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?

@funinthesun19

So have I got this straight? The OP works full time and the OP's DP's ex works part time. They have a child each. Yet the OP is expected to hand over a chunk of her salary to her DP's ex, as well as having the child almost 50% of the time and paying for all the costs generated by her stepdaughter that almost 50% of the time. So some posters expect that the OP should pay for 100% of her own child's costs AND almost 100% of her stepdaughter's costs.

I must be missing something because I can't see what costs the OP's DP's ex should be picking up for her own child?

@JaneBofCartmel read the full thread you have been insulting and goading to me also as I already highlighted.
I'm not lying I have no need to so and if you or anybody else reads my posts back that is evident

And @JaneBofCartmel yeah you are definitely missing something. No one suggested the op take dsd 50% of the time and still pay chunks of her salary or foot everything. She does however seem to be doing that already however.
They were expecting her DH to step up

were expecting her DH to step up

He is. He is providing free childcare for OP's daughter, in return for her paying the bills. He is also providing three days childcare for his other daughter, so that her mother has been able to continue working, while schools are shut. The OP has already explained this to you - if they didn't provide care for OP's step daughter, the child's mother would either have to find a childminder for one day a week or give up work on one day a week. For the last three months, the father has had his daughter for an extra day and night per week, without reducing the maintenance paid.

I already know this. I have stated I already know this .

OTHERS have stated they think it's unacceptable and he should get a loan of sorts or whatever else hence the comments.

Others don't believe the ex's routine or finances should be upset and changed to accommodate the op and DH
That is their opinion, I have already given mine and been told by yourself that I am jealous and entitled.

I have also explained why I hold my beliefs and that's that.
Are you done telling me I am a liar and that I have been offensive and goady. That I'm jealous and entitled because I have an opinion that doesn't fit yours?

@scotsllb

And *@JaneBofCartmel* yeah you are definitely missing something. No one suggested the op take dsd 50% of the time and still pay chunks of her salary or foot everything. She does however seem to be doing that already however. They were expecting her DH to step up

They definitely were. He is stepping up ffs.

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?
34 pages and that really sums what it's all about for many posters. The hidden resentment that their partner had the audacity to have a child with another woman before meeting them and it's not so much the child that is the issue but that other woman. They are prepared to support them with all his financial responsibities BUT what goes to the child, because it has to go through HER.

I bet if the child for whatever reason lived with the father's parents or sibling, they would look at it in a different light but an EX...

It's no surprise that 2nd marriage fail when it comes to all of the above.

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.

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.

Some people are clearly hard of reading and comprehension...

The hidden resentment that their partner had the audacity to have a child with another woman before meeting them and it's not so much the child that is the issue but that other woman. They are prepared to support them with all his financial responsibities BUT what goes to the child, because it has to go through HER
I do resent dps ex, well I did, not so much now because I've learnt not to give it my attention. Anyway, it's not because of the money. It's because she's purposely made my life hard, she's used her find as a weapon and generally just is a vile human being. I would not give her a penny of my money in maintenance. However I directly support DSS in other ways so he doesn't miss out. If dp was made redundant id obv pay for the time DSS was here, buy birthday and Christmas presents, keep buying clothes and paying his phone bill. I'm not an arsehole I wouldn't leave the kid high and dry but I wouldn't pay his mother.

I bet if the child for whatever reason lived with the father's parents or sibling, they would look at it in a different light but an EX...

For me it would be exactly the same.

It's no surprise that 2nd marriage fail when it comes to all of the above

Dp wouldn't expect me to pay his maintenance under any circumstances so it wouldnt be a reason to end our relationship. His crazy ex has nearly lead me to ending the relationship several times, though.

I bet if the child for whatever reason lived with the father's parents or sibling, they would look at it in a different light but an EX

An in law isn’t the child’s parent and they are close family, so if they took the child in to live with them then to me it does put a slightly different slant on things. They’d be doing a good deed and it should be made easier for them to do so.
The partner should still be mindful about how much they give though. Like I said, in the op’s circumstances her household comes first.

It’s different paying it to an ex. It’s the child’s other parent so she should be taking the rough with the smooth like we all do as parents. Not relying on other women to come and bail her out. She chose to be a parent just as much as her ex chose to be a parent and these things can happen to us all. She needs to suck it up and get on with it like we all do. She’s not in law giving up their time and and money to care for a child who isn’t theirs. So that’s the difference.

But to be honest, I’d be wondering why on Earth the child is with in laws and not their father. If he’s that bad then I don’t think any partner would stick around anyway would they?

@scotsllb

Well family is family no? Surely you take kids on as your own? So who cares which paying parent pays it? Why does is matter if they pay out the combined incomes? This is how I think blended families should work. You expect all kids to treated as well as each other so pay the maintenance together? A single nrp pays it on his own yeah but if you are married and in a family then you take kids on as your own

So the first child gets the financial support of 3 or potentially 4 parents (if ex meets someone new), but the child of the second family only gets supported by 2, and only has their potential spending on them reduced by 100% (only 50% per parent) due to the first child. Whereas the first child gets 300% (100% mum, 100% mum partner, 50% dad, 50% step mum) of expenditure on them? (If you consider each parent to have 100% spending potential).

Do you realise how utterly detrimental that is to second family children? Basically telling them that they are secondary and not worth as much as the children from first families.

The best way to do it, as the OP family have already is that each child gets 100% from their mothers, and there father splits 50% each. Unfortunately this may mean that one child is in a slightly better position due to their mothers choices, but it is ultimately fair.

@JaneBofCartmel

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.

If they want to split it fairly they could divide the £75 per week JSA by two (as there are two children).

£37.5 divided by seven (nights per week) is £5.36. So as the OP is currently having her step daughter to stay three nights per week, the OP would receive £16.08 a week for her step daughter, in addition to £37.5 a week for her daughter. The stepdaughter's mother would receive £21.44 a week.

This would reflect that the man has two children to support. One of whom lives with him seven nights a week and the other lives with him three nights per week.

I actually think this is a really good and the fairest way of splitting the benefits if I'm honest. Although on the other hand the benefit the father receives is to sustain himself while jobless and not child based (like the rp would recieve). So it could go either way. If you can afford to split the benefit between the kids solely then this would be the best way.

Do you realise how utterly detrimental that is to second family children? Basically telling them that they are secondary and not worth as much as the children from first families.

Oh it doesn’t matter because their parents are still together. They can put up with shit being thrown at them in life because mummy and daddy live under the same roof 🙄

It's no surprise that 2nd marriage fail when it comes to all of the above.

More likely they fail because the mum of the second child is sick of feeling like their child is a second class citizen and decides to protect them ending the marriage and concentrating on their own child’s wellbeing. That’s more accurate.

*by ending the marriage

i do feel as a mum of a second child, that its very easy for the second child to end up losing out. Especially when there is such emphasis on "quality time" with just the parent for the first child. Second children dont often get that due to work, and then their weekends with that parent are entirely taken away because they have to spend this time solely with first child.

When you say that on here you just get "yes but your child LIVES with their dad, first child doesnt" and its like yes, but my child barely sees dad because dad has a job and my child gets an hour before bed with him and thats it most days.

Im thankful that dp has never took this odd stance and has always made proper time for both kids

Financially i feel second children often miss out too for all the reasons mentioned above.

Yes @TrustTheGeneGenie

Any rational person would say it’s reasonable to make time for both children. But then you’ve said yourself, second child is spending some time every day with their working parent as well as weekends. A normal family life. Not being shuffled between two homes where even when relationships are OK, there is still the raised eyebrow and exchange of looks that goes on when the ex is mentioned. It is a disadvantage and it’s not unreasonable for a child in that situation just to want time with the parent. Sadly that gets twisted into utter hysteria - on both sides - on these forums. The bitterness is beyond me. Not bitterness based on real stuff but sweeping statements - t’s money that the ex will probably feel ungrateful for anyway - for example which again any sane person knows isn’t true but you can literally feel the collective bosom hoick in agreement. So utterly unnecessary.

@Howaboutanewname

Yes *@TrustTheGeneGenie*

Any rational person would say it’s reasonable to make time for both children. But then you’ve said yourself, second child is spending some time every day with their working parent as well as weekends. A normal family life. Not being shuffled between two homes where even when relationships are OK, there is still the raised eyebrow and exchange of looks that goes on when the ex is mentioned. It is a disadvantage and it’s not unreasonable for a child in that situation just to want time with the parent. Sadly that gets twisted into utter hysteria - on both sides - on these forums. The bitterness is beyond me. Not bitterness based on real stuff but sweeping statements - t’s money that the ex will probably feel ungrateful for anyway - for example which again any sane person knows isn’t true but you can literally feel the collective bosom hoick in agreement. So utterly unnecessary.

an hour a night, when everyone is tired, and ratty after a day at work or school, is not the same as "quality time" you get on a weekend. You cannot have a day out in an hour after school.

I dont know how your family works but there is no "shuffling between homes" for us. Dss barely visits any more because he spends most of his time with his girlfriend and we disagree about how appropriate that is. However, when he was visiting regularly there was no shuffling, he either came home from school to us, or to his mum. He has duplicate everything so no moving stuff around either.

I dont know what you mean by a raised eyebrow or an exchange of looks when the ex is mentioned either because that is something that catergorically does not happen in my home. It never has and it never will. I do not express my feelings about the ex in front of DSS. I listen to him talk about his mum intently, i join in conversation and i am polite about her. Ive always remained positive about her, because as much as i think she is a raging arsehole, she's his mum and he loves her.

I never said it was unreasonable for a child in that situation to want quality time, like i say DSS gets it. So he should. But Ds gets it as well because he is no less in need than his brother.

The bitterness is beyond me as well. You have just proved the issues that second children face. "its all ok if you live with both parents"

Sorry, but no, it's not.

Sigh. Not even worth trying to discuss, is it? You’re right, everyone else is wrong.

I am discussing it. In this instance i believe you are wrong, yes.
First children need quality time with each parent, so do second children. Simply living in the same house as someone doesn't negate that need.

This keeps on coming up on my threads I’m on.... I don’t think I’ve ever come across an OP so committed to keeping her thread going!

This whole thread is about people arguing their personal circumstances as fact and any other suggestions are just wrong end of.
No room for acknowledging that is bloody hard for first kids of divorced parents, no room to acknowledge that lone parents just might have a hard time sometimes.
The poster who said the money spent wouldn't be appreciated and better spent in their own home etc ,,, that whole post sums up the feelings here.

No room for acknowledging that is bloody hard for first kids of divorced parents, no room to acknowledge that lone parents just might have a hard time sometimes

I have acknowledged both those things.

This whole thread is about people arguing their personal circumstances as fact and any other suggestions are just wrong end of.
No room for acknowledging that is bloody hard for first kids of divorced parents, no room to acknowledge that lone parents just might have a hard time sometimes.
No room to acknowledge that a home with 2 happy parents is preferable to home where you split your time.
The poster who said the money spent wouldn't be appreciated and better spent in their own home etc ,,, that whole post sums up the feelings here.

Ideally the OP's DH would be working and jointly supporting his current household plus contributing to other his child's upbringing. But the bottom line is that maintenance cant be paid out of non existent money. If he loses his job he won't have £300 a month spare. It's a lot of money, especially if you're out of work. Im not sure how on these threads people think it's reasonable to demand the same money from someone who is on job seekers as someone on £50k (for example). I'm the ex in my situation so not speaking as a NRP or step parent. My ex doesn't have the kids at all due to the circumstances of our split and he pays what he can afford. It's less than the CMS amount but even though he doesn't deserve my consideration I'm hardly going to make him destitute just to get a few quid extra. If he lived here and lost his job we'd have less money and it's no different because he's living elsewhere. It's a difficult time for lots of people and everyone needs to cut their coat according to the cloth. If he was deliberately withholding payments while able to afford it that's different.