His ex wants me to pay maintenance

[Justriseaboveitkiddo]

So I'm a new mum and found mums net tonight whilst googling unblocking my baby's nose and generally making baby feel better during his first cold (warning, if you are thinking of sucking on your baby's nose you may end up with a mouthful of another humans snot) and then I saw this step parents page and wondered if someone could help shed some light on another matter for me. I had a quick squiz down the threads but couldn't find anything so I may be looking in the wrong place but anyway...
My dp (I really hope I get the acronyms right but I mean no offence if I don't) was made redundant last week, yay for Mondays, and he hasn't been there long enough to get any payout, I'm not even sure the company has money for payouts anyway. He had a conversation with his ex about child maintenance and basically he has no idea what he is going to do for money if he doesn't get a job quick sharp because he has no savings and he can't claim benefits as we live together and I earn quite a comfy wage so this month is likely the last maintenance payment he'll be making for a while. I'm currently on maternity and had initially planned to have as close to 2 years off as I could, I have savings to cover this and a little freelance side income that is still ongoing on an as and when I feel like it basis. As a household we will be OK for money for the next few months assuming the roof doesn't blow off or something equally expensive happens. I have never gotten involved in his finances and he doesn't get involved in mine. We are completely separate in that respect. We split the bills down the middle and the rest is our own to do as we wish with. I definitely never ever ever got involved in the financial arrangements he had with his ex, I firmly believe there are some circuses you should never have a ringside seat for. However yesterday the ex made it my business by phoning my dp and told him I had to pay her his maintenance and she was getting a court order to make it so because we live together and she knows how much I earn and her child shouldn't be left in poverty when I'm clearly capable of paying (I imagine she's hazarded a guess at what I earn because of what I do and the look of my house and car etc but I can't see how she would know for sure) Now, I know she can't do that and I haven't ruled out giving her money but neither have I ruled it in. It turns out he was paying £450 a month and that's what she wants to keep getting or she'll stop contact. I just wondered if anyone else had been in a similar predicament, his child is 11 and this last year contact hasn't been great (covid) and I know the prospect of him having no contact at all is killing him but I'm swinging backwards and forwards from "cheeky cow, I've worked my bloody arse off in some absolute hell holes for years to have what I have and you're not getting a penny just because I started shagging your ex 4 years ago" to "sh*t I can't let him lose contact, if I don't pay it'll be all my fault he's hurting" Do mothers honestly stop contact with fathers over money? I've heard it but never really believed a mother could do that for that reason and has anyone paid a ransome on behalf of their men folk and how did it work out? There's is no way in hell she'd be getting £450 a month if I did pay, I'd have to go back to work really soon in order for that to happen and I'm definitely not giving up this time with my baby for anyone but then is less than half that going to get him any contact? Or should I just stop worrying about it and absolve myself completely on the grounds of its not actually my business?
I'm rambling now and I'm sorry, part of me needed to vent and part of me wants someone to tell me all this stuff works itself out.

Magda is spot on. This is why I also advice my kids to immediately part company from someone who already has kids when they themselves are childfree.

@rawalpindithelabrador
This is why I also advice my kids to immediately part company from someone who already has kids when they themselves are childfree

I couldn't agree more.

I also advise my DD to be financially independent and not become SAHM when they have kids, making themselves financially vulnerable. Being a SAHM may work for some, but it wouldn't be for me and I don't want it for my DDs if/when they have kids.

I would be absolutely ashamed to suggest or even hint that my Exs partner support my DC. It's ludicrous.

We had the ‘but I’ve got one income and you’ve got two’ bleat until DH pointed out she did have two - the one she earns and the 4-figures a month maintenance one DH provides for DC.

It never ceases to amaze me that in cases like this, where there’s a redundancy/reduction in finances, that the primary concern seems to be maintaining the status quo for the first family, whilst completely forgetting that the second family are taking a financial hit too.

In a together family, if dad gets made redundant then there’s less for everyone, everyone gets a smaller slice of the pie - but this principle gets forgotten if there is a first/second family. Somehow the needs of the first family eclipse that of the second.

It never ceases to amaze me that in cases like this, where there’s a redundancy/reduction in finances, that the primary concern seems to be maintaining the status quo for the first family, whilst completely forgetting that the second family are taking a financial hit too.

Exactly.

OP do not pay a penny. DH's ex wife has never worked, never will, all kids school age. She trotted out the whole 'two incomes' thing as well. Again, she has a boyfriend, self employed plumber earning a fair whack. Oh but that doesn't count.
Remember you already are indirectly paying for the children. I know for a fact DH wouldn't be able to.live in our 4 bed detached without my income, and I actually pay a lot for the kids, buy them things all the time etc.
But you are not responsible for the CMS and never will be. Your DH could have married Richard Branson and that would still be the case.

I hope your DP finds some work soon and I'm sorry you're all going through this.

Lovemusic you ought to have paid child support for your step children. Your DH became a sahp to benefit your family - your husband's children don't suddenly become free to feed!

@MrsHuntGeneNotJeremyObviously

Lovemusic you ought to have paid child support for your step children. Your DH became a sahp to benefit your family - your husband's children don't suddenly become free to feed!

Did you actually read that post properly? I'll share the relevant quote:

Had this issue when I had dd1, dh was suffering with depression and lost his job so we decided he would care for dd1 whilst I went to work (not a short term plan whilst he sorted the depression)

@Lovemusic33 owed her DH's ex precisely nothing. As shit as it is, the depression needs to be sorted or well-managed. That's not so much a choice to become a SAHP as it is a situational requirement.

I did read it thank you. But his first child still needed financial support from the father. There are benefits to having a sah partner for the woh partner and the family as a whole, such as no childcare costs or logistical difficulties if the child is unwell or the wohp has to stay late at work etc. There are no benefits for the child of the first marriage.
Being a long term sah is a luxury that people can't afford if they have children from a first marriage to look after, unless their spouse is going to cover the CS. Feeding and clothing your kids isn't optional!

Also, if you're too depressed to go to work, you maybe shouldn't be a sahp. I don't see that as good for either the person with depression or the children.

@MrsHuntGeneNotJeremyObviously what thread have you been reading? Are you a little bit slow?

Also, if you're too depressed to go to work, you maybe shouldn't be a sahp.

You do realise that there will be many sahps out there who are suffering with it? They still manage to be a parent!

you ought to have paid child support for your step children. Your DH became a sahp to benefit your family - your husband's children don't suddenly become free to feed!

No she shouldn’t. He’s off work because of an illness. He’s able to look after his children while he’s at home, so why not take advantage of that?
He’s not quit work in order to be a sahp, he’s just a “sahp” while he’s off work.

And to be honest, illness aside, even if a man did quit work in order to become a long term sahp, that’s on him. Yes the partner may be in agreement with it and it benefits their household, but he’s the one making that choice not to provide for his first children, nobody else.
It might be morally wrong, but it’s also equally morally wrong to demand and then actually accept money in the form of child maintenance from anyone other your child’s father. No matter what he’s up to.

I did read it thank you. But his first child still needed financial support from the father.

Clue is in your sentence there, @MrsHuntGeneNotJeremyObviously. From the father. OP is not the father, is she.

But the father and his wife have made a decision for him to sah. I think that does put a moral obligation on their household to meet the needs of both his and their children. Different obviously if both partners are working or aren't sharing finances, in which case I would agree that the step mum has no moral responsibility.

If you have such bad depression to the degree that you cannot work, then no you can't also be a good sahp. The flip side to saying that plenty of sahp have depression is that lots of people have depression and go to work because they have to financially support their dc. If you have children, it's your job to look after them - opting out shouldn't be an option we allow parents.

@MrsHuntGeneNotJeremyObviously
But the father and his wife have made a decision for him to sah. I think that does put a moral obligation on their household to meet the needs of both his and their children. Different obviously if both partners are working or aren't sharing finances, in which case I would agree that the step mum has no moral responsibility

They haven’t made a decision... the illness did.
He is just able to look after his children to alleviate the financial burden on his wife who is now also supporting children, herself and her husband singlehandedly. She is not financially benefiting in anyway as she has lost the financial help from her children’s father too!
She’ll now be paying ALL bills related to their home and shared children.
Unfortunately the SC’s mum will also have to do the same.

She certainly is not obliged to pay maintenance?! Why should she be at a double disadvantage to pay for children she isn’t a parent to?

The best solution would have been for the SCs dad to offer to cover some childcare before and after school if their mum is having to pay to enable her to work.

Other than that, there’s very little that can be done until dad is well enough to work again.

Depression can be absolutely debilitating and can be focussed on certain aspects. My sister had a breakdown due to career pressures... it didn’t affect her ability to be a good mother but it affected her ability to work. She had to cut the source of her illness off, recover and then find a new career path. She did it, but it wasn’t easy and it’s incredibly unfair to suggest she would have been incapable of being a good parent during this time

SpongeBob, it's not that I think depressed people aren't good parents - I think they aren't good sah parents. Not if the depression is so bad they've had to stop working. Small children are relentless and have needs that a severely depressed person isn't able to meet. The people I've known who experienced it became very self absorbed and unintentionally selfish (not blaming them - they were ill).
Possibly I misunderstood the post but I got the impression the husband was going to say long term rather than as a stop gap. As much as it's a shame for the wife to be solely financially responsible if it wasn't what she wanted I do still believe that if the DH is going to be a sahp then as a family they do have obligations to support all his children.
The mother of the first child also needs to pull her weight but it shouldn't be the state that supports people's kids while both the mum and dad sah.

I do still believe that if the DH is going to be a sahp then as a family they do have obligations to support all his children

In this situation id expect him to support in the same way he is for his younger children and wife, by offering more childcare. I wouldn't expect his wife to financially support his ex and other children when she's already having to take on the extra burden of doing the same for her children and husband.

Unfortunately things happen in life, illness, job loss, financial difficulty etc... If one of these effects the father (or mother), it will have an impact on the rest of the family, including any ex spouses and existing children. You cannot expect one woman to pick up the slack financially for everyone in this situation.

Dad is the one who needs to offer support. If he cannot do that financially right now that's a shame but he can do it in other ways i.e. via childcare. It's not up to his wife. I'm sure she also isn't thrilled at what's going on.

And I don't agree that depression always equals unable to effectively parent.

There is a difference between situational depression and major depression. One is caused by a trigger or stressor i.e. a job or traumatic event. You can ease the symptoms quite significantly if you remove the said stressor.

Offering childcare only works if they all live in close proximity or if the mum needs it. She might be need the money more. The costs associated with raising the child don't go away because the dad has given up work. The RP often doesn't have the flexibility to work in quite the same way as a nrp because they have the child ft.

Regardless, still not the SPs responsibility to pay maintenance.

His ex is an absolute selfish madam and I know she's causing problems but just remember she will always be a miserable selfish cow because it's her selfishness that she bases her judgements with.

You never ever have to pay cms for his children. She needs to provide for her kids and if your partner can't she has to fill that shortfall.

Also Mac Donald's is an amazing organisation to work for, will pay for university for their employees, have a really good management program!

I would in future get a contact arrangement order through the courts so she can't remove contact because she can't financially stand on her own two feet.

Makes me so mad that women with all the opportunities we have now can't be financially independent.

@MrsHuntGeneNotJeremyObviously everything you have just said also applies to the 2nd wife.
She is also supporting a family on one wage now, unfortunately the ExW will have to do the same. The new wife should not pay maintenance, end of.

She isn’t benefitting financially from the new set up either and should not be doubly disadvantaged to pay for children that aren’t hers who have a capable mother also.

You mention the mum’s earning capability might have been limited by having children... same applies to the OP.

It’s a shit situation but in no way is the SM morally for supporting 2 other children who have 2 parents.

I do believe though that the 2nd wife does benefit from having a sahp. That a chunk of childcare fees they won't be paying. Even without that though it's a lot easier to be a working parent if you don't have to cover school holidays or child sickness or worry about working late/away. The mum of the first child isn't getting any of that benefit.
99/100 I would agree that sp have no responsibility to finance SC, but where a parent has chosen to sah and therefore not pay child support, I do think it's an exception.

Offering childcare only works if they all live in close proximity or if the mum needs it. She might be need the money more. The costs associated with raising the child don't go away because the dad has given up work. The RP often doesn't have the flexibility to work in quite the same way as a nrp because they have the child ft

I'm sure everything you said above applies to this man's wife too... She probably needs his financial commitment more but unfortunately it's not possible right now so she's having to make do with what he can offer, which is childcare. I'm sure her costs for feeding and housing her family havent just gone away either.

Don't get me wrong, I feel for an ex in this situation. But I also don't think it's fair to then lay the financial responsibility at the feet of another woman who likely also didn't get much choice in the matter (because illness isn't a choice) and is also having to do and take on extra for her family.

They need to come up with other ways that he can help which don't include laying even more financial burden at his wife's door i.e. offering more childcare etc.. She is doing enough.

@MrsHuntGeneNotJeremyObviously she may not be paying childcare fees but she has now taken on the burden of covering all of the bills for herself, her husband and their joint children.
I very much doubt she’s financially better off, she’ll be worse off!

I suggested they should offer childcare to help the other mum out. But financially the OP should not have to be worse off by supporting kids that aren’t hers too. That’s up to their parents, it’s literally nothing to do with her.

Even without that though it's a lot easier to be a working parent if you don't have to cover school holidays or child sickness or worry about working late/away

I'd expect dad to help with this if he's a SAHP.