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.

It’s best to try and be in a situation where you could cope without that money just in case.
Yeah, in theory @Blendiful but often women & their partners make the decision for the woman to stay at home while the dc are young & who's to say that's not what happened here. A sahm to small dc is a vastly different animal to a sahm to pre teens & teenagers!
What's really baffling me about this thread is the the OP was very obviously left totally in the lurch by the father of her dc & the fact that certain people have no empathy for that is bewildering to me; that they are justifying his woeful attitude to his older dc. They had a young family together (as I've previously stated the youngest must only have been 2 at the oldest when he left which means he was most likely having the affair well before that) & it's most likely that she was caught off guard while stuck being a sahm to tiny children.
HE fecked off to have a jolly old time & she's now supposed to do ALL the financial provision for dc while also being the rp because he chose to move away!
Jesus wept!
Some people just have NO concept of personal responsibility.

@MrsHuntGeneNotJeremyObviously

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.

I have sole care of my child 100% of the time and yet work.

Poor excuse.

@Pippa234

"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.

That's true. Except likelihood is if it went to court she'd be expected to pay and make half of all the travel. Not a third. And still not receive maintenance.

I genuinely cannot grasp why as a lone parent myself, the op wouldn't be trying to improve the situation for her children by finding a job but becomaning the entire thread about how hard she has it financially.

Op isn't working because of having young children

You mean just like EXh. Except OP could, with her free childcare for 3yr olds and 80% of any other childcare cost gifted to her on UC. EXh has a partner (so no UC) and two 1yr olds, so those things aren't (yet) available.

but all her money is going on her children.

But all the money she is handed but doesn't work for is going on her two resident children. Just like EXh. Additionally OP isn't paying rent or council tax. UC covers all that for her as well. That's huge.

Where as the money he is living off isn't going on his children is it.

Where as the money he is handed but doesn't work for, goes on his resident children. Just like OP. Because the source is their mother, (the only one in this whole scenario who works) and not the state.

The EXh can't work. For now. As people keep trying to point out, and as a twin mother, I'll repeat it again, you need to be earning BIG before your take home outweighs the cost of twin childcare. OP could work though. She gets free childcare. It's sat there waiting for her to use. The most she'll pay for any extra is 20% of the bill. But the EXh is lazy and immoral for not working whilst providing essential childcare.... And OP who has no reason at all not to work, is complaining about the £4 per day she isn't getting from him per child any more... because he doesn't work either.

He has a very good reason why. The fact that OP doesn't, while free childcare is handed to her by the state, seems fine though. Massive double standards by PP.

@BusyLizzie61 exactly!

She's got her rent paid, her council tax paid, and childcare paid by UC. There is nothing stopping her from working and her household costs are already so much less.

But no, far better to complain of the hardship of £4 a day per child no longer provided by the other parent, who having always worked, has had to stop because he's had twins.

Clearly the obvious thing to do is find a way to berate that person, force them back into work to not even cover their twin childcare bill, so you get your daily £4. Because only OPs children getting £4 is a priority or concern in this scenario

Heaven forbid that OP brings in her own extra money via working, with her free childcare already in place.

Neither of the parents are working or contributing their own earned money to their children. One with good reason. One without.

Any nrp that chooses to stay at home to benefit the 2nd family financially whilst denying his/her older children financial support is a deadbeat parent.

And any 2nd wife who supports him in denying his older children money whilst benefitting from the childcare is disgraceful. Lowest of the low. Shame on the minority who think this is acceptable.

Busy, it's not a poor excuse - people have different lives. I do admire you for being able to work and look after a child without any help, but we have no idea how far from childcare the OP lives, what her skills or qualifications are, whether working would benefit her enough financially to make it worthwhile. I think the OP has probably weighed it all up and concluded this is best for now. She had those children thinking that she was going to be in a partnership and it takes a while to adjust and rebuild a life.

I also think that not earning money directly isn't the same as not making a financial contribution. Being a sahp to twins saves a family thousands of pounds in nursery fees. It might save them more than the sahp could earn if working. If a couple make a decision for one of them to sah, and that's the point at which the earnings of the wohp becomes family money and the obligations of both parties should be met from this money (like CS).
Fair enough to argue that the SP has no responsibility when both partners are working and their money is their own.

"That's true. Except likelihood is if it went to court she'd be expected to pay and make half of all the travel. Not a third. And still not receive maintenance."

Not if she doesn't have the money no.
It's a very reasonable excuse.
What's hilarious is you think he would actually care enough to take her to court.
He won't spend a penny on them hardly likely to pay thousands for court.

"Where as the money he is handed but doesn't work for, goes on his resident children. Just like OP. Because the source is their mother, (the only one in this whole scenario who works) and not the state."

It still doesn't cancel out the fact he doesn't contribute to his kids he had previously though does it. So your point is irrelevant.
Also who says their family doesnt receive extra income from the state how do you know?
It's funny how much you have built this man up to be providing 'essential childcare' while saying OP should be working with her two very young children.

I agree @Magda72 there is real lack of empathy here.

I am a step parent myself the comments here defending this man make me cringe.
Stop rolling off your list of excuses for him.
No wonder the term feckless father exists with all the supporters for them ready to trash a woman who has been left high and dry. Disgusting.

@Magda72 I understand what you’re saying about when having children, families often decide it’s easier if the mother SAH or go part time... but that hasn’t happened here has it.
Let’s be blunt, OP’s children are still pre-school age and her ex’s twins are at least 1 which means he must have left her at least 18 months - 2 years ago. Doing the maths, if OP worked pre-children then she hasn’t (or shouldn’t have by the time he left) had a long period of being out of work so she isn’t as disadvantaged as someone who has given up years of potential career progression.

I’m sorry OP a lot of my sympathy was lost for yog when you stated that you wouldn’t be “much better off” by working. So you acknowledge it is a choice of yours not to work because you would be better off, but just not enough for you to think it’s worth disrupting your life.

Any extra income would be great for your family, even if you were £20 a week better off that’s £80 a month!

Not only that but you’re disadvantaging yourself through choice. The longer you’re out of work, the harder it will be to get back to work. Your kids will go to school and then what? You’ll just continue to stay at home and not attempt to support yourself?

I’m sorry but I’m inclined to agree that you and your ex have both chosen to be feckless and not work.

Also, UC and a part time job at NMW would be more than enough to cover childcare costs. I know, I’ve done it. I was a single parent for many years, also with no CMS to support me.

Neither parent is working to support the children. Both through choice. You’re as bad as each other.

I agree with others though, I wouldn’t be facilitating contact by paying to drive the kids to his home. If he moved, he can make the effort to see his children.

Not saying OP didn’t have valid reasons for being a SAHM at the time. But it seems now she can’t afford to be, so that will likely need to change.

I think the ex should contribute but it seems at the minute he can’t, and legally there is nothing that can be done, and I absolutely do not think SM should be expected to.

I don’t agree that him working weekends and then the care falling ton SM either would be right, it’s said on here all the time about SM not doing care that the NRP should be doing it. Also I do not think that would be best for the children.

I think he currently is stuck between a rock and a hard place, he can work to benefit his older DC but to the detriment of his youngest DC. Or he can stay home at the detriment of his eldest but benefit to his youngest. Difficult decision.

The difference is his eldest have another parent who could improve their circumstances too, the youngest’s other parent is already doing that.

People seem adamant he should work and not take anything away from his eldest DC but knowing full well this would take away from his youngest. Regardless of why he left etc there are 4 children to consider here; not 2, and it seems either decisions will have an impact on at least half of these. His DC at home currently as pointed out are younger and so the same support is not available that is available to the older ones (free childcare hours etc etc). It was valid for OP to stay home when this wasn’t available to her according to many others because she ‘had young DC’ so I feel he has the same option now. When his DC that live with him get the free hours etc then yes he should also return to work.

But all the money she is handed but doesn't work for is going on her two resident children. Just like EXh. Additionally OP isn't paying rent or council tax. UC covers all that for her as well. That's huge.

Of course it’s huge I totally agree. And I say that as someone who is in exactly the same position as the op (single mum, currently not working due to childcare costs for my 2 year old, claiming UC and not receiving maintenance from ex). The money I have goes on my children. They are resident with me.
If the op’s ex and his partner were both out of work and claiming UC, their UC payment would be calculated as £7 per week for maintenance as it’s now also his income. And the bulk of it would go on their resident children as it should do because that’s who it’s there for.

If my ex had a partner, no matter what he’s up to it wouldn’t be her responsibility to fund my children.

@Blendiful

Do you not think it’s perfectly reasonable for him to get a couple of evening shifts a week work? That wouldn’t take much from his younger kids, he would still be about to care in the day and most weekends/evenings. However that would also allow him to contribute even a little to his older children.

I can understand he might not get a lot of hours as that would be difficult to manage or take away from childcare time but 1 or 2 eve shifts a week should be manageable like many many other families do.

People seem adamant he should work and not take anything away from his eldest DC, but knowing full well this would take away from his youngest.

Exactly. And there’s always been some sort of MN expectation that it doesn’t matter how much the second family suffer, just so long as the status quo is preserved for the first family. Spare a thought for the second wife, she’s the only person in this scenario who is working.

It's funny how much you have built this man up to be providing 'essential childcare' while saying OP should be working with her two very young children.

It's not "building up" it's fact. His is essential, as they do not have children over 3 with free childcare awaiting, or UC footing 80% of any extra bill. It's OP that has all that available to her. But prefers to not work. Big difference.

I’m sorry OP a lot of my sympathy was lost for yog when you stated that you wouldn’t be “much better off” by working. So you acknowledge it is a choice of yours not to work because you would be better off, but just not enough for you to think it’s worth disrupting your life.

Quite.

People seem adamant he should work and not take anything away from his eldest DC but knowing full well this would take away from his youngest. Regardless of why he left etc there are 4 children to consider here; not 2

Yes. And what he would be taking from the younger two is a massively more of an impact than the £4 per day that the elder two would then benefit from. That's ok with many PP. The twins can be as disadvantaged as required, because they didn't arrive first chronologically. I don't think so. 4 children to make the best overall decision for.

I’m sorry but I’m inclined to agree that you and your ex have both chosen to be feckless and not work.

Neither parent is working to support the children. Both through choice. You’re as bad as each other.

Pretty much. Except it's OP with far more choice in the matter of working or not.

Clearly the obvious thing to do is find a way to berate that person, force them back into work to not even cover their twin childcare bill, so you get your daily £4. Because only OPs children getting £4 is a priority or concern in this scenario hmm

Excellent point! The more I read this thread the more I see why this happens and why it makes sense.
Yes, in an ideal world he would be in work. But it’s not an ideal world is it?

My main frustration are with nrps who choose to be sahps and think it’s like one big holiday and don’t appreciate how much hard work needs to be put in. Then on top of that the partner gets blamed for maintenance not being paid. Not saying this is everyone, but some nrps intentions aren’t with the benefit of their household, but with themselves.

“Yes. And what he would be taking from the younger two is a massively more of an impact than the £4 per day that the elder two would then benefit from. “

I agree I wouldn’t expect him to work full-time or take a job that means their childcare isn’t covered.
What would he be taking from the younger two if he got a job doing 1 or 2 evening shifts a week? Their other parent would be with them doing bed time and he’d be able to contribute something at least financially to his older children.

Yes he should pay. If the wife has a problem with paying the maintenance on his behalf, then he should get a part time job to cover it.

Personally I see family money as family money. I am a SAHP but what my husband earns is ours. Infact he ‘pays me a wage’ every month (it isn’t a wage, I don’t work for him, but he transfers me money every month to spend on whatever I like. Savings / petrol / clothes for me / things for the kids / days out / facials... he doesn’t ask and I don’t tell him. It’s mine). If I had to pay CM it would come out of that money even though I don’t officially work.

But he's providing absolutely nothing for his first children. If he were single, he could be on UC if he couldn't work and at least his kids would get something. The mum may not be working, but money is coming in (albeit UC). Lucky for this cheater he has a new wife and kids that he just has to provide childcare for, thus being able to abdicate any financial responsibility for the first two. Let's not forget he moved 70 miles away, so can't even provide any practical support for his first children. It's just a gross situation he had constructed.

I agree I wouldn’t expect him to work full-time or take a job that means their childcare isn’t covered.
What would he be taking from the younger two if he got a job doing 1 or 2 evening shifts a week? Their other parent would be with them doing bed time and he’d be able to contribute something at least financially to his older children.

There's probably some balance that can be found here. That would be a lot more palatable to expect if OP wasn't of the mindset that she doesnt want to be better off by working herself. While the wife works full time, to support her family, she'd be coming home, for her husband, who has been looking after 1yr old twins all day to then go straight out for his evening shifts. She already sacrifices not seeing her children during the day, and now doesn't get to see her DH when she returns. One or two nights might be doable perhaps, but to add that extra work ethic to their family, while OP prefers not to use her free childcare to do the same and help herself, is not going to be something they're likely to rush to do.

OP is happy with the expectation for money to roll in, as long as it's not from her working. That's not right.

But family money isn’t family money, she’s earning it and legally it’s hers. If she chose to contribute towards the eldest DC that’s fine but she’s not obligated to. She as I said is already paying the 25% of costs when they are with NRP and her, I am sure she had agreed to do this as part of their discussions. But I don’t think beyond that she should be expected to then also pay the ex, out of her wages, so she can stay at home? I think if ex were working, as much as she possibly could, but still struggling then SM may be more in a position to think she should help. But if I was working and my DPs ex was staying at home (with free childcare hours and UC paying childcare options available) and he suggested I pay out of my wages to top up exes money I would absolutely not do that. OP can get work, pandemic is not an excuse there are jobs out there I have seen them.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable no to expect him to pick up some evening shifts, if he can. But as I said we don’t know his wife’s situation job wise, what if for example she is a nurse in a hospital, with varying shifts herself, this might not be possible at all for him to do. If he can, then yes he should. But so should OP get work and either claim the childcare help available; work in hours that suit that, or work in the 25% of time ex has the DC.

£4 per day for each child makes a big difference when RP income is low.
I don't think he should nor be a sahp - I think as a family unit his household should still pay CS. If the wife isn't willing to do that, then imo he ought to be getting a shift or two around his wife's work and pay it himself.
He does have 4 children - he can't just look after two of them.

@Blendiful spot on

Yep, you nailed it @Blendiful

@Courtney555 just as an aside, I was interested to hear your views on the challenges of twins. I once had two kittens and a puppy, I thought that was as full on as it could get, but clearly not .....