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 don't personally think it is "morally repugnant" for a NRP or a RP to lose their job.
I never said that. Please don't misquote me. I've lost a job myself - it was agonising.

I think it is too far to call someone morally repugnant for not taking advantage of a loan system that doesn't currently exist.

Easier for people to say who have not taken in a toddler who is emaciated with hunger, or twelve with head lice and unable to read.

When a parent loses their job they should do everything they legally can, to continue to provide for their children. Whatever bits of work they can find. Borrow money from spouse or wider family. Sell some possessions on Ebay. This is what resident parents do. And, at the very least, NRP's should promise to pay what they haven't been able to as soon as they're back on their feet, as well as building up savings to avoid neglecting their children in future.

And yes @scotsllb I see what you mean, but don't worry I knew that defensiveness would be the reaction to my comments. There are always very many more lurkers than contributors though, and if even one of those behaves with more empathy towards children in their lives after reading about how poverty leads to neglect, it's been worth writing this.

AND, just to add to that, his ex wife had the cheek to say that my children have everything they need and never go without while her child was costing her ££££ and ex wasn’t providing enough. She had absolutely no idea what struggles my children were going through because of the common denominator... their dad.

I hate this assumption that second children have everything they need to the detriment of first children when sometimes second children are struggling too, because the shared parent isn’t managing their money properly. All the blame gets piled on the second children’s existence when the problem isn’t them at all.

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

Purposeful goadiness is outwith talk guidelines. Stop being so rude.

@Tazsyd where I have been irrational or misunderstood facts?

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

What an unnecessary comment. You do not know if someone has learning difficulties etc.

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.

By all means correct me if I'm wrong but this very much reads like you are saying being made redundant and then finding yourself unable to provide for your child is morally repugnant.

I agree with you that parents need to do whatever they can, my partner has had to sell anything he could many times in the past, but there is no magical loan for NRP who can't support their children, if he tries to get a loan he may not be given one. He can ask spouses or friends but there's no guarantee they will say yes and they aren't obliged to. He can't force them. You are calling people morally repugnant for things they can't necessarily fix.

@guzel

You really are extrapolating nonsense from the situation described. Why would DSD end up in care (with headlice and malnourished) if she comes to us 5 or 6 days a week.

Stop being so rude yourself - calling someone you’ve never met “morally repugnant” just because they don’t have the same view as you is also rude.

I don’t think your loan system will be a winner with the government either.

@scotsllb

You’ve been pulled up on it consistently. Read your posts and the replies.

@funinthesun who is blaming the second child? I haven't seen this?
It has been repeatedly said ALL children should be receiving equal support from their shared parent.
Again this comes across as personal and it's not looking at the wider society.

Well actually I think the answer is 50/50 care here isn't it?
And so the other question is, why didn't he fight for the 50/50 when they separated? Why don't all those men who are so keen to be so involved and see that they shouldn't have to pay more go for 50/50 in court?

Because in the cast majority, it very much suits them not to. They don't want to have to look after a little one, to have to arrange child care every other week, having to negotiate some flexibiity with their employer. They want freedom to meet someone new, start their lives again.

Then when suddenly they have their new family, the child is much easier to deal with and financially it suits the new family, they play super dad who is happy to have them 50/50.

I have my utmost respect for dads who go for 50/50 from the time of seperation. I do believe that 50/50 is best for kids when it's done for the right reasons.

I have little respect for dad who suddenly expect the rp to agree to 50/50 because it suits their new life.

I have little respect for dad who suddenly expect the rp to agree to 50/50 because it suits their new life.

As previously stated it is one of several options that have been offered to DPs ex as a temporary solution to a temporary problem.

@dontdisturbmenow..... absolutely!
It does seem the OP has her step daughter almost 50/50 anyway so not relevant in her case but in general your point is spot on

If we take @Guzel advice and go via the courts, DPs ex will be in a worse situation financially - both for this temporary situation as well as when DP finds another job. I’m not sure why you would want that.

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.

By all means correct me if I'm wrong but this very much reads like you are saying being made redundant and then finding yourself unable to provide for your child is morally repugnant.

I have highlighted the clause in concern for you. Being made redundant is not morally repugnant. Choosing not to work may not be - for eg if there are caring needs to be met, though if done purposefully to avoid maintenance then I think most would say it is.

I agree with you that parents need to do whatever they can,

Then we are in agreement.

You are calling people morally repugnant for things they can't necessarily fix.

Every parent can try to provide as much for their children (wherever they are resident) as they need, rather than saying 'legally I only have to pay 7 quid' and leaving it at that. Personally I find the latter view is morally repugnant, yes. Because I've seen what happens to children as a result of extreme poverty.
Where a parent has no way to borrow or sell or earn to provide for their children (wherever they are resident) then obviously the situation changes somewhat - it's still morally repugnant that a child should be provided with so little from a parent, and harm will be caused to the child because of it, but the moral repugnance is caused by societal and governmental failures, rather than the individual parent's choices.

I see the government has just backtracked on free school meals over the summer; it's good to hear some good news for once.

@Tazsyd

You really are extrapolating nonsense from the situation described. Why would DSD end up in care (with headlice and malnourished) if she comes to us 5 or 6 days a week.
This comment here is a great example of the way you deliberately choose to read into answers or views given.
You have done it to me every time and told me I am irrational an misunderstood.
You know full well that the poster was not suggesting your SD would end up with head lice etc, you know she was speaking in a general sense.
You are being deliberately difficult and I'm not sure why.
Many people agree with your personal situation and your choices but you have chosen to take comments made in a general sense and make them about you. Tiring

As previously stated it is one of several options that have been offered to DPs ex as a temporary solution to a temporary problem
Yet it's the one you keep throwing back every time.

Your husband lost his job. It happens. Its not his fault. It would have happened if they were still together and the child would have had to do with less. No issue there.

The issue is when looking for another job doesn't become the ultime priority.

I'm a strong advocate of RPs being expected to look for work and support their kids. I'm glad the rules have changed do that they can't just pick up benefits until the youngest is 12 with no requirement to look for work.

But a lazy rp doesn't mean it is ok for the nrp to also shriek from his responsibity or throw the 'I'll now become more of a rp if you don't like it'.

I think it is also easy to throw in the 50/50. 50/50 as awhile is more expensive. Mainly because of housing needs but also because a nu.ber of things have to be bought twice. There is the the discussion of who buys what. Who pays for activities and all the kits for them, presents for birthday parties, school trips, and when they get older, mobile phone contract, braces, extra tutoring, driving lessons, visits to unis, etc...

I think sometimes nrp can be oblivious to the true cost if a child especially as they get older.

@scotsllb

Guzal does a similar thing to you. He/she posts about my situation and then winds in other examples of situations that are nothing to do with me.

Both of you had to have the situation pointed out to you several times due to the fact you either chose to ignore the facts to make a point, or because you misread the posts.

It does seem the OP has her step daughter almost 50/50 anyway so not relevant
It was my impression that the almost 50/50 only came about since lockdown and that arrangements has been more standard up to then.

If we take @Guzel advice and go via the courts, DPs ex will be in a worse situation financially - both for this temporary situation as well as when DP finds another job. I’m not sure why you would want that.

If it's in his child's best interest for there to be 50/50 then that's what I support. As I keep saying, we need child centred approaches.
However I think it sounds unlikely a court would reach this conclusion in this case as I've never heard of a family court (and I attend them often) allow a change to 50/50 because a NRP has become poorer. If he's unable to sustain proper maintenance then he's unlikely to be seen as able to provide the clothing, toys, entertainment, food, etc his child needs.

You are being deliberately difficult and I'm not sure why.

For the fun of goady fuckery. That's pretty evident at this point.

@Tazsyd you couldn't differentiate between the two.
I, in the main have been talking in general sense about nrp responsibilities not your individual circumstance.
You have replied to those comments as if they were about you personally and they were not. Just as the previous poster was commenting in a general sense

@dontdisturbmenow I think they were only short of a day 50/50 in general I could be wrong

It does seem the OP has her step daughter almost 50/50 anyway so not relevant
Yes 2 nights a week in normal time, so nowhere close to 50/50 OP keeps going on about.

OP clarifies the 2 nights in her first post.

However I think it sounds unlikely a court would reach this conclusion in this case as I've never heard of a family court (and I attend them often) allow a change to 50/50 because a NRP has become poorer. If he's unable to sustain proper maintenance then he's unlikely to be seen as able to provide the clothing, toys, entertainment, food, etc his child needs.

If we are forced to go to court over this as you are suggesting then the below would happen.

Once normality resumes, we would go back to the old arrangement. As I have said several times the options we have given DOs ex are a temporary solution to a temporary problem.

So Guzal would like DP to reduce the maintenance paid to £210 per month from £300 per month. Guzal would also like me to stop using my flexi time to pick up DSD from school on a Tuesday (after all that’s one of DSDs mothers days) so DPs ex would either have to reduce her hours to pick up DSD or pay for after school club.

If we go to court DPs ex would be worse off.