee mornings.

Yes, too many PWC see their kids as a meal ticket to not have to go to work. It is the responsibility of BOTH parents to support their children financially, emotionally and practically. If one ducks out, it doesn't mean the other parent should have to pick up the slack, but invariably that is what happens if that parent has a sense of responsibility. In some cases, both parents are happy to let the state pick up the tab for their children. I will never understand that attitude.

What are the rules with NRP partner incomes? i thought that they couldnt be taken in to account but then there is the bit about the nrp 'having a lifestyle in line with a person of a higher income due to their partner' or something like that.. God knows I love the man to death but I would leave without hesitation he day that it became the case that his ex could take money from mine and my daughter's pocket!

Berrieberrie - there is no such rule, thankfully

Berrieberrie - the salary of the partner/spouse of the NRP is not involved in calculating maintenance. There is no way on this planet that I would continue to work if DH's ex had a claim on my salary.