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.

@PoorReg I completely agree

@PoorReg

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.

Agree with this completely.

The 2 mums are in the same boat, except one of them also has another adult in the house to pay for! If anything mum #2 is worse off as she's supporting everyone, including her stepchild(ren) when they are with their dad.

Mum #2 may have a bit more help with childcare from dad, but Mum #1 has people take the kids entirely off her hands (and off her food, heating, electricity bill etc) for however often the dad has them. Mum #2 doesn't have that.

@PoorReg

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.

I think the issue is that RPs have already mostly organised their lives to facilitate childcare so extra childcare from dad doesn't really help. They already have it covered by doing PT hours or help from grandparents etc.

BUT dad having the kids more will help the RP with less bills, less food costs etc while he's out of work.

And regardless, it should never become the step-parents problem.

but where a parent has chosen to sah and therefore not pay child support, I do think it's an exception.

Some men job hop and don’t keep a job down. And then at other times they use the fact that they have a younger child to justify being at home because they’d rather “do that” than go to work. Don’t always think their time at home is for the benefit of the family as a whole or that the partner is even happy with it in the first place.

My ex had periods of unemployment and job hopped like I don’t know what. There was a stretch where he was a “sahp” for the reasons I listed above, but you could just tell he didn’t want to do that either and it was all so he could claim he’s doing something when he wasn’t. So I made him get off his bum and back in to work to provide for all of his children. I then became the sahp instead to save on childcare costs. It actually really worked in our children’s favour because after the switch around they started to thrive more. He wasn’t suited to being a sahp, so it’s proof that some men just choose it for an easier life which is wrong. Because being a sahp isn’t meant to be easy!

But in those periods where my ex was not working, maintenance for his first child was not in my list of priorities. I had my own household to support. Especially because I knew deep down that my ex didn’t want to work and also didn’t want to be a sahp. So it was me trying to keep everything together! His ex wife never asked, but I think as time went on she would have done eventually.

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 take on extra for her family.

Absolutely.

They need to come up with ways that he can help which don’t include laying even more financial burden at his wife’s door, ie offering more childcare, etc, she is already doing enough

Quite, which is what I was trying to say in my earlier post, it can’t all be about maintaining standards for the first family at the expense of the second family, who are suffering too. Someone suggested that he claims benefits and gives it all to the ex, but wouldn’t it be fairer to split it between the two households?

Claims are assessed by household income not individual, which is again unfair. It's funny how couples are a unit when it comes to getting benefits or funding for university students (which effectively, and very unfairly, makes step parents responsible for adult children) but as individuals in other respects, such as child benefit.

Which claims are you referring to MrsHunt? If you mean child maintenance, that's based on the father's income, not the whole household?

Legally if you have no parental rights for a child then you have no legal obligation to pay for their upbringing and care.
The op and her partner have sorted this out and maintenance is being paid based on the father new income, which is a great outcome for everyone.

I meant universal credit not child support

@SpongebobNoPants

I think you raise some valid points about a situation where the dad becomes a SAHD and stops paying CS.

I agree that it does benefit the family as they no longer have childcare costs.

One thing that strikes me is, supporters of that situation, seem to imply that it's pretty easy to look after your kids even when you're so depressed that you have to give up work.

That doesn't help the argument from women that being a SAHM is equal work and should be equally valued as the husband who works.

Either being a SAHP is valued work or it's not. I think it is....if you paid someone it would cost quite a bit and that's what the family in this situation were saving.

I'm not really a fan of believing the second wife should pay, but this situation of becoming a SAHD and basically opting out of supporting his kids from his first marriage doesn't sound right to me.

If I was the second wife, I'd see how this could be my future if we split. A man who is happy for this to be a long term plan and not financially support his older DC, is not a man I'd want to be with tbh.

Then as life goes on he'll wonder why the older DC and him don't have such a good relationship and will talk about how he's always been there for them.

Is she having a fucking laugh! If any twat tried this with me they would have it coming, I'm telling you! Cheek of the bitch.

@MrsHuntGeneNotJeremyObviously child benefit is also based on household income not individual also. I cannot claim any for my children due to my DP’s earnings (my kids’ stepdad).

@SandyY2K but we have no idea if the dad staying at home financially benefits the second family. His wage could have been significantly more than the childcare costs, that’s what I’m saying.
We also don’t know how much the childcare costs were... it could be that they are saving £1,500 in childcare costs but losing a wage either equal or higher to that by the dad not working.
Even if his take home average monthly wage was slightly less than that it’s no great financial discount by him being a SAHD.

Mum also is now the only person bringing a wage into the house so she’s at a big disadvantage.

We also don’t know if the first wife has a partner living with / supporting her either.
It’s all speculative.

Regardless, the SM is not responsible for paying any CMS as she is already supporting her her SCs by paying for everything they need to be able to visit their dad... the house they’ll sleep in, the water they’ll use, the electricity, the food etc. She’s already paying all of those costs singlehandedly for her SC’s father’s home which they benefit from also.

Also let’s hope the DC’s don’t view their relationship with their dad as negative because he has an illness rendering him unfit for work. That would be awful for everyone involved.

If dc spend practically half the time with their dad, then yes a step mum who is the sole earner is supporting them while they are seeing him. But if a dad was paying CS in the first place, that implies the DC spend the majority of the time with their mum.
The whole thing is very messy - what happens if a mum lives with a husband who also takes a view that paying for his step child isn't his problem?
I feel for these kids - the adults seem to be making the choices which best suit themselves and no one thinks it's their responsibility to support the child from the first marriage. I guess how the DC will feel about the dad in years to come might depend on whether he goes back to work once better or if he continues to sah and look after his second family whole contributing nothing to his first. It would colour my view of my father, certainly.

Apologies to the OP, for hijacking your thread to talk about someone else's situation. I am glad your dp has found work and that this is getting sorted.

@SpongebobNoPants

I agree we don't know the details. I just thought it was you who first raised the point of the second wife needing to help out in the situation.
I may be mistaken.

what happens if a mum lives with a husband who also takes a view that paying for his step child isn't his problem?
Then mum pays for her children? The kids have 2 parents in this situation, SM or SD are neither of them. I would never expect my DP to financially support my DCs.

Just to reiterate... The father is ill! He isn’t just choosing not to work! The mothers of both his children need to pick up the slack financially if he isn’t capable.
What would happen if he had a physical illness, would you be so judgemental then? What if he died? Would you expect the SM to pay CMS in those situations?

We don’t know the custody arrangements either or how much CMS was being paid. For all we know they could have the kids 3 nights a week.

I guess for me it comes down to the fact that I see married/cohabiting couples as a unit and if one partner is genuinely incapable of providing for their first child or has chosen to sah for their second family, I feel there is an obligation for the unit to support the first child.
Incapacitating illness, is different so you are right - if he was too ill to contribute anything to either household then fair enough, both mother's have to sort their own lives. But to me, he is contributing to the second household and I believe the benefit has to be shared. If it's possible to help the mum of the first child with additional childcare etc and that's a genuine help for her, then great. But if what she really needs is the child support then I think that should come from the unit in these specific circumstances. And as soon as he is able, he needs to return to work. I don't think a parent has the luxury of sah long term if they have financial responsibilities.

Genuinely hoping that some of the posters on here are not my OHs ex. If it’s the same as this situation and I have to support my family, I would absolutely expect the ex to do the same.

There seems to be a lot of emphasis on a father providing for all his children, but lets not forget that the mother (of each child) also has a responsibilty to provide for her own child?

@Coffeepot72

There seems to be a lot of emphasis on a father providing for all his children, but lets not forget that the mother (of each child) also has a responsibilty to provide for her own child?

Yep, I notice this too. People often say 'It costs more than £250 to raise a child", for example, completely ignoring that that's only meant to be 50% and mum is responsible for the other £250. People also disregard the fact that dads are also having to pay for the child on their time with them as well, so actually he is paying more anyway.

The mother in this case is a complete cf. That withstanding, the RP is responsible for childcare costs on her time. In many cases this is considerably more than child maintenance. I would like this cost taken into account when calculating maintenance but realise the difficulty in doing so. Also, not every working mother receives tax credits and child benefit.

Yup! Literally a direct quote from DH’s exW. Except it was more than £250 - she made the comment “that’s not enough to raise a child” - maybe not, but with your contribution it should be!!

Incapacitating illness, is different so you are right - if he was too ill to contribute anything to either household then fair enough, both mother's have to sort their own lives. But to me, he is contributing to the second household and I believe the benefit has to be shared. If it's possible to help the mum of the first child with additional childcare etc and that's a genuine help for her, then great. But if what she really needs is the child support then I think that should come from the unit in these specific circumstances.

Why does the first mum get to decide what she needs most, but the second doesn't? He isn't providing money for either of them. I agree that an offer of more childcare from him is in order but it is too far to say if she would prefer money, then his wife should pay it.

Why does the first mum get to decide what she needs most, but the second doesn't?

Very good question. And surely any extra child care provided would impact on the second mum, and why should she take that sort of hit?

In the very specific circumstance where a nrp has decided to be a sahp, then the other parent of the first child gets to say that they need money because the needs of the first child don't just disappear. If you marry someone who has a child then you do need to take some account for that child's welfare. Or are you saying Coffeepot that the dad should get to sah, pay no child support and do no childcare in case the existence of his child inconveniences his wife?