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?

The foster carer is surely speaking from experience? She sees this stuff everyday? Sees court cases explaining why and how the circumstances came about and obviously non paying was a contributory factor.

@lostmyshityear9 absolutely this 100%

My point was is that they should absolutely be able to rely on their child being maintained and supported by the other person who laid down and made them and chose to have them

Yes, you should but you can't because redundancy happens, accidents happen, deaths happen ffs

You can insure for death and accidents, even redundancy. It's perfectly possible for a responsible parent (NRP or PWC) to put together an insurance package to provide some support for their child should something happen to them.

In the event of my death, my house would sell for enough to support the children but just in case, I have a £6 a month policy that will pay out directly to my ex should I die whilst we have a child under 18. He will do very well out of it. And he still pays fuck all maintenance.

@Lostmyshityear9

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

Ermmm....maybe because in the OP's case, the other parent is single? So the impact of losing the income is particulary acute because single adults with children struggle to have quite the same choices as non-single adults (without or without children). So a clear case in point might be the OP's partner could work shifts, early mornings, late nights knowing his partner would be looking after one of his children and his other child would be cared for by his ex. A single person with a child would have to find over night childcare or very early/late childcare all of which is pretty much non-existent to be able to do the same. A couple who lose an income have, on the face of it, more opportunities to make up the lost income. Of course, much can depend on the work of the other person, things like having caring responsibilities for an aged parent or a child with disabilities, but there is no doubt that two people trying to find a solution to a financial problem are, for the most part, going to find it easier than one because the juggling involved is easier if there is someone else standing there trying to catch all the bloody balls too.

Because there is clear expectation that the ex in the OP's case is expected to just fit in with whatever arrangements the OP comes up with? It hasn't been reported as 'look, all 3 of us need to deal with this' but rather 'here are our solutions, which one do you want to take?'

And there is much pretence here that taking the child for half the time is the solution. I don't know the ex's financial obligations or the conditions of childcare etc. but for many, having the child for a short period of unemployment won't help because they'll simply have to keep pay for the childcare to keep the space open. Fab for the child to get more time with the other parent. But does fuck all for the finances.

It's like a bloody echo chamber in here.

Both kids are in the same position. One parent working one not. It's irrelevant that the mums single because her partner, like op wouldn't be responsible for financially supporting her child. % wise child one has lost less income.

Also if you'd bothered to read you'd see ops other half has asked the ex what she would prefer. I don't know why you've blatantly lied about that?

You can insure for death and accidents, even redundancy. It's perfectly possible for a responsible parent (NRP or PWC) to put together an insurance package to provide some support for their child should something happen to them

You can but not everyone does, and when they do it generally pays off their house. The more money you want the more you pay and it gets expensive very quickly.

In the event of my death, my house would sell for enough to support the children but just in case, I have a £6 a month policy that will pay out directly to my ex should I die whilst we have a child under 18. He will do very well out of it. And he still pays fuck all maintenance

Good for you?

@scotsllb

The foster carer is surely speaking from experience? She sees this stuff everyday? Sees court cases explaining why and how the circumstances came about and obviously non paying was a contributory factor.

I'm not sure foster carers get that much info about non paying father's? And what she explained clearly has nothing to do with maintenance. It was actual physical neglect.

No one except the posters up thread have disagreed with the OP apart from her general views towards single parents etc and women who have children before being financially secure etc

This is a valid point. It applies to two parent families too.

There was a thread on here recently - the gist of it was that they couldn't buy a house because mortgage lenders subtract the cost of childcare from the money you can use to pay a mortgage. So even though this OP and her partner were paying more each month in rent payments than they would in mortgage payments, for the same house, lenders don't consider them to be mortgageable. The OP in this situation had had children in her early 20's, prior to buying a house. I know that this is a completely different scenario but it does show the importance of taking steps to ensure you are financially stable, prior to having a child.

Both kids are in the same position. One parent working one not. It's irrelevant that the mums single because her partner, like op wouldn't be responsible for financially supporting her child. % wise child one has lost less income.Also if you'd bothered to read you'd see ops other half has asked the ex what she would prefer. I don't know why you've blatantly lied about that?

Sigh. The children are not in the same position. Not even near. If you can't see that a couple is at an advantage when it comes to juggling the responsibilities required to allow one or both to work, it is beyond me.

Not lying at all. It is YOU who is choosing to read selectively. The OP has made it clear that two solutions have been put to the ex - those are solutions that she and her partner have come up with. At no point have they asked the ex what she thinks should happen or if she has any kind of opinion on what could happen/

Good for you?

yes, good for me. Responsible parenting. Trying to do the right thing. Trying to anticipate what might happen to my children should something happen to me. Making allowances for that and trying to deal with the fall out that might never even happen. Who would have thought it? As opposed to the thousands out there who can't be arsed to even make a contribution to putting food on a child's plate on a normal day with no illness, disability, or anything else.

@Lostmyshityear9

Good for you?

yes, good for me. Responsible parenting. Trying to do the right thing. Trying to anticipate what might happen to my children should something happen to me. Making allowances for that and trying to deal with the fall out that might never even happen. Who would have thought it? As opposed to the thousands out there who can't be arsed to even make a contribution to putting food on a child's plate on a normal day with no illness, disability, or anything else.

I mean we have insurance too.... I just don't feel I need a round of applause for it. I don't feel a need to support any ex's either tbh.

Sigh. The children are not in the same position. Not even near. If you can't see that a couple is at an advantage when it comes to juggling the responsibilities required to allow one or both to work, it is beyond me

Because RIGHT NOW they are in the same situation. The mother of each family works. The father of each family (same man!) Doesn't. So only money coming in is mums. Both have dad for childcare.

Yes, when things are "normal" it's much easier to be in a couple but that is not the point I'm making as well you know.

Not lying at all. It is YOU who is choosing to read selectively. The OP has made it clear that two solutions have been put to the ex - those are solutions that she and her partner have come up with. At no point have they asked the ex what she thinks should happen or if she has any kind of opinion on what could happen

You are lying. They've come up with options and asked the ex what she prefers. They can't just ask the ex what she wants because it would probably be to carry on the old arrangement but quite obviously that's not going to happen. She's been given the choice of what happens going forward, which she didn't have to even be consulted about tbh.

@Lostmyshityear9

This was covered earlier in the thread. We have given her the options we have thought of and asked her to come back to us with her views and any suggestions she may have.

Yes, our situation has changed and we can’t afford to both pay the same amount as before and have DSD for 3 days and 3 nights. We’ve outlined the situation to ex’s DSD and asked her to come back to us with what the best option for her is. She may come back with a different idea than the ones that we have mentioned to her, which we will also take into consideration.

@Lostmyshityear9

Good for you?

yes, good for me. Responsible parenting. Trying to do the right thing. Trying to anticipate what might happen to my children should something happen to me. Making allowances for that and trying to deal with the fall out that might never even happen. Who would have thought it? As opposed to the thousands out there who can't be arsed to even make a contribution to putting food on a child's plate on a normal day with no illness, disability, or anything else.

Better than the op's partner, whose calculations seem to have gone ... £7 a week for my 2 children = 14/week total. Great, if I save £60 I'll have plenty put aside in case of emergencies. Which is lucky because. .oops ..I forgot to pay my taxes.. there goes the rest of my savings. Never mind, that's more than enough, and the mothers of my children can just sub the rest.

Oh go away @nohardsell you clearly have nothing to add other than spiteful bullshit.

If DP and I split up then I wouldn’t struggle but I do work full time and rely on my salary, rather than maintenance and benefits. I have several friends in the same situation.This infantilising of single parents on benefits concerns me. The poor little women just couldn’t work out that having children before they were financially secure would have a negative impact on both them and their children

Are you really so narrow-minded that you can't see a bigger picture?

I was left with a 5 year old in school, a 3 year old in preschool and a baby who would have needed nursery. All in different buildings in different parts of town. All with different opening and closing times. Even assuming I could have overcome the logistics of that and got to work for 8:30 am (ie. I didn't have an hour's commute), can you imagine having to do that via public transport?

Now throw in a disabled child who needs 24 hour care. I am in a situation at the moment where despite the fact my child is in year 6 and his school is open, the school won't take him back because...well, you'd have to ask them the reason but risk assessment says no. What if I was in a role where I couldn't work from home in the current climate? You don't think being single makes that harder to manage than being part of a couple?

Is it beyond the realms of your understanding that not everyone has family they can rely on? Or even friends who can help out anything than other in a dire emergency?

And before you come back with some of your nastiness about 'financial security', let's be clear. I have a degree, MA and a professional qualification. I work in a shortage area although it's not particularly well paid. I had a supportive husband up until the day he wasn't supportive. We made choices that worked for us based on a thriving business that paid for detached houses in the South East out right and 2 big cars on the driveway. Getting work for me isn't an issue. Keeping it, with all the other logistics - childcare, hospital appointments, specialised childcare for disabled child....all that makes working difficult. I manage it becuase I am particularly tenacious and for some of the more difficult years, had family support (all passed away now). But fuck me, it was hard.

It is depressing to see so, so many women can't see how easily life can just fall away and how quick to blame choices which were utterly reasonable in the given circumstances. Yeah, I'm reliant on benefits. Fuck knows what would have happened without them in those early years. But my single parent status makes work difficult and promotion even more difficult. Sad that you are so utterly devoid of empathy you can't get past your own self-importance. Sincerley, I hope you never have to find out.

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
And to be fair OP, if indeed it is temporary, for a few month until he gets another job that he has spent plenty of time to find, then I think there is nothing wrong at all with what you are proposing.

If it becomes that he doesn't want to take that or that job, and that his getting a job correspond to the time your child start school, then I think it would have been very planned.

Because it costs an awful lot of money and they don't often get awarded it
So why considering it at a later stage when they are even less likely to get it?

No sweetheart. It enables him to continue supporting his child as he can't do that financially right now. Tell me what's wrong with that?
Thanks for the sweetheart, not sure it was necessary. As above, I personally don't have an issue with it as long as his priority is to return to the previous arrangement asap.

Exactly, this is such a depressing thread.

So why considering it at a later stage when they are even less likely to get it?

Because it benefits the child far more than £7 per week would? What's hard to understand about that?

@scotsllb

Exactly, this is such a depressing thread.

Yes it's depressing to realise that to some people dad's are just glorified cash points.

@Lostmyshityear9, there will be situations that certainly make it difficult, but it can't be denied that many single mums who opt to work PT because it's easier and on balance, with good maintenance and benefits can still offer a very good lifestyle to their kids.

Its when the youngest finishes school that it becomes a problem for many.

Glorified cash points? No not at all.
Just ensure you pay for your responsibilities end of same as everyone has to!
Again the massive massive amounts of men who don't pay? No glorified cash points there and the poster who just posted her situation,,, not one there either.
I'm sure the ops husband could pass his £75 a week JSA to his ex and live of the rest of the finances until he finds work in reality

@scotsllb

Glorified cash points? No not at all. Just ensure you pay for your responsibilities end of same as everyone has to! Again the massive massive amounts of men who don't pay? No glorified cash points there and the poster who just posted her situation,,, not one there either. I'm sure the ops husband could pass his £75 a week JSA to his ex and live of the rest of the finances until he finds work in reality

Yes and by having his child half the time he's doing that. But apparently it only counts if you give the cash directly to the other parent.

I know lots of nrps don't pay. I'm not excusing them. This one has lost his job. It isn't his fault and he's offered an alternative.

What so he should give all his money to the ex? So he can't contribute at all to his other child? Or towards what his first child costs when she stays with him?

Seems fair

Yes, when things are "normal" it's much easier to be in a couple but that is not the point I'm making as well you know

No. I don't know what point you are trying to make. The children are not in the same position. Their parents have different situations and one set of parents is at something of an advantage when it comes to managing the situation.

You are lying. They've come up with options and asked the ex what she prefers

again, as you seem to be hard of understanding. My point was to say the ex is expected to do what the OP and her partner want. I evidenced this by saying that they have given her options and are expecting her to make a choice. This is expecting the ex to do what they consider appropriate. Whilst I accept wholeheartedly that they can't necessarily just do what the ex wants (whatever that maybe) there is more than one way this could have been tackled. They could have approached it from the perspective 'look, sorry this has happened, we have some ideas, shall we discuss them,' rather than presenting Option A or Option B as a fait accompli. OP has now clarified, I think, that they have tried to seek out the ex's input which is a positive. No lying on my part.

If the DP gives 100% of his JSA to the ex, then he is most definitely supporting the first family to the detriment of the second.

Yes and by having his child half the time he's doing that. But apparently it only counts if you give the cash directly to the other parent

If the ex has to continue to pay for childcare whilst the OP and her partner have the child half the time, then yeah, only cash is going to count really. That's particularly the case when the OP and her partner are not seeking to make a permanent move to 50/50. The ex will more than likely need to keep on paying childcare (although with then numbers predicted to be out of work soon, it may cease to be an issue) so she can keep the space open. Certainly where I am, spaces are few and far between and you don't give up a space if you know you're going to need it.