Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Step-parenting

Connect with other Mumsnetters here for step-parenting advice and support.

Flip

1 2 ··· 35 36 37 38 39 40

Original poster

Redundancy and Child Maintenance

999 replies

TazSyd · 08/06/2020 12:23

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?

OP posts:

Juliet2014 · 17/06/2020 17:56

* What is your fucking problem?*

Bloody hell!

aSofaNearYou · 17/06/2020 18:20

@scotsllb you have literally told OP to just "stop now" and have told her to stop making the discussion about herself because you are talking generally multiple times. You agreed with OP and then kept commenting over and over, that's what made OP weigh in on the "general" discussion. Because it felt targeted to her, because this is, you know, her thread about her situation. This is why I'm saying it's ridiculous that we now have people confused over who the OP even is, continuing to argue into the abyss when they themselves said days ago that they agree with OPs actions. Hence all the people asking, what is your (and a few other's) problem?

dontdisturbmenow · 17/06/2020 18:22

Probably not, no. That is not the scenario I signed up for. Perhaps if I was earning so much that doing so wouldn't negatively impact me and my DD, I would consider it, but that isn't the case so no I wouldn't agree to financially supporting him and his kids
And that is exactly why SMs get bad presses when SDs don't. Because SDs do accept that his partner's kids comes with her and that includes supporting children who are not his.

Then these SMs moan that their SCs don't respect them, ignore them and want nothing to do with them.

You can't have it both ways, expect kids to treat you with respect when you make it clear that they are not your responsibity in any way and wouldn't be there for them if they needed it at any time.

Thankfully, my experience is that this attitude is in the minority and most SMs have met would be horrified to think that others do. They might not love their SCs like their own of course but they care about their welfare and would be there for them if their dad couldn't. They have a good relationship with them, with the usual ups and downs of course.

scotsllb · 17/06/2020 18:29

To stop now ... after trying to insinuate that a foster carer was doing the job just to cash in. Quite vile:
Along with many of the other comments/ insinuations made.
The points have been deliberately made obtuse by the op replying in a way she has chosen to interpret to be goady.
The OP is quite able to stick up for her views and had done so.
If you don't understand the points then don't post, no one else seems to be confused.
Myself and several posters have disagreed etc but I have respect for them as users of this forum as I hope they do me and have enjoyed reading their varying responses.
It's just a forum on the internet lighten up

Bollss · 17/06/2020 18:32

When DSS lived with us his "bills" if you like just came out of the joint pot. If dp had of been made redundant we wouldn't have been able to afford the bills anyway so he would have just taken any job. In the mean time I would have covered what I could.

The difference is, under my roof he is my direct responsibly. When he's not, quite simply, he's not.

aSofaNearYou · 17/06/2020 18:33

@dontdisturbmenow Bit much. I haven't gone in the situation twirling my dastardly moustache, trying to leave my partner in a terrible situation.

It is highly unlikely the situation would arise but if it did, I am not the main earner, I am at home looking after our DD. I have taken a career hit to do so, which at the risk of generalizing, most step dad's don't have to do, so they would have to consider the possibility of ending up the main provider for their partner's kids and decide they are ok with it. Sadly women tend to be the ones with less career prospects due to raising children, so it will be more common for step mum's to not have to have a contingency plan for them being the main or only earner. If my partner ended up the only provider for his son, I wouldn't end up footing the bill because he is the main earner in our household anyway.

funinthesun19 · 17/06/2020 19:04

Because SDs do accept that his partner's kids comes with her and that includes supporting children who are not his.

Being in a relationship with the rp is much easier because the rp is generally the mum. Mums generally have a more hands on role than dads, so they don’t pile everything on to their partner like dads are notorious for doing. Stepdads only need to do something relatively small with their step kids like watch a film with them and they’re hailed a hero.

Also there is nobody bossing the stepdad’s household about is there? The rp is the parent “in charge”, and many seem to think they have a free pass to boss the nrp’s household about. This can become tedious and frustrating and does affect how the SM feels towards stepparenting, and the stepdad doesn’t need to put up with any of that. He lives in what feels like just a normal happy family unit.

Stepdads contribute differently financially to their partner’s household than stepmums do. As I have said a few times to you on this thread previously, rps have child related benefits to potentially lose if they move a partner in. The nrp does not. So the rp’s partner must make this money up. He knows this, SHE (the rp) knows this. Eyes wide open. Situation of their own making.
Why on earth would you make that nrp’s partner’s problem? The nrp’s partner has no money to make up that affects the children, and just pays towards the household as normal. Maintenance is solely the nrp’s responsibility, and the step kids will benefit from the nrp’s partner’s money when with them. Tell me where the SM is lacking acceptance of their partner’s children. Is it because they aren’t chucking money at the rp? 🙄

dontdisturbmenow · 17/06/2020 19:51

The difference is, under my roof he is my direct responsibly. When he's not, quite simply, he's not
That's the point I'm making. Its not about the child and their welfare, it's about control. This is not caring for the child but accept it because one has no choice but to do so. That's not a nice place for a child and it's no surprise when the child reacts accordingly by not caring either.

Mums generally have a more hands on role than dads, so they don’t pile everything on to their partner like dads are notorious for doing.
We are talking money here. You could say that the SD bring even less involved should feel little financial responsibity too. Yet they support the child because they accept that supporting the mother is also supporting her child.

Bollss · 17/06/2020 19:55

That's the point I'm making. Its not about the child and their welfare, it's about control. This is not caring for the child but accept it because one has no choice but to do so. That's not a nice place for a child and it's no surprise when the child reacts accordingly by not caring either

It's not about control at all. It's about responsibility. I have no control in this situation as a step parent. I don't care about my step child? Right ok then. You must know better than me eh.

Honestly, get some experience of this situation and then come back and talk to me rather than preaching about something you know sweet fuck all about.

funinthesun19 · 17/06/2020 20:02

We are talking money here. You could say that the SD bring even less involved should feel little financial responsibity too. Yet they support the child because they accept that supporting the mother is also supporting her child.

Read the rest of my post. I mentioned money and you’ve chosen to ignore it.

aSofaNearYou · 17/06/2020 20:06

I think it's a bit pointless to say being in a relationship with a NRP and with a RP is the same thing tbh. They are very different commitments emotionally and practically.

funinthesun19 · 17/06/2020 20:10

That's the point I'm making. Its not about the child and their welfare, it's about control.
No it’s not about control! It’s about who is responsible for the child. The PARENTS. and And it’s also about taking in to account other children who will be affected if someone like the op reduces the household income further in order to support another household.

This is not caring for the child but accept it because one has no choice but to do so. That's not a nice place for a child and it's no surprise when the child reacts accordingly by not caring either

No nice place for a child to know that their stepmum doesn’t need to support their mum’s household? Fucks sake. Do people actually indulge this crap?

PinkGinny · 17/06/2020 20:56

It's not supporting the mum's household it's helping their father support them, a child they profess to care for and about.

It's the same old bollocks. It's NOT for the mum it's for the child. 15% / 20% of anyone's salary is not a lot of commitment to the child/children you choose to have. Frankly I would be overjoyed if mine only cost me 20% of my earnings.

Bollss · 17/06/2020 20:58

@PinkGinny

It's not supporting the mum's household it's helping their father support them, a child they profess to care for and about.

Well yes but a step parent didn't choose to have them which begs the question why do some posters thing they have a responsibility to pay?

PinkGinny · 17/06/2020 21:00

And before anyone twists the last post I don't mean the NRP's partner is responsible; that was a general frustrated wtaf. It's not for the 'other' adult.

PinkGinny · 17/06/2020 21:01

I don't know - why not ask the very small number of posters on here who think they do? I have been very clearly that I don't.

funinthesun19 · 17/06/2020 21:07

It's not supporting the mum's household it's helping their father support them, a child they profess to care for and about.

But the father can support neither child at the moment. Both mums are supporting their own respective children at the moment. The op also supports her sd when she is with them. That’s enough help for the father to support his other child surely?

Bollss · 17/06/2020 21:07

@PinkGinny

I don't know - why not ask the very small number of posters on here who think they do? I have been very clearly that I don't.

I would except none of them can actually explain it. It's just continuous whines of ooh you don't love them ooh you're awful whine whine whine whine whine.

funinthesun19 · 17/06/2020 21:11

It's just continuous whines of ooh you don't love them ooh you're awful whine whine whine whine whine.

Spot on

funinthesun19 · 17/06/2020 21:14

It's the same old bollocks. It's NOT for the mum it's for the child.

Right. What’s your point? The child lives in their mum’s household a chunk of the time so the maintenance supports that household. Stop being so pedantic. We know it’s for the child.

PinkGinny · 17/06/2020 21:46

No whinging from me. My life is sweet thanks. I've got no horse in this race.

I do however find the willingness of a father to feel that £7.00 per week and a couple of days 'childcare' a suitable contribution to his child appalling. Add the mental acrobatics and judgement of his ex's choices by the OP to justify this as acceptable, and the overall picture is not flattering.

So shoot me for daring to disagree with the sainthood of step-mothers.

Bollss · 17/06/2020 21:50

It's not a couple of days childcare. He's offering 50/50. He's fulfilling his responsibility doing that? Or does only money count from men?

Sainthood of step mothers? Don't make me laugh.

PinkGinny · 17/06/2020 21:52

He has options. The OP has been silent on them. Perhaps as it clearly suits their joint household.

PinkGinny · 17/06/2020 21:54

He was doing two nights previously; that has increased to three. No big sacrifice there. Certainly not £272 worth of sacrifice.

Bollss · 17/06/2020 21:55

@PinkGinny

He was doing two nights previously; that has increased to three. No big sacrifice there. Certainly not £272 worth of sacrifice.

Well he was overpaying anyway.

Plus if it's 50/50 why do you think he should pay anything?

Flip

1 2 ··· 35 36 37 38 39 40

Swipe left for the next trending thread