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.

I actually really appreciate all the different views on this thread, you've given me a lot of different view points!

I generally don't see a step parent as financially responsible for step kids but it's my kids who are missing out now.

She works and he stays home because she earns more money. He absolutely will not get a job. Looking after twins is hard work, I completely do not doubt that.

He left me for her. I claim universal credit etc to survive, £250 is a lot of money.

@SleepingStandingUp

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!!

Would cover my mortgage!

I haven’t read the entire thread but this happened to me. My ex h was the bread winner. I had done everything from working full time, part time and being a sahp- his idea.
He left for the ow and she then worked full time and he packed his full time job in and looked after her kids. He then paid zero child maintenance. He also refused point blank to ever have the dcs over night or when it was mutually suitable. To cut a long story short the ow insisted on always being there when my ex h saw the dcs.
He refused to take them anywhere as he say it as doing me a favour. So the children and I received bugger all financially and I couldn’t get a better paid job because he refused to look after them.
Long story short they no longer speak to him at all.

My reasoning being that if I’ve taken sole responsibility for funding DH and our children, henceforth referred to as “the family”, then part of the familys expenses would be my husbands children

Yes this is how I felt.

Legally, of course there’s no obligation for a step parent to pay anything. But I couldn’t morally have just said tough tits, not my kid when I’d known him since he was three. Yes I would judge a parent who decided to stay at home to benefit their second family knowing it caused hardship for his other child.

@Chewingle - about 8 years. Trust me he tried very very hard to get a job during at least the last 5, not been easy at all. Luckily my wage covers everything.

PS I don’t want any pats on the back, no one knows this in real life. I think people would judge my husband more for allowing me to pay it if I’m honest.

Be interesting now to see we have it clarified that both RP and NRP aren’t working what the viewpoint is from people saying he should go out to supplement his first children’s income and absolutely should be working, or should RP work to make this money up too? She could also improve their circumstances by working here?

Not saying this is my viewpoint, as I already stated; I think it’s his choice if that’s the situation he is now in not to work, and regardless of whether RP is working or not my view remains the same. But I think some who were screaming that he should work to pay will struggle to defend that on the basis RP isn’t working here, as if he should work and pay childcare for his twins then surely OP should work and pay childcare for her DC too? And then everyone would be working and all situations improved?

I think there are a lot of what ifs in this situation aswell, not just OPs but let’s say for example

RP works and earns 35ka year
NRP works and earns 25k a year
SM works and earns 35k a year

Then this situation happens, people are saying SM and NRP should not decide that it’s NRP who doesn’t work, because he has other obligations, so he should return and instead SM should stay home as she only has the 2 DC to pay for. This means RP now has her 35k plus the maintanence from NRP of 250. The other ‘DC’ now have an income loss of 13k in their household (potential extra earning from SM if she remained working, plus the maintanence). Leaving one set of children way worse off than the others.

Would that be ok? Because essentially that’s what people are saying in some of these posts.

People have to make the right decisions based on their circumstances and there’s a lot of variables to that. And there are some things that we can and cannot change, this is one of the can’t change as legally there is no grounds.

I also don’t think I was ludicrous to suggest NRP could have the DC full time if that was an option, RP being without their children is no different to current NRP being without them the equal amount of time, but that’s ok 🤷🏼‍♀️. I never said it would suit or be what either parent wants, but it is an option on the table as he is legally their parents as much as RP is.

We don’t know the circumstances for them moving so far away either, if he lived round the corner would it be any different?

@CrashesOverMe more fool her to be honest, she is with a man that lacks integrity and a moral compass, I spoke to my ex's wife briefly a few times after she messaged me after they had a fall out ( they have an awful relationship) she told me deep down she knew if they split up he would find any way not to pay maintenance as he had done with my children, she subsequently got back with him but really I feel sorry for her that shes stuck with someone like that, she feels stuck with him now after having kids with him.

Can you imagine being with someone you know is dishonest and willing to absolve his responsibility of contributing towards his kids upbringing, especially with twins.
You really will be better off in the end.
All the while where their entire relationship is based on dishonesty things will be really hard.

Sorry you are struggling financially right now the system REALLY sucks.
I hope you can try and lift yourself out of it.

@CrashesOverMe

I actually really appreciate all the different views on this thread, you've given me a lot of different view points!

I generally don't see a step parent as financially responsible for step kids but it's my kids who are missing out now.

She works and he stays home because she earns more money. He absolutely will not get a job. Looking after twins is hard work, I completely do not doubt that.

He left me for her. I claim universal credit etc to survive, £250 is a lot of money.

Have you suggested that he sells some things to try and generate income?

Blendiful the OP's ex left her for ow. If he's without his children it's because he chose to be. Do you seriously think a mother should give up custody of her children and let them live with her ex and ow simply because he's decided to jack in work and stay home for the benefit of his new family? Not only is that punishing a woman because her ex is a cheat, it's also putting the ft care of children with someone for whom they are absolutely not a priority.

@Blendiful Unless I've missed something else from OP, being on UC doesn't necessarily mean she doesn't work at all. Either way, the onus is more on him to get a job because she is doing the bulk of the childcare for them. Each set of parents need to both be contributing to their own kids, whether through money or time.

But yes, if for instance OPs kids are in school/about to be/using free nursery hours, then her getting a job would certainly not go amiss looking at the situation from the angle of all the kids being adequately provided for.

@aSofaNearYou
Have you suggested that he sells some things to try and generate income?
But why would he even if he could?
As far as he is concerned, op is sitting pretty with the state paying for his children. He still gets contact doesnt he. So it's not as though he's actually losing out on anything.

None of this is about what's best for the children.

If it were both separated parents, regardless of cause of separation, would be working their socks off for all of their children.

Op could also get a job, or a better paid job, etc. Atm neither parent is really taking full financial responsibility for the children they rose. The state is.

we have it clarified that both RP and NRP aren’t working

O, we don’t. The OP has said she claims Universal Credit. She could still be working and claiming.

Probably an assumption of me. No claiming UC doesn’t mean she doesn’t work at all. But the way it was worded ‘I claim UC etc’ I would have assumed she would have said I work pt/ft and claim UC rather than just the latter but I could be wrong.

I disagree on the point of the first poster replying to me in that because he left for OW this does not necessarily believe he is a bad dad or incapable of looking after his children either. It makes him a bad husband. If they had split amicably the situation would still remain the same as it is now. I feel the reasons for them splitting are separate from the current issue.

I said lots of times I don’t believe that is the answer or what either would want so no I don’t expect her to. What I was saying was if the NRP offered this as a solution as he can offer FT care but not money at the minute would that be accepted and is that an ok alternative?

The SAHD does see the kids he lives 70 miles away not 700 miles. I'm sure when he see them they are eating and sleeping! And pays 2/3rd of the travel. When you have an ex their circumstances can change and this isn't something you can control. All kids are getting zero income from the father. That remains a fact. You think you are entitled to money from someone who has no parental responsibility for the children. Childcare cost forces certain choices. If they couldn't afford fullt time childcare for twins how could they afford CSA payments on top of that ??? Are second families expected to be destitute to please first families. What is the goal here. Whether the SAHP worked or not he'd live with the twins thats where he lives. Its not the OP business who pays the bills in that household or what the income is in that household if the money is soley coming from the SM. Universal credit covers housing benefit, child tax credits, child benefits etc and single parents get around 70-80% off paid child care . Single households also get 25% off council tax. There is help and so there should be. There is another household paying for everything with one wage. I don't see the great inequality here.

"Blendiful the OP's ex left her for ow. If he's without his children it's because he chose to be. Do you seriously think a mother should give up custody of her children and let them live with her ex and ow simply because he's decided to jack in work and stay home for the benefit of his new family? Not only is that punishing a woman because her ex is a cheat, it's also putting the ft care of children with someone for whom they are absolutely not a priority."

I couldn't agree more with this ^^

I wouldn't see the kids living with dad as an okay alternative. He doesn't put their needs first. I think that being a good dad is linked to being a good husband. Good dads don't ruin their DC's stable home life by cheating and running off with ow. Or by taking a view that financial support is optional.
I'm not saying that couples should stay together but the way a relationship ends and how a person meets their responsibilities after the fact is important. The kids will know all this one day , so it matters.

My exh left me for the ow who is now his dw & my dc's sm. While having an affair & leaving is (generally) a rotten thing to do at least he left me when the dc were all in school & I was working! He also didn't go on to have more dc straight away. IF op is not working it will take her some time to get established in a job given the dc's ages & the fact that she has no immediate support.
I'm sorry but that man has behaved in a reprehensible way on all fronts & his dw is no better.
Fwiw I have a very good relationship with my exh & his dw so this is not projection on my part.

The etc was UC, CB to survive, I don't work but even if I did I still feel his household should be contributing financially.

He won't do anything to earn money.

Does he contribute to the costs of you traveling to drop the kids off?

When I say contribute I mean pay for fuel.

@CrashesOverMe

The etc was UC, CB to survive, I don't work but even if I did I still feel his household should be contributing financially.

He won't do anything to earn money.

But in effect you're bemoaning the father, when you too aren't contributing financially, the state is. So in effect, neither of you are focused on the best interests of the children in terms of finances. Thousands of sahms have to work post split. Why aren't you, given money is so tight?

@Pippa234

Does he contribute to the costs of you traveling to drop the kids off?

He doesn't need to. There's no precedence to.

@CrashesOverMe The household money isn't his money. Thats just the way it is. There is one income and thats from the SM. She has no legal obligations to give money to you. All of the children are getting zero financial support from the dad. The SM's money has nothing to do with you her earnings are her business. Likewise your money has nothing to do with her.

Busy the OP has care of two young children 75% of the time. That does make it hard to work. The dad is contributing neither physical care or financial support.

"He doesn't need to. There's no precedence to."

And OP doesn't have to pay or travel he moved away after all.
Especially if she's struggling.