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?

Does your ex pay you adequate maintenance to support your children?

Nope. And to be honest it doesn’t surprise me because he’s on his own and he’s shit with money. He has no job since he left because there was no woman getting him up so he got sacked.
The ironic thing is, when we were together his ex always got maintenance. And always got money for extras. His first child never went short in that respect, but the money he had left over was blown on fags and beers and his second children were always just plodding through life always missing something. This is why I’m so fucking fed up of hearing how second children always have better lives.
I can finally just be in control of my own finances while he concentrates on his own. When he gets a stable job we’ll look at the prospect of him paying maintenance. Right now my children just need a stable adult and a stable income.

I think you will find your views op are arrogant and assuming about your partners ex and you feel you shouldn't have to pay for her bad choices.

I don’t have to pay for her choices. The courts and CMS agree with me.

I know!!!!!!!!! You SHOULDNT PAY! I have said that all along!
Ffs getting the feeling this is being nit picky on purpose.
I am a single mum who gets no maintenance, I have also been a step mum paying for step kids.
I do well I'm not a feckless downtrodden helpless woman.
Our individual circumstances do not make the whole picture.
I know things happen that upset the Apple cart and the OP has come up with solutions.
The op brought up the fact the ex was a benefit claiming part time working serial cheat who moved here as a single mum from Poland and sat on benefits.
Maybe instead of slagging off other women look at why your DP felt the need to have a relationship with an already single mum with no prospects and have a child with her? And you entering a relationship with a man who made such poor choices in life clearly with money etc also.
Stop being so obtuse and look at your own situation.

And you entering a relationship with a man who made such poor choices in life clearly with money

He got made redundant ffs!! How is that a poor choice?

Presumably he didn't think he'd get cheated on either!!

Are you sure a career in Law is right for you? You realise that a key part to being successful will be your ability to comprehend information and create a rational, persuasive argument?

You haven’t yet demonstrated any ability to do that.

Haha! You are truly an arrogant individual. This is not an academic forum.

I've already told you that I agree you shouldn't pay in your circumstances but not allowed to voice my own thoughts without being called xenophobic and pitying.
I was always talking about the wider context rather than individual cases and that the non resident parent should have equal responsibility towards the lifestyle and upbringing of their children.
I have said that you came up with solutions to the short term problem.
You and other posters have commented as if I was imaging that single parents can be at a disadvantage compared the nrp.
That's not pitying that's fact.
My other point was merely the ex's previous lifestyle choices are irrelevant as your DH is the one was implicit in them and when you enter a relationship with previous children they are paid for and maintained as a priority same as all other children.
I'm not sure why you have decided to take such offence to that.
And to the comment he didn't expect to be cheated on?
How many women get ripped to bits on here for getting with a known cheater and then crying cause it happens to them? Double standards.

I think the main thing people are frustrated about is that now the op’s dp has been made redundant some people are only bothered about the ex. Only bothered about the first children. How they’re going to cope. Like the op should be sitting there feeling guilty. What about the op’s DD?

You and other posters have commented as if I was imaging that single parents can be at a disadvantage compared the nrp

But you can't accept that sometimes nrps are at a disadvantage and if they are tough shit deal with it no matter how it affects the children involved.

How many women get ripped to bits on here for getting with a known cheater and then crying cause it happens to them? Double standards

I have never and would never say it to a woman either so it's not double standards from me, it's just an arsehole comment full stop.

@funinthesun19

I think the main thing people are frustrated about is that now the op’s dp has been made redundant some people are only bothered about the ex. Only bothered about the first children. How they’re going to cope. Like the op should be sitting there feeling guilty. What about the op’s DD?

Exactly this!!

How many women get ripped to bits on here for getting with a known cheater and then crying cause it happens to them? Double standards.

When DP got together with his ex, she hadn’t cheated. She was single and she had an affair with a married man. That married man cheated.

DPs ex had an affair with someone else, while she was with DP. DP didn’t cheat, his ex did.

DP and I are together and neither of us have cheated.

Does that clear things up for you?

Law is very competitive. There are far more Law graduates then there are jobs in Law. At the moment you sound immature and prone to illogical outbursts. You will have to become a lot more level headed if you want a chance at a career in Law.

Yes he got with a cheat. I understood that.
I know the NRP can face hardships and the child maintenance required from them will reflect that won't it hence they pay less. As in the measly £7 on offer here.
And yes you have offered more but why I don't know are you clearly are not happy with it and listed the ex's unwillingness to further a career or maintain herself or see it as your place so that's why I said you shouldn't.
No one is saying the second child should suffer? Said child has both parents living at home and has her mother's income.
Previous child has been reduced significantly with no other income and just mum and home.
It's not a bloody competition between the first and second child is it, it's about managing the loss to both children as equally as possible and it appears the op has come up with workable solutions to do that.

I don't need a lecture on my future prospects thanks. This is an informal forum and I can say what I like?
I'm not prone to outbursts nor am I immature. I have said countless times I agree with the op not paying. Thanks for the career advice though

I know the NRP can face hardships and the child maintenance required from them will reflect that won't it hence they pay less. As in the measly £7 on offer here

No not really. Dp moved out, had an alright job, ended up paying the mortgage on the house as ex refused and he didn't want it getting re possessed. He also paid maintenance because she threatened to stop access. He took her to mediation which she also refused to pay for. He ended up renting a room off a friend because that was all he could afford. He got a tiny % of equity from the house because she wouldn't agree to anything else and threatened access again and dp didn't want to have to wait for a court hearing to see his child. She still owes him the other half of that tiny amount payable when DSS turns 18 which I am certain we will have to go to small claims to get. I don't think it's as straight forward as you think it is.

Said child has both parents living at home

Does that pay the bills does it? Does it negate all the financial issues? No. Does it fuck.

Previous child has been reduced significantly with no other income and just mum and home

Well actually second child has had their income reduced far more.

The law is an ass in these cases.

Morally it is repugnant for a parent to pay only £7 towards the upkeep of their child - and it is a massive double standard, since a resident parent doing so would be prosecuted for neglect and/or have the child removed. (I can say that with confidence, as a foster carer.) That's not even half the meals for a child for a week, let alone clothing, toys, books, learning supplies - nor any sort of contribution to childcare or maintenance of a bedroom and home facilities for them.

The answer is for parents like your partner, OP, to be forced to take a loan, so their child/ren is not neglected when they can't pay towards them being raised. The money would go direct to the resident parent, with the NRP paying it back to the tax payer whenever their circumstances improve, and ultimately it could be taken from any estate they leave. This would incentivise NRP's to take whatever work they could find rather than build up debt. It would disincentivise parents from having children they risk neglecting through poverty. And it would mean children don't go hungry, or live without heat and light and books and pencils, and that their relationships with their NRP's aren't damaged by unfortunate circumstances that befall them - that currently allow them legally to ignore their moral obligation to their children.

By this Yes he got with a cheat. I understood that.. Do you mean that my DP got with a cheat?

As technically DPs ex didn’t get with a cheat. She had an affair with a man who was married. So it was that man who was the cheat. DPs ex was single, it was the man who cheated on his wife.

As technically DPs ex didn’t get with a cheat

That should say DP didn’t get with a cheat.

The answer is for parents like your partner, OP, to be forced to take a loan, so their child/ren is not neglected when they can't pay towards them being raised

Well actually I think the answer is 50/50 care here isn't it?

And it would mean children don't go hungry, or live without heat and light and books and pencils

Unfortunately that's not true either.

The answer is for parents like your partner, OP, to be forced to take a loan, so their child/ren is not neglected when they can't pay towards them being raised. The money would go direct to the resident parent, with the NRP paying it back to the tax payer whenever their circumstances improve, and ultimately it could be taken from any estate they leave. This would incentivise NRP's to take whatever work they could find rather than build up debt. It would disincentivise parents from having children they risk neglecting through poverty. And it would mean children don't go hungry, or live without heat and light and books and pencils, and that their relationships with their NRP's aren't damaged by unfortunate circumstances that befall them - that currently allow them legally to ignore their moral obligation to their children.

Have you actually read the thread?

And it would mean children don't go hungry, or live without heat and light and books and pencils

Depends what the resident parent chooses to spend the money on.

Said child has both parents living at home

Oh fuck off with that. I’m so sick of reading this kind of emotional blackmail bullshit. That lame excuse gets thrown about for everything. Second child doesn’t get to eat. Oh it’s ok they live with both parents.

Fuck. Off.

Of course I've read the thread - and in increasing despair at your misplaced attention on the morality of things that don't matter (who cheated with whom etc..) rather than on the morality of neglecting children.

Depends what the resident parent chooses to spend the money on.
When a resident parent chooses to neglect their child, they are prosecuted or the child is removed to the care of someone like me.
When that is the issue people should report it to the council - they will intervene.
But the issue here is that currently it is legal for your partner to give only 7 quid a week towards the child, which is also neglect and a huge double standard.

Guzel - what planet are you on? A father in a 'together family' can lose his job/end up with a zero hours contract/no income and that's classed a bad luck. Yet a non resident father should be legally expected to borrow money when he's not earning, purely for the benefit of his 'first family', and very likely to be detriment of his 'second family.' Seriously???

Your argument is very biased.

Doesn't get to eat? Behave yourself!! And emotional blackmail?
I was a first child who went without due to my fathers new family who he prioritised so why don't you fuck off.
If any family can't afford to feed a second they have bigger problems than just paying some maintenance.
Stop being so bitter. All children 1st 2nd any deserve equal treatment from their parent no matter where they live.
And yes 2 parents at home is generally preferable to a child than separate homes ok