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 do! grin

I can see that You keep popping back don’t you?

And will do for next few dozen!

If anyone starts thread number 2 they should so dedicate it to you.

I’d take that happily!
Although I may hide the thread

Thank god for that

Although perhaps sadly dried up the Thread?!

Few things I've noticed; op is keen to stress how great 50/50 offer is but it's only applicable as it's best for them now. It's not like he was doing that the whole time and using it as a way to prove how great he is seems really disingenuous

Also you are a family unit. Ok he has no money right now but as a family you do. You have savings, you are saving money with the domestic and childcare load he can now provide. She doesn't have that and saying you're offering an extra day doesn't really make a difference long term; which is how she has to plan. In a few weeks/months he will be working again and the 50/50 will be gone. It's hardly a great way for her to plan shifts and organise work and life etc when it's a very temporary situation she can't rely on.

It's really hard as there's another thread on here about a step mum not wanting to provide childcare for step children whilst both parents work and majority of people were aghast. Saying as a step mum she should be aware of what she was taking on and do this for the short term etc. Yet here it seems to be sod the step kid, focus on yourself. It's confusing.

I think the main issue people have is that you started the thread asking if you should pay £50 but then went on to outline every possible reason why you shouldn't.

Step parents have it tough I'm sure but in this case it's hard to ignore the situation in wider context of how awful child maintenance as a system is. I know he can't magic up money but to be able to pay £7 a week is an outrage to me. And to be able to say that car loans and other responsibilities come first is shocking. We should absolutely be overhauling the CMS process and ensuring ways of guaranteeing money to RP. Ad hoc situations where you have a few extra days shouldn't be enough to warrant such a drastic drop. If that's a government loan like suggested up thread or an increase in child benefit for periods of unemployment I don't know. With the feckless government we have led by a man who doesn't even know how many children he has, I can't imagine this being a priority. Add to the fact that it's women who do huge majority of RP care and emotional, domestic and social labour and you can see why no one gives a shit about the situation.

I do think you should contribute. For the fact that if he is benefitting from your earnings and savings and lifestyle accordance's and so should his child. 'Overpaying' is a red herring to me. What is calculated is very bare minimum and he doesn't get a medal for paying more. £300 a month is £75 a week. Rent, food, bills, etc will swallow that easily. I know you don't want to hear that and think that you're doing loads but in grand scheme of things this is a short term situation you are benefitting from having him at home and so it's what savings are for in my opinion.

I haven’t read all the comments on here.

I don’t think there’s a lot you can do he’s lost his job and it’s unfortunate. I think his ex will have to accept that if she was desperate for anything you could try your best to help her out. Your partner will eventually find a job and be able to pay maintenance again as soon as possible.

Also if the mother needed to pick up extra work she could do as DD dad come help at the minute with childcare. Its not just about the money

I do think you should contribute. For the fact that if he is benefitting from your earnings and savings and lifestyle accordance's and so should his child.

What kind of logic is this?

You have savings, you are saving money with the domestic and childcare load he can now provide. She doesn't have that..

But she does have that, as that is what they are offering, to provide additional childcare so she also does not have to pay for childcare, and having a child at home less will reduce domestic load.

..and saying you're offering an extra day doesn't really make a difference long term; which is how she has to plan. In a few weeks/months he will be working again and the 50/50 will be gone. It's hardly a great way for her to plan shifts and organise work and life etc when it's a very temporary situation she can't rely on.

Absolutely no one can currently predict what will happen come September as we have no idea if schools will reopen as normal, what days, length of days, etc. So it may end up benefitting the ex in the long term if the OP dp is a sahp as she wont have to worry about childcare. Likewise schools may be back in as normal, which means for the ex childcare is not a problem on weekdays, and therefore it will at that point be beneficial for op dp to go back to work long as he can still provide contact time on a saturday.

But with the current pandemic I really dont see how people expect the ex to manage childcare if the op dp gets a full time job. As she would have to find childcare on her days (as I assume it would revert back to pre pandemic contact arrangements), which in the current climate is almost impossible. Then if you consider that op dp would be unable to work on the days he would have contact as they likewise woulsnt be able to source childcare, it means he will be working for part time hours on nmw, and the cms the ex would receive probably woulsnt touch childcare payments. Worse case senario she could lose her job due to lack of childcare and not being able to work one of her set days, causing a massive reduction of income for the ex for very minimal cms payments.

It just dosent make any logical sense tbh.

Logic that says children don't stop needing food and a roof over their heads and bills paid just because dad stops working? Logic that says that as a family unit with savings then all should be done to minimise impact on child? Logic that says that the mothers set bills don't decrease because dad has the child an extra day for a few weeks?

I know it's the step mums money but saving it was possible as part of a family set up. And also keeping money so separate in a marriage raises warning bells for me, it's convenient that the savings are hers alone - id never have savings separate from my husband whilst watching him contribute £7 to his child. There's no way on earth I could let that happen as I'd understand that life gets in the way and shit happens and my savings are pointless if his responsibilities are unmet

Basically for me the question is less about should a step mum contribute to her step child and more about should a family unit shoulder costs like this together and should she ensure her husband can meet his obligations if possible. If it were the other way round and she had to pay child maintenance and was only offering £7 whilst her partner had savings and ability to offer more, I would say exact same thing - that yes, as part of a couple where one knowingly got involved with someone with a child that it is a shared responsibility like a mortgage.

Logic that says children don't stop needing food and a roof over their heads and bills paid just because dad stops working?

And what if there was no OP on the scene? The child would have to cope just like all children do when their parents lose their jobs. What makes this child so special and different? I don’t mean that to sound nasty but the way you’re going on you’re making it could sound like some children need wrapping up in cotton wool.

The child will still eat and be provided for, just like a child would without a convenient stepmum.

But that's a moot point as op is on the scene. It's irrelevant.

Saying some children have to cope is also ridiculous- they shouldn't have to cope without CM, or suck it up. The entire system is flawed and dangerous.

@tellmesomethingreal
And also keeping money so separate in a marriage raises warning bells for me

We aren’t married so switch the alarm bells off. That is why I refer to DP as DP, rather than DH. You make a lot of assumptions and read selectively. Sigh, another poster projecting her own experiences, rather than actually reading the facts.

I know you don’t want to hear this but you seem to have forgotten that I do already contribute to DSD. I pay 60/40 for all her costs when she is with us. I will also be paying 100% of her costs, when she is with us, after DP is made redundant - so at that point, I will be paying 3/7 of her total costs. Historically, I have also paid 60/40 of her holiday costs, when she holidays with us.

I know you don’t want to hear this but the reason I am better off than DPs ex is because I am in a professional level job and I work full time.

Revelation - woman in full time professional job earns more than woman in part time retail job, therefore woman in full time professional job can afford to save. I’m amazed that this fact surprises you. It seems like we’re back into the idea of a fanny tax for higher earning women.

I’d actually be ashamed to be some of the posters on this thread. I can support myself and my family without expecting another woman to give me hand outs.

If anything, this thread has opened my eyes to the lack of pride and self respect some people have. You’ve also done DPs ex a disservice because from now on I will find it hard not to see DPs ex as one of you - only out for as much cash you can get from other people, no matter how you try and dress it up.

But that's a moot point because op is on the scene

So are grandparents, aunties, uncles, friends. All people that are on the scene but have no obligations to pay for someone else's kid, just like OP. I'm pretty sure she doesn't view her savings as "useless" because they aren't supporting her step daughter, either, they are safeguarding her own child. In the same way that people safeguard their inheritance in blended families, OP is allowed to have her own savings for her own household and child, especially given that she is already paying above her share of the household bills. Not everyone pools their finances absolutely.

I'm pretty sure she doesn't view her savings as "useless" because they aren't supporting her step daughter, either, they are safeguarding her own child.

Absolutely. I have a mortgage to pay (which benefits DSD as she has a room here). As a mortgage holder, I am not eligible for state help, unlike DSD’s mother who rents and is therefore eligible for housing benefit.

But yes, I shouldn’t use my savings to protect DD from homelessness. I should instead give my savings to someone who rents from a housing association and has her rent paid by housing benefit. Right, that makes perfect sense.

But op you have to remember that dsd came first and therefore is worth far more than your own child. Your dd should be happy with dsds left over scraps, dontcha know.

• I’d actually be ashamed to be some of the posters on this thread. I can support myself and my family without expecting another woman to give me hand outs.

If anything, this thread has opened my eyes to the lack of pride and self respect some people have. You’ve also done DPs ex a disservice because from now on I will find it hard not to see DPs ex as one of you - only out for as much cash you can get from other people, no matter how you try and dress it up.*

Yup. Just be glad you can hold your head up high OP.

@TazSyd

I’d actually be ashamed to be some of the posters on this thread. I can support myself and my family without expecting another woman to give me hand outs.

If anything, this thread has opened my eyes to the lack of pride and self respect some people have. You’ve also done DPs ex a disservice because from now on I will find it hard not to see DPs ex as one of you - only out for as much cash you can get from other people, no matter how you try and dress it up.

I'd be ashamed to be married to a man who couldn't support his own children beyond his next paycheck and is happy to leave the mothers to do that for him instead, so there we go, all our eyes are opened by this thread.

All respect would vanish as he suggested a £7 a week contribution was remotely acceptable one month in to redundancy.

Swings. Roundabouts.

Why are women not held to the same standards as men?

Why are women not held to the same standards as men?

No idea. I can support my DD. DSDs mother is unable to support her daughter.

Yet, I am criticised for being able to support my DD by myself. Not only am I expected to support my DD, I’m also expected to support my DSD because her own mother can’t manage to do it.

@NoHardSell

You seem to be pretty old school. In your world, men do the work and bring home the pay cheque. Women do the child rearing and cleaning.

In my circles, your attitudes died out in the 1970s.

All respect would vanish as he suggested a £7 a week contribution was remotely acceptable one month in to redundancy

Except that's total bollocks because that's not what he's suggested is it?