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?

My brother is a member of my family but I have no legal obligation to financially support him

@scotsllb

It's the minimum. And they are even considering this

It's not the minimum, they don't refer to it as the minimum.

That's a benefit from the dwp, an idea from one mp. Great if it happens but I wouldn't count on it.

@scotsllb

We were offering to have DSD more than 50% of the time, covering all of DSDs costs while she with us and pay DPs ex £7 a week, in addition to the plus 50% care.

You do realise that 0 maintenance is owed if the NRP has 50% or above care? I hope you do realise this, as it’s been pointed out to you several times now.

There are many different familial roles, but the only ones responsible fincially for anyone else are the mother and father. Step children are family, but step parents fall into the category of all other family members who aren't responsible for them financially.

Such as grand parents and Aunts and Uncles. @scotsllb. Do you think my mum, sister and brother should pay DPs ex too?

A child is not the same as being a brother / sister or any other family relative.
I know there is no maintenance to be paid if you take dsd 50%.
The fact the MP raised highlights a need for it across society, a fact you are happy to deny

A step child isn't the same as being a child, though.

I'm not happy to deny anything, there is a need for it because people are out of work.
Doesnt mean men like ops husband are neglectful arseholes as has been implied.

And as for the CMS now taking people's word for things with no evidence, they've always done that when it comes to the rp!

A child is not the same as being a brother / sister or any other family relative.

Correct but a step child is. DD calls me mummy, DSD calls me by my first name. DSD is not my child, I care about her in the same way as I care about my niece and nephew.

Dsds mum already pulls her weight doesn't she.

The child's mother isn't pulling her weight if, as you suggest, the OP and her DP have the child for over 50% of the time AND the OP pays the DP's ex far more maintenance than is owed.

OP chose to enter the situation

OP did not agree to take on 100% responsibility for someone else's child. That would be called adoption and it isn't the case here as the OP's step daughter still has two parents who are active in her life.

Yes absolutely, I must have a naive view on the step family situation as that's how it worked for me. I didn't mind as I saw it as my responsibility too as I chose to be with someone who had kids and would pay for them myself if it was necessary.
I think I was taken for a fool anyway and was part of the reason the relationship ended.
I'm just so conscious of how horrible it is being in that situation for children who didn't chose it.
I didn't want anyone to feel less important or valued or worth less.
But my views on it seem to be in the minority and I will accept that my boundaries were not firm enough and took on too much responsibility.
Like I say my own dad reduced massively payments to my household when he had a new family and often didn't pay at all.
It really did make me feel awful and I wondered myself why the two of them couldn't be bothered to support me and their child together.
I don't want any child to feel like that.

@Tazsyd you are so obviously goady it has made for some pretty amusing reading. Your ability to cherry-pick statements combined with an inability to apply any critical or lateral thinking is quite a skill set. The sneering, judgemental, aggressive undertone is less amusing however.

General consensus is YOU are not responsible for meeting your ex's commitment to his child from his earlier relationship.

Humour me, what other prior commitments of your DP's are you meeting, aside from his commitment to your joint child. Car loan? Credit card? His share of the mortgage? Or has he chosen to just not pay them too? Maybe a token payment @ 2.5% of regular commitment. That should work. Has he explored payment breaks available from all lenders to help with cash flow?

Has he actually looked for another job - career role or not? Has he explored childcare for his days? In fact has he done anything practical other then tell his ex shit happens, it suits him & you , for him not to work and she needs to change her working days, cut her earnings, have her schedule changed, less time with her child who will receive c. 2.5% of previous support from her dad - pretty much all of the above to varying degrees.

How much do you expect your household costs to increase with the move to 50/50? Why just temporary - go for it all the time if it's best for his child surely. Not just suiting his agenda, and your agenda, right now.

Nice easy summer ahead for your DP however with respective mothers of his children doing the hard work.

[quote PinkGinny]@Tazsyd you are so obviously goady it has made for some pretty amusing reading. Your ability to cherry-pick statements combined with an inability to apply any critical or lateral thinking is quite a skill set. The sneering, judgemental, aggressive undertone is less amusing however.

General consensus is YOU are not responsible for meeting your ex's commitment to his child from his earlier relationship.

Humour me, what other prior commitments of your DP's are you meeting, aside from his commitment to your joint child. Car loan? Credit card? His share of the mortgage? Or has he chosen to just not pay them too? Maybe a token payment @ 2.5% of regular commitment. That should work. Has he explored payment breaks available from all lenders to help with cash flow?

Has he actually looked for another job - career role or not? Has he explored childcare for his days? In fact has he done anything practical other then tell his ex shit happens, it suits him & you , for him not to work and she needs to change her working days, cut her earnings, have her schedule changed, less time with her child who will receive c. 2.5% of previous support from her dad - pretty much all of the above to varying degrees.

How much do you expect your household costs to increase with the move to 50/50? Why just temporary - go for it all the time if it's best for his child surely. Not just suiting his agenda, and your agenda, right now.

Nice easy summer ahead for your DP however with respective mothers of his children doing the hard work. [/quote]
Personal attack

absolutely, I must have a naive view on the step family situation as that's how it worked for me. I didn't mind as I saw it as my responsibility too as I chose to be with someone who had kids and would pay for them myself if it was necessary.
I think I was taken for a fool anyway and was part of the reason the relationship ended.

Fair enough.

Some would say that the OP has already been too generous (as you were) in that she has historically paid 60% of her stepdaughter's costs, while the child has been at her house. Two nights a week until April and three nights a week since then. Including paying 60% of her stepdaughter's holiday costs.

Once her partner is redundant the OP will be paying 100% of her stepdaughter's costs for three nights a week, almost 50% of her stepdaughter's total weekly costs. If they decide that the child should stay with her father more than three nights per week, then the OP will be paying over 50% of her stepdaughter's total weekly costs.

The OP is already financially supporting her stepdaughter. She isn't required to do this and I'm appalled at the abuse the OP is getting. The OP is someone who is already doing far more than is required to support a child that isn't even hers.

Didn't finish!

Personal attacks on op are pretty sneering and judgemental don't you think?

you are so obviously goady it has made for some pretty amusing reading. Your ability to cherry-pick statements combined with an inability to apply any critical or lateral thinking is quite a skill set. The sneering, judgemental, aggressive undertone is less amusing however.

This sounds sneering, judgemental and aggressive to me.

The OP began sneering and patronising comments from the off. No one has personally attacked merely retaliated.
I don't appreciate the personal attacks on me in this thread. Nor does implying to a foster carer they are only in it for the money.

Most posters are defending the op anyway

No one is abusing the OP she is behaving the way the other posters have said.: by being deliberately goady, patronising and choosing to deliberately take a term said in a general sense as a personal slight against her situation.
Only got back what she has been dishing out

There have been personal attacks on her and some of the language used to describe her husband has been abhorrent.

Yes because some can't accept that her DH has got into the situation of being unable to pay his responsibilities. That the idea that he won't work during the evening and expects his ex to change her schedule and income to suit is not acceptable.
Some people have found that hard to understand hence the comments towards the husband

No one is abusing the OP she is behaving the way the other posters have said.: by being deliberately goady, patronising and choosing to deliberately take a term said in a general sense as a personal slight against her situation.
Only got back what she has been dishing out

You have been particularly goody and insulting. The OP has been surprisingly even handed, given some if the names both her and her DP have been called, by you and others. She has retaliated at times but in response to some particular nasty comments.

I've called her DH no names at all.
I was in support of the op and I didn't agree with her views on women that have been expressed.
I have not been goady I have defended my point of view from someone calling me xenophobic, repeatedly asking if I'm dumb and telling me that I cannot form a coherent, reasoned argument on a bloody parenting forum.
You have also been personal told me I am projecting, jealous and remind you of the op's ex!
Which there was absolutely no need for

the idea that he won't work during the evening and expects his ex to change her schedule and income to suit is not acceptable.
Some people have found that hard to understand hence the comments towards the husband

Taking the stepdaughter more than the current 3 nights a week is just one of the options presented to OP's DP's ex. The OP and her DP have come up with some solutions to the issue, have presented the OP's DP's ex with those solutions and then asked DP's ex for her input.

This has been repeated many, many times on this thread. Like many other things, it looks like you didn't didn't take this point in.

For the last time.... I have understood that point ok. I agreed with it for the op sake.
I was point out that others DID NOT hence the comments about the DH ok.
Again a general statement

My issue with the op was the views held on women being in a certain financial situation prior to choosing to have children. The view that a couple may be in a good financial place when they choose to have children but once the relationship is over the resident parent can struggle to maintain one.
That resulted in goady, personal and patronising comments to myself and others.

Not the arrangements here

@scotsllb

There is no point lying. Your comments are there for all to see.

Humour me, what other prior commitments of your DP's are you meeting, aside from his commitment to your joint child. Car loan? Credit card? His share of the mortgage? Or has he chosen to just not pay them too? Maybe a token payment @ 2.5% of regular commitment. That should work. Has he explored payment breaks available from all lenders to help with cash flow?

Car loans, credit cards and mortgage payments aren’t the same as maintenance are they? Of course she’s more likely to help him pay these.
It’s the principle when it comes to paying his maintenance for him....
-It’s money going to another household for a child the op did not choose to have.
-It’s money that the ex will probably feel ungrateful for anyway.
-It’s money that could be spent on her own household which let’s be real, is more meaningful and money well spent.
-It’s money that she needs to provide for her DD, especially now more than ever because she’s the only parent of DD working.
-It’s family money but it’s not the ex’s money. Dsd will be provided for by the op when she’s with them, but it ends there.
-All of the other financial commitments you mentioned ultimately benefit the op’s household. Chucking maintenance the ex’s way does not benefit the op’s household does it?
-What makes you think the op wants to work hard at her job only to see a chunk of it go to another woman when her DD could benefit from it?

So yeah, maintenance is a little bit different. It’s all a matter of principle. He and his ex made a child, they can pay for her. It shouldn’t disadvantage anyone else in the process.