Opinions on child maintenance when the NRP is a SAHP

[CrashesOverMe]

Just what the title says? NRP (Dad) has remarried and their wife is the breadwinner, thus their own income is zero as they are a SAHD. Legally they aren't required to pay anything but should they? (which would actually mean step parent paying!) In terms of child contact everyone is in agreement so although they could see their Dad more often, everyone is happy with him having the lower % of time.

Fostering a great relationship with your kids is not all about how much you pay every month.

Maybe not, but one day the OPs kids will realise their father paid zilch.

It's interesting this concept of family money. To me, family money is to cover all the things me and my DP both need, plus a few measly expenses agreed here and there. As we live together and share bills, anything the bread winner earns is automatically covering the things we both need and benefit from, so there is no intrinsic injustice or drama.

I wouldn't view his maintenance as a family expense, tbh. It is his expense, and too much and too ongoing to be reasonably taken from the shared pot. Everything else between us is to our mutual benefit, as this is not, I expect him to fund his other DC himself. The trouble is that in this scenario he is the one not working, and that is why I don't believe the NRP has the luxury of not bringing in any income unless he is in doing so saving the other parent(s) childcare costs. Because it still isn't a family expense, so it is purely on him to be able to cover it.

I wouldn't view his maintenance as a family expense, tbh. It is his expense, and too much and too ongoing to be reasonably taken from the shared pot
This is fair enough, and totally one of those “you knew what you were getting into” situations on both sides. You knew he had a child. He knew you wouldn’t be paying for that child. Everyone knows where they stand.
It’s the same here, I don’t get involved in paying for his DD. As long as he still contributes fairly to our child and home I don’t see that it’s my business.
Still stands though that if we decided to change our financial landscape and go from having my money and his money to only having “our family money” that would include paying for DSD.
After all, A man not allowing his earnings to be shared family money in the event that his wife was a SAHM would be viewed as financial abuse wouldn’t it?
So it would be family money and a family expense.

@chewingle of course he wasn't paying 100% if his salary before. I never suggested that he was. But he could work a minimum amount now to cover the amount he was paying before, to ensure his older children don't lose out.

Whoever thinks £250/pcm is a pittance, Jeez. I think plenty would love to live in your world. It could easily be:

Jan - car insurance
Feb - MOT and repairs
Mar - 1/2 annual electric bill
Apr - 1/2 annual electric bill
May - 1/2 annual gas bill
Jun - 1/2 annual gas bill
Jul - 1/2 cost of a cheap annual holiday
Aug - 1/2 cost of a cheap annual holiday
Sep - school uniform, winter coats/boots
Oct - birthday presents for the DC
Nov - Christmas presents for DC
Dec - Christmas shop food that isn't unbranded/value brand basics and snacks, treats that can't be afforded the rest of the year.

If all other income is going in rent, council tax, the weekly food shop, toiletries, clothes, water bill, school trips, childcare, and all the other basics of life, then losing that £250/pcm could make things very difficult.

Out of interest, if the partner becomes a SAHM instead of the op’s ex being a SAHD, would you expect her to do the donkey work for dsc? And running them to hobbies and parties, looking after them during school holidays, doing school runs etc... Because I do get this feeling that some people just want it all ways. Either pay up or run around after my child....

Still stands though that if we decided to change our financial landscape and go from having my money and his money to only having “our family money” that would include paying for DSD.
After all, A man not allowing his earnings to be shared family money in the event that his wife was a SAHM would be viewed as financial abuse wouldn’t it?
So it would be family money and a family expense.

I would not advise any man to be the sole provider whilst his wife was a SAHP if she had significant outgoings that were not to the benefit of their household.

But yes, I do see your point, now that the decision has been made. I think it depends largely on the specifics of the circumstances. If it's a case of either of them could have kept working and they jointly chose for it to be him, then yes she has been complicit in an active choice that's made him unable to pay maintenance and the moral thing to do would be to pay it. But if their finances are in a position where she simply had no choice but to be the breadwinner, then not so much.

Fostering a great relationship with your kids is not all about how much you pay every month

Really easy to say when it’s not you bringing up 3 children on one wage, isn’t it?

Lots are assuming this is done to punish the OP, child care is so very expensive lots of families do not have a choice. What is the point in working so the twins can spend their formative years in expensive full time child care. For a family to struggle and maybe they simply cannot afford it. Working full time sunsidising with another 2/3 jobs with twins and 2 other children will hurt that relationship. Kids don't remember what you spent on them they remember the time and effort you put in. The family with the twins matter just as much and all kids are getting zero financial contributions from their dad. That makes it equal. Their households will be different because their parents choices are different. You cannot tell a woman what to do with her kids and finances. Its is not anyones business what this family chooses to do with their childcare. This is legal you can't take something from nothing.

But if their finances are in a position where she simply had no choice but to be the breadwinner, then not so much.
Agreed. It’s the automatic “not my child not my problem” position I take issue with in this sort of situation.

@Userwoman1990

Lots are assuming this is done to punish the OP, child care is so very expensive lots of families do not have a choice. What is the point in working so the twins can spend their formative years in expensive full time child care. For a family to struggle and maybe they simply cannot afford it. Working full time sunsidising with another 2/3 jobs with twins and 2 other children will hurt that relationship. Kids don't remember what you spent on them they remember the time and effort you put in. The family with the twins matter just as much and all kids are getting zero financial contributions from their dad. That makes it equal. Their households will be different because their parents choices are different. You cannot tell a woman what to do with her kids and finances. Its is not anyones business what this family chooses to do with their childcare. This is legal you can't take something from nothing.

And when the kids consider what time and effort he did put in, they'll realise that as well as paying nothing for them, he moved 70 miles away from them when they were tiny, and now chooses to spend 100% time with his new kids, to their detriment.

So no, things are far from equal.

Also @Userwoman1990 not a single person has said it's been done to "punish" the mum. However, if we're talking about assumptions, you were one of the ones who automatically assumed the mum doesn't work.

What is the point in working so the twins can spend their formative years in expensive full time child care.

The point is so that he can pay support for his first children.

@funinthesun19

I've been told this when discussing the inconvenience of suddenly realising there's two in there. "Oh well you chose to have two". "No, we tried for 18 months then the egg got excited and I got twins" "well you could have chosen to abort and try again, so you chose it"

That’s absolutely vile. Was that said to you on Mumsnet?

Yup.

I couldn't be with someone who didn't pay anything for their previous children. Tbh OP, he moved away, he doesn't pay maintenance, I wouldn't be doing any of the driving to drop off/pick up the kids. If they don't want to pay any maintenance for the kids, they can pay all the transportation costs. If I was in the situation I'd offer to pay something at least towards the children, I couldn't simply say no I'm not paying for them.

@CrashesOverMe

The problem is legally there's no way to force this and I do believe all the children deserve a good relationship with their Dad.

I was trying to be factual as my emotions about the situation are strong and I thought lots of people would think step-m has no obligation.

He moved, he's been a SAHD for a year to twins.

Morally, of course a non resident parent should contribute towards their non resident children's upkeep.

In many ways I think that child maintenance should be based on household income. Especially given that household children, whether related or not to the nrp further reduce maintenance payments. But I also understand that legally, the new partner is not obligated to pay towards children they have no legal responsibility for.

Ultimately, managing the best financial deal post divorce is probably the only real recourse many rps have, which on the whole is not applicable to non married couples on splitting.

I suppose the litmus test is, if tables were reversed, would you want to pay for someone else's children at their mother's home? For most people, they'd not...

Just wanted to say I think there is a minimum CMS amount even if you're not earning (£7 a week?) I know that's not much but it's not nothing if you're struggling.

He doesn't pay for any of the kid that he has ?? Its not like the dad is hiding an income here. They have one income per household. I don't understand why the dynamics of where the money goes in each household is the business of the OP. This is very insightful. And many entitled people on here. I have never assumed what the mothers do for their income that is their business. As well as how much they earn. Single parents do get state help at times and thats a great thing. This SAHP family set means he isn't working. If Your the ex you can't force them to do what you wish. Adjustments im sure will need to be made in BOTH households. One because they are now living off one wage. The other no CMS payments. Telling children's your dad did this ... paid nothing blah blah. Is very damaging hostile and self serving. He has contact 25% of the time its not like he doesn't see his kids.

@UnbeatenMum

Just wanted to say I think there is a minimum CMS amount even if you're not earning (£7 a week?) I know that's not much but it's not nothing if you're struggling.

Technically that is the minimum amount. But there are cases where even that isn't payable and the NRPs contribution is assessed as £0. Its a joke. Or it would be if it was actually funny.

My DC don't care that their DF doesn't have to pay maintenance. Neither should they. I make sure they don't go without. They do care that their step and half siblings get time from him which they don't.

They are teens now and are well aware who's done the hard graft for them. (Note, its not their Dad!)

It is very unfair that a nrp can get their maintenance payments to their own dc reduced if they live with a child who isn't theirs. Either family income should be considered in CM or it shouldn't, but it isn't right for NRP to benefit at the expense of the RP. There's not even any guarantee that the step children benefit since so many step parents view their partner's DC as not their responsibility and have separate finances.

What is the point in working so the twins can spend their formative years in expensive full time child care

So we’re back to that? My children spent their formative years in childcare because as a responsible parent I worked to support them. Their father made a choice not to. Was that fair to either the children or me? Again, you are happy to say the OP should work (and make an assumption that she isn’t) but you are looking for any excuse to absolve the ex of his responsibilities towards all his children.

Single parents do get state help at times and thats a great thing

So do two parent families. And single people. And households with several generations living in them. None of that absolves a fit and healthy man of his responsibilities towards all of his children.

Telling children's your dad did this ... paid nothing blah blah. Is very damaging hostile and self serving. He has contact 25% of the time its not like he doesn't see his kids

Ah, so it’s the OP responsibility to put up and shit for the sake of the children but not her ex’s responsibility to acknowledge he has more than one household with children he is responsible for.

And children don’t need to be told. They work it out. They really aren’t stupid.

@Userwoman1990

He doesn't pay for any of the kid that he has ?? Its not like the dad is hiding an income here. They have one income per household. I don't understand why the dynamics of where the money goes in each household is the business of the OP. This is very insightful. And many entitled people on here. I have never assumed what the mothers do for their income that is their business. As well as how much they earn. Single parents do get state help at times and thats a great thing. This SAHP family set means he isn't working. If Your the ex you can't force them to do what you wish. Adjustments im sure will need to be made in BOTH households. One because they are now living off one wage. The other no CMS payments. Telling children's your dad did this ... paid nothing blah blah. Is very damaging hostile and self serving. He has contact 25% of the time its not like he doesn't see his kids.

No one will need to tell the kids that dad moved so far away from them. I think they'll know.

And yes, you did assume. You agreed with @Courtney555 entire pos about the kids all receiving nil money, and how the mum should get a job.

@UnbeatenMum

Just wanted to say I think there is a minimum CMS amount even if you're not earning (£7 a week?) I know that's not much but it's not nothing if you're struggling.

Only if claiming certain benefits, not disability benefits. If zero income, then there's zero to take from it.

Love the idea that £250 a month is a pittance that no one would notice. It would cover my Council Tax and Power bills each month. I'd Def notice that!!

"Just wanted to say I think there is a minimum CMS amount even if you're not earning (£7 a week?) I know that's not much but it's not nothing if you're struggling."

OPs ex will pay absolutely nothing unfortunately.