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?

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.

If he does 50/50 it’s legal for him to give no maintenance.

The reason for that is because the child will be at her father’s house 50% of the time, therefore he is paying for 50% of the child’s needs.

Do you not think that the mother should be responsible for the other 50%? Or do you think the father is 100% responsible for providing for the child?

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.

If he has no money what do you expect him to do? If the rp loses their job they can rely on benefits to provide for the child. The nrp has to pay £7 with what very little benefits they receive, and keep a roof over their head and eat too. There is a MASSIVE difference between the benefit amount the rp gets when they lose their job to what the nrp gets when they lose their job. And yes I would hope the rp gets done for neglect of they chose not to provide for their child in the event of losing their job, because there is more than enough money to meet their needs.

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.

You clearly haven’t read the post about my own experience so I think I’ll reserve my sympathy for second children if that’s ok with you. We all project our own experiences and that is mine. You’re just as bitter.

rather than on the morality of neglecting children

Yeah but nobody is doing that?

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

It's not neglect. And he's offered 50/50 care. Does that not count or does only money count if you're a man?

Or you have read it but it doesn’t matter. So why should your experience matter to me?

And yes 2 parents at home is generally preferable to a child than separate homes ok

Not always. Awful to live with 2 parents who hate eachother for example.

And yes 2 parents at home is generally preferable to a child than separate homes ok

Again, my children are doing so much better in life now that I’m no longer with their dad. My eldest who is 9 is a much happier brighter child.

Which is why i said generally 🤔 meaning not always .....

Guzel - what planet are you on?
A wealthy city in the British isles here on planet Earth, where I give a home to some of the large amount of children removed from parents due to abuse, including neglect.

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???

'Father' came from you. Some NRP's are mothers. It would apply either way.

Right now the situation stands that a NRP can not work, out of unfortunate circumstances or out of choice, and then stop providing for their children. This is morally repugnant, and should be viewed as seriously as a RP doing so. It would prevent a great deal of hunger and deprivation (and less importantly but still worth observing: fewer expensive interventions for the tax payer).

It is equally morally repugnant if a parent goes on to have more children and neglects those children. Of course (and I never said otherwise). This is why I wouldn't support a legal change of forcing a NRP parent to work (they may need to become a SAHP to their subsequent child, for example). But what we can do is offer a loan, which would work like a student loan, so it is only paid off as the NRP can afford to do so - enabling them to provide financially for both children. It would actively be good for NRP's - and both of their families.

Yeah. Just giving you a real life example that’s all.

Right now the situation stands that a NRP can not work, out of unfortunate circumstances or out of choice, and then stop providing for their children

BUT THIS IS NOT THE SITUATION.

If he does 50/50 it’s legal for him to give no maintenance.

He doesn't, though. So he remains the NRP and with a legal obligation to pay maintenance.

In terms of the bigger picture on maintenance - the more a parent cares for their child themselves, the more their direct costs increase (fewer days they can work, potentially need a bigger house, more food, clothes and supplies to purchase, etc...). So I support graduated maintenance depending on time spent with child (is that in question? I think most people do.) That time spent needs to be based on the child's emotional and social needs though - social workers tell me 50/50 often doesn't work as children get older.

But he's offered to do 50/50 ffs.

If he has no money what do you expect him to do?
Didn't you read my post? To correct this injustice, which costs the tax payer a lot of money and causes harm to children, I support a loan scheme.
(As it happens, I also support a loan scheme for childcare costs, which are ridiculously high at just the point when parent/s have maximum costs and aren't senior enough to be very well paid.)

If any family can't afford to feed a second they have bigger problems than just paying some maintenance.

I totally agree and I got my problem to leave. But what hurt was that he always made sure he paid maintenance and extras, but was quite happy to not provide for the rest of kids properly. Let me just add that he didn’t actually want to pay it, he just paid it to shut his ex up for an easy life. But didn’t give a damn what I had to say about our kids going without.

Not always the first kids that miss out.

@guzel you will find no sense here. Just bitterness and a refusal to ever look beyond their own personal experience.

@Guzel I don't personally think it is "morally repugnant" for a NRP or a RP to lose their job. It is an understandable hardship that isn't their fault. I can see the logic behind the loan system you're advocating but it doesn't exist, there is no system in place for that. Not everyone can get a loan without a job, I currently couldn't. I think it is too far to call someone morally repugnant for not taking advantage of a loan system that doesn't currently exist.

[quote scotsllb]@guzel you will find no sense here. Just bitterness and a refusal to ever look beyond their own personal experience.
[/quote]
Absolute bollocks. We've paid maintenance, we've received it and I am a child who's father didn't pay maintenance.

I've experienced literally all angles so piss off telling me what I wont look beyond

It's not neglect.
Seven pounds a week towards the care for a child is utterly indefensible, and causes neglect. I take in children all the time who've been neglected because of these sort of circumstances - it is real, and happening in this country.

And he's offered 50/50 care. Does that not count or does only money count if you're a man?
I haven't mentioned sex of parents at all - there are terrible fathers and terrible mothers, though most of both are good and try their best.
I don't agree with where the child lives being based on the needs of the parent. Few thrive in 50/50 care, from what I hear, but the courts are always keen to uphold it, where both parents raised the child equally before they split, so it happens in many cases. This father should absolutely take the matter to court if he believes it is in the child's best interest.

Yeah @funinthesun it's atrocious behaviour and society need to hold these people accountable. Sorry you have to deal with it

@trustthegenie so have I as I have previously highlighted yet I am told I am immature, not fit to enter the legal profession, xenophobic and the rest.
Just because my opinion and view isn't accepted

Seven pounds a week towards the care for a child is utterly indefensible, and causes neglect. I take in children all the time who've been neglected because of these sort of circumstances - it is real, and happening in this country

Seven pounds and three nights a week which youve conveniently forgotten to mention.

I haven't mentioned sex of parents at all - there are terrible fathers and terrible mothers, though most of both are good and try their best
I don't agree with where the child lives being based on the needs of the parent. Few thrive in 50/50 care, from what I hear, but the courts are always keen to uphold it, where both parents raised the child equally before they split, so it happens in many cases. This father should absolutely take the matter to court if he believes it is in the child's best interest

What's your evidence for few thriving in 50/50 care? Sorry but he shouldn't have to take her to court to get equal access for his child. He's offering to do that for her and for his child because that is how he can support his child at present.

The mother is deciding what's best for her here, you apparently don't support that but think court should be necessary?

Well I've not said any of that. Try again.

@guzel you will find no sense here

Says the queen of irrationality.

You have consistently misunderstood the facts, contradicted yourself and tried to argue on points that don’t actually exist.

This father should absolutely take the matter to court if he believes it is in the child's best interest.

It would be good if posters had to pass a basic English comprehension test, prior to being allowed to post.