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.

No, he doesn't pay for fuel, he doesn't pay for anything.

OP, stop paying for fuel. You can't afford to if you are on UC and have just lost CS.

Given your last update OP, it's no surprise this decision sits well with your Ex.. and his now DP. He has made decisions that negatively impact his DC, so this latest one shouldn't surprise you.

The fact that you know he's not the type to go out and get a pt job towards maintenance further shows how useless he is.

Do the best you can for your DC and they will know you're the one they can rely on as they grow up.

Let's just hope the SM isn't one to say how disappointing it is that his older DC don't bother with him later in life, when he's such a fantastic dad who does so much for them.

Yes I agree stop paying for the fuel.

@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.

Yeah erm I am going through CMS at the moment, I don't understand how one parent can be allowed to not have to pay anything, what about the other parent if they don't pay either, where would the child go? Bed fed? Have a roof over their head?! Like they are saying there are times someone doesn't have to pay, job loss etc etc, so who does pay for the child then?!

I'd stop paying for fuel too. Not your priority.

What about when he does have them? Are you expected to supply all that's needed for that too?

@SpongebobNoPants

Why is he a SAHD?

OP has said he remarried so I'm assuming they've had a child together and his new wife goes out to work and he stays home to look after the child/ren. Great either way lol as he doesn't have to provide financially for any new children or his child from previous relationship!

Maybe the OP cannot work as she cannot afford childcare/wrap around care?

For what it’s worth, I generally think adults/parents should work even if part time as long term it usually pays off.

Benefits are not much to live off and chances are that the 250 was keeping the OPs head above water. He hasn’t offered half. Or a quarter.

Presumably she is feeding, clothing, housing, entertaining her children.

He is looking after his next two to facilitate his partners/household income and stopping CM to his first two to do so. That’s immoral.

I still think he should try to get a short shift to give his last two children something.

I don’t think SM should necessarily have to pay for all we know they might be on UC too (earning more doesn’t mean earning loads). I reckon she’s probably kept her job because when (not if) he moves on she knows she won’t see a penny.

[quote SpongebobNoPants]@Willyoujustbequiet does your outrage stretch to women who also choose not to work and claim benefits to support their children and also have subsequent children?
Not being goady, I’m interested in the response.

OP how often does their dad have them? You said it’s less than you but no specifics[/quote]
Women who choose not to work? I rate any single woman or man who is at home looking after their children, who else is supposed to do it then? Benefits are there for a reason and the most common one is Universal Credit, which isn't like the good old days where people were signed up for life, no terms or conditions just money for dossing. UC takes that stigma away a little in that if you are of working age it comes with terms and conditions, in order for you to get that money. And you tell me how you would work a normal job, pay for the child to go to full time day care prior to school starting, pay £1200/1300 a month for rent, this is in certain parts of the country of course not all, council tax, water, electric gas, food, clothes and other stuff, oh and save too, as we are all supposed to be able to do that, what out of a normal salary 🙄🤦‍♀️🤣 Now I'll sit and wait for the 'you should have studied harder and got a better job' brigade to come along!

@Theunamedcat

Strange how quickly it became a goady genuine question about women on benefits 🤔

You are only allowed on benefits until your child turns three then you have to job search or have someone supporting you

I couldn't respectva man who lives off his wife and puts his children at a financial disadvantage its 14% of your wages for one child 16% for two its not like its all your money

👏

@user1493413286

I’m a stepmother with DC with DH and a DSD, I don’t see maintenance as my responsibility and it comes out of DHs money BUT morally I’d never suggest to DH that he be a stay at home dad and not then contribute to his DD. His responsibility is firstly to DSD and any financial decisions we make including changing jobs and having more DC take into account his financial responsibility for DD.

Very well put, and yes I agree, it's not the new DP or DW's problem to have to help pay out for the other children.

It's a shitty thing to do. He's deliberately impoverishing his own children.

Do we assume that the dad Will be going back to work on two years once the twins are 3 and eligible for free childcare?

I just think there is a lot of conflicted views here.

OP shouldn’t have to work because childcare is too expensive but dad should work to contribute. But yet he is also staying home because childcare is too expensive?

People should work to provide for their children and not deliberately not pay, yet OP isn’t doing this either?

Lots saying ex and new wife shouldn’t have children if they can’t provide for the existing ones, but then shouldn’t that apply to all in this situation that all of the children’s parent should be working to provide for them? Including OP?

I am not by any means saying being on benefits is a good income, it’s not, but it’s not to say his new wife has a good income either? And even if she does that’s her money and in no way owed to the SC unless as others have done; she volunteers that. If NRP was living alone, he could also claim benefits and then contribute but it sounds like he wouldn’t be eligible as he lives with a partner so can’t do that either.

It’s a difficult situation but legally no ground to stand on, so the only options are to explore more care (which sounds like it has been done and can’t happen due to distance), just live with the loss, or for OP to find a job to make up the loss.

It is these situations why I always feel that maintanence should be ‘extra’. Lots of RPs rely heavily on maintanence from exes and whilst I agree costs should be split 50/50 they often aren’t and anyone’s situation can change quickly. It’s best to try and be in a situation where you could cope without that money just in case. Even those receiving huge sums from wealthy exes could lose it overnight if they are made bankrupt/redundant etc. It’s best not to be a SAHP as a single parent IMO if you are relying on an exes maintanence to do so.

@Blendiful

I just think there is a lot of conflicted views here.

OP shouldn’t have to work because childcare is too expensive but dad should work to contribute. But yet he is also staying home because childcare is too expensive?

People should work to provide for their children and not deliberately not pay, yet OP isn’t doing this either?

Lots saying ex and new wife shouldn’t have children if they can’t provide for the existing ones, but then shouldn’t that apply to all in this situation that all of the children’s parent should be working to provide for them? Including OP?

I am not by any means saying being on benefits is a good income, it’s not, but it’s not to say his new wife has a good income either? And even if she does that’s her money and in no way owed to the SC unless as others have done; she volunteers that. If NRP was living alone, he could also claim benefits and then contribute but it sounds like he wouldn’t be eligible as he lives with a partner so can’t do that either.

It’s a difficult situation but legally no ground to stand on, so the only options are to explore more care (which sounds like it has been done and can’t happen due to distance), just live with the loss, or for OP to find a job to make up the loss.

It is these situations why I always feel that maintanence should be ‘extra’. Lots of RPs rely heavily on maintanence from exes and whilst I agree costs should be split 50/50 they often aren’t and anyone’s situation can change quickly. It’s best to try and be in a situation where you could cope without that money just in case. Even those receiving huge sums from wealthy exes could lose it overnight if they are made bankrupt/redundant etc. It’s best not to be a SAHP as a single parent IMO if you are relying on an exes maintanence to do so.

These were my thoughts to be honest.

Being completely blunt OP - you are not working, so why is that different to the other parent choosing not to work?

I 100% agree that NRP should contribute maintenance in accordance with contact agreement, there shouldn’t be a question about whether or not they pay, all parents should contribute if they are financially able (as in they have a job or source of income).

But in this case ex is not working and not contributing.... that’s pretty shit. But you don’t work either?

So I don’t know how you can rightfully complain. You have decided not to work as it works out financially better for your family (I’m assuming; I apologise if I’ve missed that it’s due to a different reason) and your ex has done the same thing.

I don’t know the solution but this contradiction doesn’t seem right. It can’t be right for one parent to be ok not to work and to be supported by benefits but the other has to work?

And I don’t think SP should pay no - I certainly wouldn’t. But that is mainly because SC mother has rent paid, benefits, lunches, free childcare (for SC sibling and also works cash in hand a few hours a week. They have an income equivalent to a full time job without the actual job.

Saying that, I wouldn’t feel comfortable with DP not contributing to his kids so we would never make the decision for him to be a SAHP

It’s best not to be a SAHP as a single parent IMO if you are relying on an exes maintanence to do so

It is likely she has no choice if the children are young. Childcare costs very much outweigh earning minimum wage plus UC, particularly in the south east. Moreover, as one person, trying to simultaneously drop off children of slightly different ages in different settings, negotiating distances via public transport, getting to a job on time and then doing it all in reverse is often impossible. Waiting until they are in school with breakfast and after school facilities makes it easier. I didn’t go back to work as a single parent till the youngest could go to the school nursery at 3 and then never looked back but before that, it just wasn’t logistically possible.

The ex, however, isn’t single. This opens up more opportunities for flexible working around the other parent during the early years (and children of the exact same age is helpful) and whilst difficult, isn’t quite as difficult as it is for one person. Of course much depends on the skill set and industry they are both experienced in.

OP - please don’t let the benefit bashing shite get you down. You will work it out. And whatever your working situation, you are still bringing up your children on your own with limited support and money and I am sure you are doing a great job. And your ex still has responsibilities he’s not fulfilling. Some thoughts - are you near family? If not, is a move possible? This would help enormously when working and trying to juggle things. Is there training you can do now whilst your children are young to help you find work when you’re ready? You might be surprised what you can access via your local college so do have a look. They may also,provide childcare.

@user1493413286

I’m a stepmother with DC with DH and a DSD, I don’t see maintenance as my responsibility and it comes out of DHs money BUT morally I’d never suggest to DH that he be a stay at home dad and not then contribute to his DD. His responsibility is firstly to DSD and any financial decisions we make including changing jobs and having more DC take into account his financial responsibility for DD.

His responsibility is equal to all of his children. Not Step child first then consider everyone else?

Am I missing something?

Op isn't working because of having young children but all her money is going on her children.
Where as the money he is living off isn't going on his children is it.
Ops even paying money she doesn't have taking the kids to him after he's moved away from them.
He's taking the piss.

He may well be taking the piss, but as other posters have pointed out - he’s providing zero financial support for any of his children, so there’s a kind of equity here?

Absolutely not benefit bashing at all. I have been there myself. Thank goodness for benefits.

I am bashing those with the double standards because IMP both parents have chosen not to work because it makes financial sense to them to do so. The difference being that ex cannot claim any benefits so his income is completely 0. He cannot contribute what he doesn’t have. So saying the money he is living off isn’t going on his children is wrong he doesn’t have any, he’s living off his wife’s wages which is paying for a home for her and her children the same way and OPs money is doing. Neither mum is in a different situation to the other. NRP is providing the childcare for his twins, and RP is providing the childcare for the other 2, this is because as rightly said, childcare is expensive.

But actually as a single parent a percentage is paid so UC will cover most of it. On UC it definitely pays more to work part time and top up than completely not work. On the old system then no it didn’t always; but UC yes definitely.

The other option is NRP has the children 25% of the time, no reason he cannot have them every weekend, no school, OP can work then at the weekend without worrying about any childcare costs or logistics.

Again, my actual opinion is just it’s something to have to live with and while not ideal, legal and it is what it is. But there are other ways to improve the situation other than asking SM to pay. Who doesn’t have any legal responsibility at all to do so.

We are also missing that his new wife will already be funding the children the 25% of the time they are there as he still has 0 income and can’t claim anything due to wife working likely, so she is already picking that up. I think to expect anything beyond that from her is unreasonable.

He should be paying towards the travel costs though 50/50 at least or doing one journey there or back.

Also, people saying he can work around SM’s hours. If he works the weekends to do so, he can’t see the other children at all. Is that really the best idea? We don’t know if SM works shifts or late so evenings may or may not be an option.

I suspect that if he got a weekend job, he’d still be expected to have the other children, even if he’s not there to see them … which would fall on the new wife. It used to be called ‘access by proxy’

What about when he does have them? Are you expected to supply all that's needed for that too?

They take a bag with clothes but they provide pretty much everything when they are at Dad's house.

Maybe the OP cannot work as she cannot afford childcare/wrap around care?

Minimum wage with the childcare, I wouldn't be much better off.

Do we assume that the dad Will be going back to work on two years once the twins are 3 and eligible for free childcare?

I get the impression their arrangement is long term.

Being completely blunt OP - you are not working, so why is that different to the other parent choosing not to work?

I guess because even if I did work he still wouldn't pay and I have the kids 3/4 of the year at home.

Some thoughts - are you near family? If not, is a move possible? This would help enormously when working and trying to juggle things. Is there training you can do now whilst your children are young to help you find work when you’re ready?

I am near family, who can help now again but probably not all the time. There's plenty of courses etc I could look at yes, thanks.

You have decided not to work as it works out financially better for your family (I’m assuming; I apologise if I’ve missed that it’s due to a different reason) and your ex has done the same thing.

Except his older children are his family too or don't you think so? He's made a decision to their detriment. Not one that reduces his contribution, but one that absolves him of paying a penny.

OP... the fact that you know he won't get a pt job shows that you know and have probably known for a while he's not a good dad.

I think some people can't grasp that him looking after his children full time is saving his own new family money so yes he is contributing to his own new family without contributing anything towards his older children.

The 'older' children who are still very young and extremely dependant on full time care which their mother is providing whilst in receipt of benefits are getting everything provided for by their mother all her money is going to them.
She's even wasting her time and money traveling to drop them off to the ex.

Op you are entitled to those benefits, I agree with the helpful poster saying about getting an appointment to see what help you can get to work on yourself and whether you may be able to access any courses in the future to better yourself and build yourself up for work.

It's not easy being a single parent well done for picking up the pieces looking after your children after being treated so badly.
Best of luck