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.

@MrsHuntGeneNotJeremyObviously

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.

I would imagine that the only time this would happen, is where all the adults and children have a very good relationship.

It would also depend on if the one income the SM has even allows anything to spare.

If I were the dad in this kind of situation (the OPs), I would look to borrow the money (from current partner if they had it or from someone else) and continue the maintenance payments or even a lesser amount.

I don't see it as the SMs obligation to do this though. It's one thing if the father asked his DP/wife to help him pay his child support, but an Ex, shouldn't lower herself to ask another woman to support her DC.

Are you aware that not only should you not pay it but the amount of maintenance decreases with each child he has to take care, whether they are biologically his or not - as in if a father moves in with a person with children of their own then the maintenance he pays to his biological kids that don't live with him decreases? So in your situation, as you've got a child with him he could pay less than what he was paying before you had a child together. It's not right, but it's the way it is.

@MrsHuntGeneNotJeremyObviously

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?

I think the reality is that most parents wouldn't decide to become a stay at home parent when they have financial responsibilities towards a child in another household.

In the scenarios in this thread you have one father who's been made redundant and was out of work, and one who is struggling with mental health and is unable to work. Neither are men who have just decided to stay at home.

I think in a situation where a dad has decided to stay at home knowing it means he won't be able to contribute for his child then it's most likely been done on purpose and there will be an acrimonious relationship between the exes, in which case again a step-parent is highly unlikely to pay maintenance.

At the end of the day, it's all down to the 2 parents to sort finances out between them. The step-parent's money should never come into the discussion, unless they volunteer it themselves.

I am an SM and I can tell you now that I wouldn't pay money to my DP's ex,, ever. If he was out of work I'd have enough on my plate with keeping a roof over our heads. I would expect his ex to turn to her own family or friends for help if she needed it, not me.

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.

The needs of the second child don't disappear either, but their mum is having to put up with his inability to work. It doesn't automatically fall on her to compensate for his decision. You may think that it does, but the last part of this comment just isn't true. She doesn't personally have to take account for the child's welfare, that's all on him.

@FabulousIAm Where both children are biologically his it is right.

If he had both children with the same mother than his financial resources would be split between those two children.

Instead he has two children with two different mothers and again his financial resources are split between those two children.

Where it isn't right is where he is expected to support the children of another parent, where he is not biologically related to the children or has adopted them. This is because those children should be and possibly are being supported by their own father.

[quote RedMarauder]@FabulousIAm Where both children are biologically his it is right.

If he had both children with the same mother than his financial resources would be split between those two children.

Instead he has two children with two different mothers and again his financial resources are split between those two children.

Where it isn't right is where he is expected to support the children of another parent, where he is not biologically related to the children or has adopted them. This is because those children should be and possibly are being supported by their own father.[/quote]
It most certainly isn't right to decrease maintenance just because you have more children - there should be a set amount for every child so that it doesn't decrease each time the father has a child or moves in with someone who has children. This would hopefully stop men procreating willy nilly (pun intended). If I only had to pay a tiny amount for every child I'd have more than one child but I can't afford to have more and so wouldn't be so irresponsible as to do so. The present CMS encourages irresponsibility as there are no repercussions for having several children with several different women.

It's really not fair that a person gets to pay less for their own child because they live with step children, but their partner has no responsibility for their step children. It's possible to argue either way whether a step parent should have any financial responsibility and I think there are valid points to both positions, but there should be consistency!
I know that my best friend's child gets less child support because her dad lives with a woman who has DC. But those DC also have a dad who pays CS. I don't know if my friend's ex is actually contributing to his step DC's costs (I doubt it though cos he's tight) but the first family are definitely getting screwed over and this rule just gives him an excuse to pay less.

It most certainly isn’t right to decease maintenance just because you have more children – there should be a set amount for every child so that it doesn’t decrease each time the father has a child or moves in with someone who has children

I agree that a man shouldn’t go around fathering children that he can’t afford to support, but you can’t ring-fence/future-proof an amount of money for first family children. In a together family, if Dad loses his job then EVERY child in that family will have less. So many suggestions on this thread are biased towards the first family. Until I discovered MN, I always thought that first families had a raw deal and second families got all the perks but to be honest it’s the other way round ……

I don’t think living with other children should all you to reduce your payments as the NRP.

But similarly, I don’t think SP’s income should be taken into consideration for child benefit, child tax credit (childcare element) or university fees.

My DD will be at a huge disadvantage to my SCs with regards to student finance because my DP’s wage will be used in conjunction with mine to calculate how much student finance she can access. He will not be paying anything towards her university education (nor would we expect him to) but it means my DD will get a smaller loan offered to her.
My SCs on the other hand could get the max amount available because their DM lives alone and chooses not to work.

Similarly my SC’s mum can claim child benefit and universal credit (including housing allowance and discounted council tax) and SCs would also be able to have free school meals... again because she chooses not to work and lives alone.

Whilst because I live with their dad I am not entitled to a penny in child benefit or any help towards the cost of my own DCs childcare even though my personal earnings fall below the threshold to claim.

It’s unfair on all involved to include SPs income in calculations and should be scrapped IMHO. RP’s suffer because of this too.

I don’t think living with other children should all you to reduce your payments as the NRP.

I don’t agree - although I agree with much of what you’ve said. With each child the pot stays the same but more mouths to feed. I meant it’s £7pw so NRP would have to be v busy for it to have a significant impact. But it’s to be expected that an extra child equals extra expenses and I think that should be acknowledged.

I am on the fence about the CMS reduction for other children.

I think it's totally wrong that people can reduce payments for their own children when they move in with someone else's child. They are not financially responsible for that child so it's ridiculous that they can reduce payments to children they are responsible for based on that.

I do think there needs to be flexibility to reduce payments on the birth of further biological children though and, as RedMarauder said, it's what would happen in an intact family if a further child was born.

I do think it's a tough one though as obviously in an intact family both adults would have a say in expanding the family and the resulting impact on finances, whereas obviously once separated they are at the mercy of their ex's choices.

I guess it works both way though as although the RP doesn't usually pay into the NRP's household, their choice to have further children would still affect the NRP's child's standard of life while at the RP's home, so both need to be equally accepting that once you have split up both household's finances and situations can change through the years due to choices on both sides.

@LetMeOut2021 I mean living with other children who aren’t yours i.e. stepchildren.
I think all children should be equally financially provided for by their biological parents.

@SpongebobNoPants

I don’t think living with other children should all you to reduce your payments as the NRP.

But similarly, I don’t think SP’s income should be taken into consideration for child benefit, child tax credit (childcare element) or university fees.

My DD will be at a huge disadvantage to my SCs with regards to student finance because my DP’s wage will be used in conjunction with mine to calculate how much student finance she can access. He will not be paying anything towards her university education (nor would we expect him to) but it means my DD will get a smaller loan offered to her.
My SCs on the other hand could get the max amount available because their DM lives alone and chooses not to work.

Similarly my SC’s mum can claim child benefit and universal credit (including housing allowance and discounted council tax) and SCs would also be able to have free school meals... again because she chooses not to work and lives alone.

Whilst because I live with their dad I am not entitled to a penny in child benefit or any help towards the cost of my own DCs childcare even though my personal earnings fall below the threshold to claim.

It’s unfair on all involved to include SPs income in calculations and should be scrapped IMHO. RP’s suffer because of this too.

Agree totally with all of this.

SP's income should never be taken into account when it comes to children that aren't theirs. It's just not right and disadvantages lots of people, especially where the SP has other children that they do actually pay for so their entire income isn't even coming into your house so literally isn't there to be put towards any fees etc for other children.

@Bibidy exactly. At least 1/3 of my DP’s wage goes directly towards paying for the expenses of SCs (CMS, phone bills, pocket money, clothes, activities etc) and the rest towards household bills and his personal expenses.

With regards to the household bills he pays his way and is in no way “supporting” me or my children.

So I’m unsure where this magical money he is hypothetically supposed to provide towards things like the costs of my children is supposed to come from?

It's really not fair that a person gets to pay less for their own child because they live with step children, but their partner has no responsibility for their step children. It's possible to argue either way whether a step parent should have any financial responsibility and I think there are valid points to both positions, but there should be consistency!
I know that my best friend's child gets less child support because her dad lives with a woman who has DC. But those DC also have a dad who pays CS. I don't know if my friend's ex is actually contributing to his step DC's costs (I doubt it though cos he's tight) but the first family are definitely getting screwed over and this rule just gives him an excuse to pay less.

But nobody here thinks it's appropriate that a NRP can reduce payments based on living with SC. Yes it should be consistent, it should consistently not involve the SPs. Two wrongs don't make a right and all that.

Do not a pay a penny. You have your own child to care for and pay for. I can't imagine she would be putting her hand in her pocket if you fell on hard times. The two biological parents need to support the child so the mother and your DP will need to sort this out themselves. It isnt OK for him to just not support his child though so he needs to get a job sharpish rather than just a meh sorry I won't be paying now which is pretty shitty. He has responsibility for the child who still needs feeding and clothing but these are his responsibilities and I would be reconsidering the relationship if he ever felt you should pay. Sod that. If she stops contact then he can go to court but equally he needs to sort himself out so he has an income and can build savings for things like this. He sounds quite immature TBH.

@blackcat86 I strongly suggest you at least read the OPs posts if not RTFT.

OP You sound lovely and absolutely hilarious and you have a fab attitude.
I agree with the comments on not paying. I understand your concern but it will set a terrible precedent.

I definitely agree that it's not fair to take a step parents income into account when it comes to University, when they don't have parental responsibility for them and in many cases don't contribute towards their uni expenses.

I've heard of students who only provide financial evidence of their own parent's income to get round this.

[quote SpongebobNoPants]@LetMeOut2021 I mean living with other children who aren’t yours i.e. stepchildren.
I think all children should be equally financially provided for by their biological parents.[/quote]
Sorry I misunderstood. I had no idea that was a thing. So my DH’s ex gets CMS and her DH gets a reduction in the CMS he pays because he lives with SS? Bizarre.

Given she is being a cow I would keep the money use it to take her to court to get joint custody or something put in place to say dp has his dc on set days so she can never threaten dp over money again.

In the scenario of a NRP being unable to work through no fault of his own / deciding not to work, I can't see how the SM should have to make up the CM to the first family. If the NRP was still living as part of the first family (so not actually an NRP) and didn't work = no financial contribution to the family pot. If the NRP was single and didn't work = no financial contribution. So how come if the NRP lives with a second wife / family but doesn't work = new wife to magic money out of her arse to support first family?

It's making the new wife responsible for the circumstances / choices of the NRP, and redundancy and ill health isn't within anyone's control. If the NRP was just fecklessly refusing to work and she wasnt happy about it, this would have to be resolved somehow (either he'd have to get a job or presumably get dumped eventually), but assuming he got dumped, there would still be no contribution to the first family as he would still not be working! I do agree that if there is family agreement for the NRP to become a SAHP for his new family that's a different kettle of fish, but in a scenario where the new wife has no input or control over the NRPs health, employment status, or decisions, she is not responsible for his CM in any way.

Ultimately if NRP has no other outgoings that he is concerned about meeting and decides to stop work, the only thing she can realistically do is try to kick him out (and we all know that's not always easy), she can't stop paying the mortgage or the gas bill, or buying food.

PS. I know NRPs can be female, I've just used he for ease of writing!

@LetMeOut2021 yes he could in those circumstances.
My DP could get his CMS liability amount reduced because he lives in the same house as my children.
He hasn’t of course, because he’s not a massive twatwaffle with no morals 😂

But hypothetically he could. My ex could reduce his maintenance to our son if he moves in with a woman with children too... I hope he wouldn’t but he would be entitled to do so.

@SandyY2K then they’re committing fraud. It works off household income now.
It’s ridiculous isn’t it. Especially considering my DD’s dad lives in Australia and has so refused to pay a single penny towards her upbringing and it’s been my sole responsibility.

University students shouldn't have their loans calculated on parental income at all imo. Parents shouldn't be expected to subsidise adult DC and adult DC shouldn't have to depend on parents because the state has hamstrung them from the get go.
The money parents give their DC at university should be a nice extra and not a necessity.