Redundancy and Child Maintenance

[TazSyd]

DP is currently furloughed and found out last week that he is at risk of redundancy. He has been expecting this and thinks that there is a high chance that he will be made redundant. He’s been there less than 2 years, so will only be paid 1 month notice and accrued holiday pay. As he lives with me he will only be entitled to £75 a week contributions based benefits.

We have a DD together and he also has another daughter who lives with her mum but stays with us 2 nights a week (in normal times). One weeknight and also on a Friday night and Saturday day - we pick her up from school on Friday and drop her back at her mum’s after dinner on a Saturday. As DP has been furloughed, we (well he, as I have been working from home so haven’t done much childcare during the day for either DD or DSD) have been having her more often - more like a 50/50 split. Despite his drop in income and the increase in childcare, he hasn’t reduced the maintenance he pays to his ex.

I’ve spoken to a couple of recruiter friends and they’ve said that the employment market has picked up a bit but realistically they aren’t expecting it to pick up properly until September. So DP could well be unemployed for a few months.

DP will pay £7 per week out of his JSA to his ex but this is a lot less than he currently pays (£300 per month). I know I have no legal responsibility for DSD but should I top up the maintenance to DPs ex?

I think I would try my best to support her.
I have been a single mum before and its alot different to having a partner.
I wouldn't want my stepchilds mum to be worried about money or unhappy with the sudden drop of maintenance as it would effect his life too.
I would try and work with her see what is the best we could come up with for everyone.

There are so many instances if you look back on here of massively insane and unreasonable requests made by parents to their exs spouse/the step parent.

I think my favourite was the one where the ex wanted the stepmum Op to pay for her children to go to private school because she was “loaded”

I think my favourite was the one where the ex wanted the stepmum Op to pay for her children to go to private school because she was “loaded”

Sadly, I think I actually remember this! I have to say my experiences of my DH ex have been very similar. Although they seem to be living the high life (holidays, gigs, festivals, regular night outs) whereas we scrabble to pay our bills each month (we are both retraining and I'm disabled, so have low earning potential as a household currently). Honestly I wouldnt begrudge my DH ex or her husband all the fun stuff they do, if it wasnt for the frequent messages demanding more money because clearly we are rolling in cash...

Yeah it’s for the child, but that’s not very much consolation either
Your post says it all really. The kid is just baggage, something to be tolerated. Why would you want to provide £50 a month to ensure that child has a more stable life with her mum?

When I read posts like this and then post that wonders why teenage kids end up hating them, I do wonder how anyone can be so short sighted.

Kids are not stupid, far from it. They understand things much more than they are being given credits for. A kid will grow to understand that their SM resent any penny going to their mum for their benefit. They will put 2 and 2 together when their mum is stressed because she suddenly can't pay a bill but it's ok because their half siblings still have a great life.

I totally agree that a SM does NOT have to contribute a penny for their SC. It is their prerogative not to care about their welfare when they are with their mum.

But don't come crying in a few years time when the child becomes a teenager who don't hold up showing that they don't care about you either and want little to do with you.

There are so many instances of SMs having amazing relationships with their SCs as teenagers and young adults, but it takes showing that they matter to you as individuals from an early age, not seeing them as just the kids of the ex they have no choice but to tolerate.

A rude and argumentative OP,

Because I disagree with you?

OP, drip feeding titbits

I’ve provided further information, as I’ve been asked for it.

@dontdisturbmenow

It’s strange how with a SM relationship such value is placed on the financial contribution. I’m fond my nieces but I don’t get involved in their parents finances. I’m fond of my friends children and I’ll cook them tea but I don’t send them home with money for utilities. I think what your post sums up is how SP’s are seen as a convenient extension of the parents finances. In no other instance do you expect someone else to provide for your child. SP’s are no different.

Why would you want to provide £50 a month to ensure that child has a more stable life with their mum?

Oh please, what is with this emotional blackmail nonsense? I don't want to provide £50 a month to help out ANYONE outside of my household, most people do not donate this much to charity, even if they care strongly about the cause. There are a lot of people in my life I hope are stable, but I'm not going to pay for it personally, unless they're really desperate or it's a loan. As a whole, we all provide for our own houses and our own children.

The children don't need to grow up to be emotionally scarred by their step parent not personally funding them, because it shouldn't ever come up, it just shouldn't be expected. I'm certainly not going to pay £50 a month out of fear that when they are teenagers they won't like me anymore, if they were genuinely raised to be that entitled by the age when they should be able to understand how money works etc, then frankly I wouldn't be that bothered about them liking me.

It's ridiculous to measure whether someone cares about something/someone that is not their responsibility by whether they are willing to pay for it personally. Most aren't.

I think my favourite was the one where the ex wanted the stepmum Op to pay for her children to go to private school because she was “loaded”

I'll better that one for you (and hope she's reading this). My ex's new partner - fully aware my ex doesn't pay maintenance and never has - asked my ex if he would pay for her child to attend the local £18k a year private school. She asked him this in front of our children. The timing co-incided with me getting a job at said school. Still not worked out what might have been going on for her there but I can assure you the cheeky fuckery works both ways.

Why would you want to provide £50 a month to ensure that child has a more stable life with their mum?

Why wouldn't a mother want to work full time to earn a living to provide her child with a stable life.

You know. On account of her creating that child.

They will put 2 and 2 together when their mum is stressed because she suddenly can't pay a bill but it's ok because their half siblings still have a great life

This is just bullshit isn't it. Because the mum has lost 300 quid and less than that in real terms because she only has the child half the time. The ops child has lost half Their household income. What makes you think that child will still have a great life when they've actually lost a lot more?

I think what your post sums up is how SP’s are seen as a convenient extension of the parents finances
Mmm, one is called a step PARENT! I wonder why and not remain as Father's wife.

As already stated, spouse of RP are expected to be financially responsible for the child if neither their mother or father can financially support them.

I don't want to provide £50 a month to help out ANYONE outside of my household, most people do not donate this much to charity
Can't you see how massively offensive that is to the child? How can man stay with spouses who think like this is beyond me! The child of your loved partner is NOT anyone ffs!

The reality is that's it's all about the engrained bitterness of having to pay maintenance that goes to a woman who is being judged and resented.

As already stated, spouse of RP are expected to be financially responsible for the child if neither their mother or father can financially support them

No they're not?

What makes you think that child will still have a great life when they've actually lost a lot more?
Because they are saving in childcare AND have savings. They are some positives in their situation. There are none for the mum who will have to adjust her budget with £300 less,. No-one else to support her with the loss and no benefit to her.

Saying that, I really don't get why there was no discussion about reducing the £300 when the girl started to spend more time with OP WHEN he knew that his industry would be hit badly with what was happening AND he had no savings.

That's why I think there is more to what has been shared. It makes no sense to go from paying more than needed to paying a pittance with little concern over the impact of it.

Can't you see how massively offensive that is to the child? How can man stay with spouses who think like this is beyond me. The child of your loved partner is NOT anyone ffs!

Eeerm no, not in the slightest. How ridiculous. No they are not "just" anyone, my point was that in society, we generally pay our own bills and for our own children, and other people we know and love do not do it for us, regardless of how much they love us. There are many people I care about deeply - my parents, sibling, close friends, nieces and nephews etc, are all not "anybody" to me, but I wouldn't send them £50 a month. I might lend them money here and there if they were in a scrape, but that would be a favour and certainly wouldn't be an expectation. They are responsible for their own finances and I am responsible for mine. That is not "massively offensive" to them, and it's not massively offensive when it relates to my "loved partner's" child either.

Frankly, it's beyond me how anyone can stay with spouses who expect any partner of theirs to take on their responsibilities to their children for them, and would genuinely be affronted by them not wanting to. It's incredibly entitled.

Step Parent, Grandparent, God Parent... Are you suggesting the use of the word partner equates to a financial responsibility?

*parent

When I read posts like this and then post that wonders why teenage kids end up hating them, I do wonder how anyone can be so short sighted.

No it would just show how incredibly entitled the teenager has become. Hating a stepparent because the stepparent made the decision that the financial responsibility for the child is between the child’s parents. Most children know they only have two parents and how this works!

They will put 2 and 2 together when their mum is stressed because she suddenly can't pay a bill but it's ok because their half siblings still have a great life.

Lol! I forgot, second children are always the ones who are having this super duper amazing life aren’t they? You’re the one who is being short sighted.
And even if the second children are doing a bit better, that’s probably because their mum is providing it. But oh no that’s not allowed quite clearly.

Your post says it all really. The kid is just baggage, something to be tolerated. Why would you want to provide £50 a month to ensure that child has a more stable life with her mum?

Because it’s all one sided. If the child was struggling at dad’s you don’t see the mum falling over herself to provide fifty quid to make the child’s life easier do you?

A step parent is only a PARENT when it comes to paying money, apparently. Otherwise she can stay the hell out of all the parenting decisions because she’s not their real MOTHER. 🙄

@Giespeace

A step parent is only a PARENT when it comes to paying money, apparently. Otherwise she can stay the hell out of all the parenting decisions because she’s not their real MOTHER. 🙄

You forgot babysitting. I was defo good enough for looking after DSS when I was on maternity leave

As already stated, spouse of RP are expected to be financially responsible for the child if neither their mother or father can financially support them

I already explained this to you upthread. The partner of the rp’s income affects the rp’s child related benefits. The nrp does NOT get child related benefits so the nrp’s partner has literally NOTHING, ZERO, to make up.
Housing benefits both parents will be entitled to if on a low income, but the nrp’s partner will be paying towards rent anyway.

Babysitting for which you are charged rather than paid for apparently

Likewise I am reminded I am not DSS’ Mother when I take an interest in his well being or schooling, but when his Mum has an hair appt or a last min night out she always questions who’s home. Presumably she isn’t expecting the cat to watch DSS when she asks this after DH has said he’s away with work...

@TrustTheGeneGenie @DogBowlSpaghetti

You weren’t babysitting. You were PARENTING as you bloody well ought to have been.

How can it be parenting when your input is limited to a supervisory role? See above re not being respected in parental matters...

The arguments on this thread are ridiculous.

If you're having 50/50 care, don't pay maintenance, if the nights are above that then pay whatever you're meant to and extra only IF you can afford it.

You should not have to suffer to pay more.

Yes but yes but yes but - oh just give me £50 and shut up. You’re not her MOTHER.