CM - Should I be paying it if DP can't?

[looperstar]

DP unexpectedly in between contracts atm, has'nt earned for a couple of months, has told CSA and they have judged no payments until he's back in work as he can't claim benefits. It shouldn't be long before he gets another contract, but in the meantime SS's mum wants 'us' to continue to make the normal payments to her, which in reality means me as DP has no money coming in and we keep separate finances. She keeps saying we owe her back payments even though the CSA have told her he cant opay atm.
I could probably give her some money if we cut even more corners than we are already with just my pay coming in, but I don't feel it's my responsibility to do so and neither does DP. One of my friends thinks IABVU and I should pay it on DP's behalf so that SS doesn't suffer whuile his dad isn't paying. What have others done in this situation?

[Eleleleo]

I think each of these kind of situations is different and what the law on child support says is not necessarily the right thing to do given any particular circumstances.
Im not sure decisions should be based on whether the ex is 'grateful' or not. Relying on your emotions about your DPs ex in these sort of situations doesnt seem right to me - either its right to give some money or its not. I also dont think you should base decisions on whether it will become expected or not by the ex in the future. She shoukdnt expect you to contribute.
I think if relations are very good between you all then you can have conversations about what tge right amount of support is and what the pattern is. Eg whether your DP pays more when in work and stops when between contracts for instance. However if relationships are poor then that would be an argument for trying to maintain a regular level based on yearly income. It sounds like the ex doesnt have major financial issues but nonetheless from her point of view it can be much more difficult to manage if your income is unpredictable and its even worse if that unpredictability is completely out of your control and generated by someone you dont get on with. In which case there is an argument for you paying the money now and your DP paying you back. We do this in fact as my regular predictable income vs my DPs seasonal income makes this work better for us. If you use the CSA then it should be based on yearly income anyway so he should pay back any arrears when hes out of work if he hasnt saved for that eventuality.
It sounds like it isnt the case in your circumstances but I do think it may make a moral difference if the new partners circumstances mean the NRP is working less than they would if not with the new partner and that has to one of the things to be factored in to achieve a reasonable balance of fairness to all.
I also think that it can lead to resentment by the ex if you have money you are willing to spend but want control over what it is spent on ie not paying the regular amount but keeping some back for essentials.
Again none of these things to me are necessarily absolutes. They depend on circumstances and the indivuduals involved and are simply things to be weighed in the balance.

[CatMilkMan]

If you could afford it it would be the good thing to do but if you can't no you shouldn't, especially since you have separate finances.

[CandyLane]

I think that snoozybird has totally nailed it. Especially the point about he has been earning extra working as a contractor and she has therefore been receiving CM based on that increased salary.
Op pointed out that her DP was working as a contractor whilst with his ex and she was happy about it then, she understands that his work isn't guatanteed and that there will be times when she wont get an CM, but now she's still demanding it?
I know that the money I get from my ex for our son isn't guatanteed so I budget as though I won't receive it and then if I get it it's a bonus.

[AspieAndNT]

As he is out of work could he go and do work in her house as payment?

[springalong]

there is a monthly commitment based on what has been agreed. it is up to dad to fund. how he does that is up to him. if he is out of work - well up to him - if he needs op to fund that is up to him and you to agree. Your ds mum will have fixed commitments and they need to be paid eg council tax, utilities etc.

[CandyLane]

Springalong - no there is a monthly commitment to pay a % of his earnings. I believe for one child its 15% of net pay? 15% of nothing = nothing.
The morals of this can be debated but the fact of the matter is that he is not earning and therefore does not have any money to give to his ex.
Any agreement or arrangement can not be met when he has no money and legally he is not expected to fulfil any previous arrangement whilst he is not earning or in receipt of any benefits.

Yes DSS's mum has bills to pay but it is not OP's responsibility to pay them!

[Quesera21]

Candylane - that is sad - I know the fathers payments are not guaranteed....

That is the crux of the debate ( outside of OP - not her responsibility) the NRP gets to throw their hands up in the air, not contribute and dump all the responsibility on the RP, whilst still eating, drinking, travelling etc etc. Paying for their DCs, is seen as optional for the NRP - when it should not be optional - they do not stop eating, drinking, pooing and being clothed just because he is no longer earning. RP gets to dip into their reserve/savings but not required of the NRP - that is wrong.

[JakieOH]

But what is the answer? NRP is being supported by OP agile he isn't working. What is your answer if he has no money to oay?? Sand as if RP had a partner living with her he would help oay the mortgage and bills, not for the DC but for himself and RP too. What should the NRP do when they loose their job? Would you feel better if they left their home and lived on the streets until donething turned up? Wojldnt change the situation at all for RP or DC?

[JakieOH]

Bloody phone! Sorry about typos and sp!!!

[CandyLane]

Quesera - but how do you know that the NRP is still eating, drinking and travelling?
Is that all NRPs who have a DP? Or just in this case?
I know if DH became out of work we would be totally and utterly screwed. Even if he claimed JSA or SSP, it wouldn't even cover the amount he has to pay for the loans that his ex left him paying, let alone our rent and other bills.
Just because a guy has a partner or a wife who works it doesn't mean that she earns enough to cover their joint outgoings and household bills, food etc, let alone provide them with anything near to a comfortable lifestyle. Who can honestly say that they could manage ok if they suddenly went from two incomes to just one?
And then manage to find some spare money to pay CM? It would be hard, really hard for most couples.

[Canyouforgiveher]

I don't think you have any obligation to pay your partner's child maintenance.

But how will his child be supported if he doesn't pay? There is something disturbing about the idea that the non resident parent can just stop paying whereas the resident parent presumably has to figure out how to get the beans on toast on the table and not have the electricity cut off no matter what. None of that is your issue though.

[JakieOH]

The RP needs to manage exactly the same as they would if they were still together! Take it the mother knew when she had DC with him, seeing as he was in the same job, that this could happen. It's no different than if they were still together for the RP. She should have budgeted accordingly snd not expect OP to pay for her children you can't get blood out of a stone. If he has no money now he wouldn't have had money if they were together and the RP would have had to support him.

[truthaboutlove]

I think it also depends on your set-up.

If you live together as a family with your own children or dc together, I think that makes a difference to your obligations as a family to your stepson. If you have been together a long time and you see yourself as a stepparent then yes, you could help out temporarily. If he is a boyfriend or newish partner then of course not.

[looperstar]

Quesera I find this really telling

I'm not sure it's the ex who has to be grateful to you? Maybe you need to look closer to home?

DP is always grateful for anything I do for his child, whether that's financially or practically.

But ifit was DP's mum who gave exW money towards a school trip, or bought a new winter coat if DP couldn't afford it. I think we all agree that it would be polite of exW tosay thanks even if DP already had, wouldn't it? But because I am the partner of an NRP, I deserve less in the way of simple common courtesy? No wonder us SPs get fed up.

Im giving up now, as well as lots of helpful thoughts and advice on both sides as to whether I should or shouldn't pay, there are a couple of you who are determined to paint my partner as some sort of feckless irresponsible twat - I realise there are plenty of those about, but he isn't one of them - he's a good, responsible father, who pays regulary without any fuss, has paid above CSA in the past when he's been able to afford it, and hasn't planned ahead particularly well this time. If he and exW were still together I doubt there would be this nastiness about him being out of work for a few months / not having any savings / children starving. But because he's an NRP he obviously has to be super human that doesn't make any mistakes ever. Same old.

Thank you to everyone else - I didn't come here to be patted on the head and told 'there there don't worry you should'nt have to pay it', I was genuinely interested in what people thought, and some of you have given me some interesting things to think about.

[Savethesm]

Definitely not up to you. The point ofCM is surely for dad to contribute even though he no longer lives with his children - as though he still did.If they were together he would not be contributing right now so I can't see why the existence of you in his life should create extra money.

[PinkGinny]

But he would be contributing. He would be living with his children and able to to do some of the day to day activities that are needed when money is tight. Meal plan and cook from scratch, childcare, walk children somewhere rather than drive. You know those things that folks do to save money when one of them is at home. But that RP doesn't have that support from the children's father. So he could be contributing in ways other than financial if they were still all living together. Perhaps the RP could work overtime, get another job for example to make up the short-fall if the children's father was there to help. But he isn't. So she has no help or support from the children's father to adjust to the loss of income. You know like would happen if they were together so a totally spurious argument. They are not together.

OP has your DP cancelled his phone contract, stopped paying any other regular commitments he might have loans, CC, magazine subscriptions for example. Has he cut back on wine, sold some electrical items to generate some income? Perhaps offered to help his ex out? No thought not.

None of that makes you responsible however. Just him irresponsible.

[ChocolateFreckle]

You've said your partner is choosing not to sign on benefits because he doesn't want to go to interviews. If he signed on, that would be providing him with a little income to contribute to his children. Him choosing not to sign on is not his children's fault so he should at least be finding £7 a week from somewhere to pay for his children.

Choosing not to sign on and then giving nothing is wrong.

[OllyBJolly]

It's not for the father's new partner to contribute, so agree the OP should not be paying CM.

The children do not cease to be the father's responsibility if he stops working. If he had any other financial commitment - could he just say to Sky TV, the mortgage provider, the power supplier - sorry, no cash this month?

If his current lifestyle doesn't allow him to pay regular CM then he has to change that - whether that's change career, save more or just go and sign on.

I'm constantly surprised at the number of women who stay with (and sometimes support) men who shirk their responsibilities. Child maintenance is not optional.

[swingofthings]

MY DH gives his mum some cash every month. It is an arrangement they had in place when he was paying her back for money she lent him and then it was paid, he insisted that he continued because it does mean she can then enjoy some luxuries.

If he suddenly lost his job, then I would definitely try to help continue to pay something. It might not be all, but I wouldn't think that because it is his mum it has nothing to do with me. We are in a partnership, so what's mine is his and vice versa and that includes his responsibilities. I would do it because that's what he wants to do and if he can't through no fault of his, then I would want to do it for him.

[DinosaursRoar]

Olly - to be fair to the OP'a DH, he could run his contracting via a company, paying himself a lower monthly wage from it, leaving more money in the company to cover paying his wage when he's out of work and then take the difference as share dividends a few times a year , but while that would be more stable for the ExW, she'd be getting less in CM each month as his monthly wage would be less.

If he has always contracted, including when he lived with her, she's should be aware the 'trade off' of the higher wage (and therefore higher CM payments) is less job security, so there's times when there's no money coming in.

Most contractors I know do work via companies so that they can stablise their income (and avoid paying NI on the dividends payments), but it does mean they take a smaller amount each normal month.

When he's back in work, I would suggest he has a chat with his ex to ask how would she rather manage the situation, he could pay less each month but be able to pretty much garentee that even if out of work for half a year, he can still pay himself a wage so be able to pay her CM - or he can continue to pay a higher amount, but on the understanding that she is managing the saving herself and there will be times he's out of work. She can't really have it both ways, often contracters are earning 2 or 3 times the daily rate of in-house employees doing the same job - but that extra cash is at the cost of no job security. (I couldn't deal with it, so that's why DH went in house and halved his wage for doing the same job, at least we can plan.)