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?

Under old CSA rules, NRP's income could be taken into account, although money wouldn't be taken directly from her/him, it would mean that PWC could get more money because of NRP partners income.

Thankfully under the new rules, this doesn't happen. I would also not be happy to support a woman who seems to determined to have not done a days work in 15 years and no intention of changing it, despite what she tells the children.

Yes, that is true about tax credits. It was actually a ray of hope for me in getting maintenance from my ex at one point because he moved in with a woman with children. He was self employed and declared no profit despite his motor boat and flash car lifestyle. I remember thinking that I could actually pursue him and take some of "their" tax credits, but I felt it was an awful way to go about getting some maintenance because I would be taking from his new partner and her children, and I did eventually receive regular (albeit paltry) maintenance through a private agreement.

Surely, there should be a way to make NRP's pay a fair amount without taking from children and new partners?

the way I understand it is that you partner has been made redundant. If this was not the case you may have to option of longer maternity or reduced hours. But you now need to return to work to provide for your family. You partner who is out of work will care for your child to enable you to do this. He could also care for his other child during the week... This would mean both him and his ex could try to find employment. If he gets employment of any kind then you would be able to reduce your hours to care for your child and his if needed. If the ex gets employment she will be confident in knowing her sons child is cared for while she is at work.
With the best will in the world your partner may at worst be unable to get employment for years. Both you as a family and his ex need a contingency in place for worst case.
There are other ways to provide other than just financially. In times like this everyone needs to learn to tighten their belts including he ex wife

Latemates: Travis's stepson is actually ten years old, so there's no reason why his mother can't do some sort of paid work, regardless of whether Travis's DP does any sort of childminding during the week. I know plenty of children, younger than 10, who attend pre-school and after-school clubs.

"I see the monthly payments we make to DH's ex as a responsibility that must be paid like mortgage, heating etc."

I always have a challenge to this point though. In these days of austerity, we are all looking at ways to save money, whether by switching energy provider, shopping at cheaper supermarket, clothes at supermarkets, brand down-shifting etc etc. Moneysavingexpert is full of such suggestions, and it is widely recognised that people can save hundreds if not thousands.

Yet, child maintenance, for the NRP, is one major area of expenditure that they have absolutely no ability to make savings on. Obviously it still needs to be paid, but if someone is earning less/out of work, then obviously child support should be reduced. Presumably there is also a responsibility on the PWC to make savings on the maintenance as well by reducing their expenditure

I don't think that maintenance is for rent or heating when there is only one child. The RP would have those costs even if there wasn't a child there. It is IMO for food, clothes, school trips, books etc. A lot of RPs (my DP's ex included) seem to think he is responsible for half of her rents and bills... I don't think that is right as 2 beds isn't much more expensive than one round here and if she's at home she still needs the heating on. She makes DSd share her bath water so even that isnt an extra cost.

There again if youre a mother who has never worked, you're quite used to the father and/or the government to pick up the bill for the child you created (you and the father) so it's unsuprising that following a break up you wouldnt suddenly start feeling the need to provide.

Sorry, bit of a tangent!

Good point Berrie. I would add that some women who aren't used to working, tend to forget that if the marriage breaks down, the husband has to make his salary stretch to running TWO households. It just doesn't work.

Berrie - sorry, you are factually wrong. Maintenance IS for the purposes of housing, feeding and clothing the child and all other relevant costs to do with bringing a child up adequately.

Petal, have you looked at what maintenance the CSA deems adequate? It's far less than a parent would provide were they living in the same household. If I walked out on ds and dh (God forbid) the amount of money the state would require me to hand over would be a fraction of what I actually spend and what it actually costs to bring him up. And we aren't spendthrifts or loaded.

I didn't realise there were 'facts' I thought it was a matter of opinion?

That's right petal. When i split for my ex the number of femail friends who said I should get him to pay this that and the other was unbeleivable.. we never had any extra money when we lived together so where he was supposed to find the money to run two homes was a mystery to me.. he pays me £200 now which is fair considering I beleive it to be half of what my DD costs me per month to feed, cloth and entertain.

Edam....the NRP also needs money for housing, feeding and clothing that child too. A house isn't cheeper to rent if the child is with the other parent.but parent with care may get housing benefit for a 2 bed the NRP will not as in the eyes of the benefit works he is a single parent so only needs a 1 bed place.

Generally speaking both parents will need the same amount of clothes etc...

femail?

Exactly latemates, that's why I think often too much money is expected from nrp. As long as half of the child?s costs are paid for by each parent, there is no need to pay anymore. In my opinion. For example my DP pays £500 a month to his ex? how can it cost £1000 a month to provide for a child? (she?s with us 50/50 so it is ludicrous anyway but even if she lived with her mum 100% of the time, it doesn?t cost £1000)

But her logic is that her rent is £800 and bills are £150, so he should be paying at least £475 for this alone, plus half of everything she needs at her mums house. Plus 100% of everything she needs at ours. This is how she justifies telling everyone he doesn?t give her enough money? madness. If I could bring myself to speak to the women I would have to enquire as to where she thought she could rent and pay bills for £475 all in if DD wasn?t with her?.

I'm really enjoying this thread it's nice to see people looking at it from the 2nd family's point of view rather than seeing the pwc as the one hard up when quite often it's the other way around. I don't agree at all that Cm is for the PWC to pay rent and bills etc this is their responsibility. If the SC lived with the NRP what exactly would the (previous) PWC do to provide themselves somewhere to live and to pay maintenance to the (previous) NRP? It wouldn't hurt some people to experience role reversal to realise that 'their deal' may not be the worse one!

I can't stand that some people think they have a sense of entitlement from their ex-partner obviously i agree that maintenance has to be paid but it's often worked out it such an unfair way the NRP and 2nd family often ends up struggling through whilst the PWC doesn't.

Rhirhi and Berrie, it is a fact that maintenance is devised and intended to contribute to the costs of raising a child. That includes housing them, utility bills, food, clothes and everything else. If you don't believe me, go and ask the CSA or the courts.

I don't know who you think should pay for housing, clothing and feeding a child if not the parents?

A new partner who sets up house with someone who already has children knows full well there are existing commitments. That's something they have to take into account when planning their own future. Just as if you get together with someone who has elderly parents or other dependents, you have to take that into account. My MIL is elderly and vulnerable. If dh were to leave me and shack up with someone new, I don't think it would be right for him to suddenly decide to stop supporting his mother.

It may well be worked out that way but IMO it shouldn't be. Yes to feed and clothe them and supply things for school etc but housing should be met by the PWC as they would have to have someone to live regardless of whether they had a child or not. We have to pay our rent and bills on top of maintenance so our essential bills our significantly more than the PWC in our case.

edam I think you miss understand. I agree that maintenance is for clothes and food etc: half of the child's costs. But why should maintenace be going towards rent when the person with care would have to pay rent regardsless of whther the child was there or not? The CSA doesnt stipulate what the money is for exactly, just that it should support the child. I was just giving my opinion which opposes that of many RPs who feel that their ex should be paying for half of their rent and bills.

for example, my ex's parter goes on and on about how she's hard done by because the maintenance DP pays only covers half of her rent and bills and nothing else... but why should he be paying her rent and bills? They are NOT costs of the child. We pay rent here on a house for he and I, my DD, and his DD, 3 bedrooms. His ex pays rent on a home for her and their DD, 2 bedrooms. Her rent is £800 which is the starting rent around here for any property so if she didnt have a child she would still be paying that amount therefore it is not a cost of the child.

As far as I am concern Maintenace should pay for half of the child's costs on the days that the RP has them extra. i.e. the mum has the child 4 days a week, the dad has the child 3 days a week. Maintenace should be the amount it costs to feed, cloth and entertain the child for half of 1 day...

Ok, that would be impossible to work out!!

In my case my ex has DD 10 days a month. I have her 20. I would expect him to pay me for what it costs to cloth, feed and entertain DD for 5 days. i.e. half of the extra time that she is with me. That way we both pay for DD for 15 days of the month. Pay my rent and bills for me??! Pah I'd tell him where to stick it - I pay my own way thanks!

When I first met DH, he was paying £400 a month for two children. we now pay £200 per month for one child. We both work, so it didn't cause us hardship. However I do question how much it costs to feed, clothe and entertain two children, if DH was paying half those costs, did his ex really spend £800 per month on the children? I'm not talking about housing costs, as the ex would have needed somewhere to live regardless of whether she had children.

But one of DH's golf buddies also pays £400 a month for two children, his take home pay is £1400, but the CSA won't let him reduce his payments. he rents a small property costing £675 per month. he had to have two bedrooms as he's got a boy and a girl age 10 & 12. So he can barely afford to live.

God knows what would happen if he met someone new and wanted to start a family.

Petal you have to take into account housing costs, other wise your partner ex ( and myself) could live in a one bedroom flat.

But you forget that if the pwc needs a certain amount of bedrooms for the children, then so does the nrp. so that Argument is a double-edged sword.

Berrie, I would have thought it was obvious that housing IS part of the costs of raising a child. This isn't some revolutionary idea that I've dreamed up, it's been one of the things maintenance is designed to cover for decades. I can't believe I'm having to argue about it, tbh!