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?

But then the first partner always does better out of the situation than the second. I don't feel that I can afford to give up work as I have a child, whilst she has done no work in 10 years since her son was born.

I think she should be working too. Now the child has 2 parents choosing not to work to support it. That's not your fault or problem. I just know I would have no respect for a partner who didn't support their child.

Travis ..... you need to tell the ILs, as has been pointed out earlier in the thread, that the arrival of subsequent children always has some impact upon earlier children, whether or not parents are still together. Unless you are stinking rich, this is unavoidable for most families as assets obviously have to be shared out. As you are only too aware - but perhaps they need this pointed out to them too - SS's mother also has the option of working so she can also contribute to her son's upbringing. This is not the sole responsibility of the absent parent. I'm sure that even in the lowest paid of jobs she'd be able to earn much more than the small reduction the CSA would have made in respect of the new baby, and her son's lifetsyle should therefore improve quite significantly if she made the effort.

Of course, DP should also make it clear to them that if they have something to say they should address it directly to him, rather than gossiping behind his back ..... ultimately, unless they have genuine concerns about SS literally going without essentials like food, clothing and shelter, it's none of their business anyway. Must feel very unpleasant if they're taking ex's word as gospel. Also feel that while she doesn't work, she really has no room for complaint ..... it's rather hypocritical when she makes no financial contribution to her son herself (unless she has a trust fund or savings ?!) other than (presumably) redistributing the money other people give her (DP, state ?).

Rainbow - I don't think he is choosing not to work he has been made redundant and has not yet found a job. This is entirely different. While he is out of work it makes sense for him to look after his child/children which allows the mother/s to work so that there is still some money coming in

No, the op says he has just been made redundant and will be a sahd from Sept. Nothing about trying to get work.

But to a 7 month old baby, who I would like to be able to stay at home to look after myself. But I can't, as my DP has been made redundant. Do I have to put the baby in a nursery for the sake of a lazy woman who doesn't see that she has any financial contribution to make to her 10 year old son?

Rainbow the op says she must return to work due to redundancy. Therefore while he is out of work it is logical that he will be a stay at home dad.

I recon paying out for child care while dad is out of work and able to care for child would be a waste of money and leave lessor his other child too.

Make no mistake his first child will benefit from one adult in his fathers home working as the home will be better heated, better quality of food, and occasional trips and treats due to the fact their will be one wage coming in. The first mother has a duty to provide for her child whilst in her care the same as the father but whereas the second wife is prepared to go to work after her husbands redundancy the frist is not. This father by all accounts has always provided for his first child but due to difficult times he is going to be redundant from sept.

Firstly, you don't have to put you 7 month year old in a nursery. It can have a childminder and wont suffer a bean.
It is not for the ex that your DP should work, it is for his children. Both of them. Your child is no more important to her child in his eyes I'm sure. It is shit that she won't work, it makes my blood bpoil, but two wrongs do no tmake a right and the first child deserves, at the very least, ONE parent who is willing to earn money to provide for them. As others have said, it shouldn't be your responsibility to pay. But if you are supporting your partner financially in return for his childcare and housework etc then he is in effect receiving an income and should be paying some of that towards his first child.

Can he and his ex not have 50/50 care of the first child so none of this is an issue? You two can pay for the child's costs when with you, and his ex when the child is with her?

twooffnowplease - I've seen you suggest 50:50 care in a couple of threads. Whilst I completely agree with your point, my own experience is that even limited access is a source of great difficulty for fathers. It's not as easy as it sounds, and courts simply don't support it. In the eyes of the law in this country (and many many PWCs), fathers are not equal parents and have no rights, only financial responsibilities (and similarly the view is frequently the opposite for mothers - they only have rights, no financial responsibilities). Clearly this is generalising and not the view of all - but this attitutude pervades MN in my experience.

Even if Travis' DP decided to go for 50/50 access, he would still need to pay maintenance to his ex, so that wouldn't solve the problem.

Why would he Petal?

allnew I know it's not that easy in a lot of cases, I just like to pose the question because it seems so often that it is just assumed that the mother will have the child more often. The Dad feels hard done by because he has all the financial responsibility and none of the rights, the mother feels hard done by because she feels he isnt paying enough (when often the amintencae is covering way more thna half the child's costs)

Take my situation. My DP's ex makes sure she has DSD 4 nights whilst we have her 3. Purely to make sure she is the person who has her more. We have DSD more 'day time' as we have the weekends.

She doesnt enjoy DSd's company but will never go for 50/50 care because she'd lose her money.

If it was encouraged more by the state then people like her would have to allow dad's more rights.

I realise it doenst always work like that. My ex wasoferred 50/50 but he'd rather pay out than have DD there more

A man who has fifty-fifty access still has to pay maintenance - strange but true! My DH looked into this when his marriage first broke down.

Oooh, that is such bollocks. I don't mean as in, not true. Just bollocks.

Why isn't it the case that the woman pays the man though, if it's 50/50? Is it purely a sex thing? Or is it the person who claims the CB that gets the maintenance?

I agree that it's cr&p.

Whoever has the child benefit is classed as PWC.

I'm another 50-50 fan, the system we have is so confrontational.

So if a separated couple have fifty fifty access, who gets the child benefit?

Normally the person who was receiving it before the access arrangement came into being and I don't think it's possible to have it split. :-(

With 50/50 access you have to have an amicable ex to make it fair financially.

It could be shared.. Or in a lot of cases the second house will have children too and will get it. Otherwise, it could just be taken as read that the person who receives it buiys the school uniform or something.

but yes this is in a utopia where everyone realises they are equallty responsible for the child they created with another person.

You'd think that was ano brainer wouldnt you?

I knew of a divorced couple that had 2 children. 1 lived with Mum, 1 lived with Dad. CB went to respective houses. Dad paid CSA for child living with Mum, Mum never paid a penny for child living with Dad and Dad had to do all the running around, hundreds of miles every other weekend.

Why maintenance couldn't just have been written off for both parents, I don't know.

Apparently it is something to do with earnings. So a big earner still has to keep kids in good lifestyle whereas a non earner can pay nothing.

You would honestly think in these cases that the 'high' earner was just growing the money on trees or given it as a gift wouldn't you.

If you work you want to give your child a lovely life at your home (of course making sure they have the basics when with their other parent)

In my situation the child only has the basics at each house because the 'high' earner i.e. my DP has to cover both homes with his salary. It is ridiculous and definietly not for the benefit of the child.

I knew of a divorced couple that had 2 children. 1 lived with Mum, 1 lived with Dad. CB went to respective houses. Dad paid CSA for child living with Mum, Mum never paid a penny for child living with Dad and Dad had to do all the running around, hundreds of miles every other weekend.

Why maintenance couldn't just have been written off for both parents, I don't know.

I have read all of this thread with facination. I am not a step motehr I am a step child my parents divorced when I was 5.. The above scenario is exactly what happened for me with my brother.

brother remained with our father I went with our mother they didnt pay each other childmaintainence ... fair and right yes??

On paper it works perfectly.. In reality I grew up as a latch key child whom rarely had more than what could be bought in low price shops and certainly wasnt permitted to do any after school activities as they were way to expensive. When I look back on my childhood I am often horrified at what my father allowed to happen to his child but equally so over what my mother permitted.. (and lets not even get into my first stepmother whom almost managed to ruin my relationship with my father thank heavens for my wonderful stepmother no 2 that managed to convince him I was worth fighting for and I am certain she laid the foundation for the loving relationship I have with my father today (35 years after they divorced)

My brother on the other hand grew up with the latest toys the latest clothing expensive hobbies and permission to play a instrument plus holidays (I was permitted to join them 1 week out of the 3 in the summer holiday never for the ones outside summer holiday - step mum no 1 again)
My brother grew up being looked after by childminders not returning home to a empty home until he was in his late teens (not at childminders that long but other arrangements until then) and had a loving parent whom was there for him to help do his homework and whom was supporting him.

there are things money cant buy but there are also things money CAN buy. In the case of me and my parents if they had considered this split a bit better perhaps I would not have grown up spending most of my childhood on my own because they would have seen that was not ok. as it was they spend the first 8 years after their break up barely talking to each other.. (again thank heavens for step mother no 2 whom managed to make them see how wrong this was - ironic that theese days I have step mum no 1 on facebook adn occationally chat with her but step mum no 2 doesnt wish to have anything to do with is as her and my fathers divorce was not pretty)

I dont think that there is a set way that will work for everyone. I do believ both parents should be working if they are able and if you have a 10 year old imo you are able. with a preschooler it is much harder.

OP Sorry to highjack a bit here but that comment really got to me.
I dont think that you should not be entitled to have your partner be a SAHP but I would encourage you to consider what effect this will have on your step son. If he is going to have a marked difference in his upbringing from what your child will have is that fair? YES your dh's x should go out to work and perhaps that can be worked out I 100% get why you feel that is not a good way for her to go and due to that I would say she doesnt have the right to tell your dh the title of this post. However sadly some people are rotters in life.. The trick is to not permit them to make you one..

they are both his children to me that would always be the key.. Please consider that then make a calm decision as to how to go forward. (imo she will need to take a cut in maintaince as your family will have to but I do agree there is a responsibillity here perhaps work a way to gete around it I would suggest a mediator to deal with it all.

Thanks Lonnie - sorry your situation wasn't easier. It is a very valid point, and these things are endlessly confusing and difficult that much is true!