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.

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
This is the thing. Op could work a few hours whilst the kids were in school / wrap around and still see them for most of their free time and get a decent sleep each night but she's made a choice.

Ex could have the kids 8-6 then find a job where he works say 8 (allowing for wife being late home, travel to work etc) midnight, get to be at 1 and then back up with the twins but he's made a choice.
I know which decision I'm more sympathetic too.

That said, if decent childcare is available and it's manageable for the OP to get her DC there and still get to work/home in time, I think she would benefit from returning to work soon even if temporarily she isn't much better off. I do agree that when it's physically possible both parents should be financially supporting their own children.

But family money isn’t family money, she’s earning it and legally it’s hers
Why doesn’t this fly when the man works and the woman is the SAHP?
What would you say to a man who thought his earnings were his alone and he would just give her indoors some housekeeping money?

OP could gain much more than £4 a day by working though. So surely if it such a shortfall that is the best solution? £4 isn’t even 1hr work at minimum wage, so by working even just 1 day a week this money would be there.

Whether he should or shouldn’t be paying is a moral discussion really. As I said if he can, he should, but I also think the same applies to OP. They can work and they should, exactly the same as NRP.

But the facts are that legally he is abiding by those rules (not saying that’s right, but that is how it is).
And no one is entitled to anything more than what they are getting here.

So if the situation needs to change, then there are other options than just saying ex should pay, and definitely not that his wife should pay.

I am a SM and a mum; I also have an ex. If my ex lost his job, I wouldn’t expect his partner to pay my kids maintanence. Similarly if my ex chose to be a SAHD if he and his new partner have a child, then I would lose that money. Not ideal, would I be annoyed - probably, but I make sure his money for the kids is extra, so I would still be able to meet costs, if I couldn’t I would have to find alternative work or work extra, have done this in the past also when money has been short.

My current DP has 2 of his own children. I pay towards what they need when they are with us, the same as he does with my DC. But if he couldn’t work (has happened as pandemic has effected his business - self employed) I wouldn’t be paying his exes to keep his DC, I continued to pay for them when they were here, which included some months funding 100% or food, bills and anything else when they were here ( we have a 50:50 with one DC so no money due anyway but he does usually pay, and more of a 25% with the other but this is exes preference). But he would never have suggested I paid his exes what he usually would, and I wouldn’t have offered as I couldn’t afford to. This SM is paying 100% of her families costs, it doesn’t sound like she can claim a penny to help. Yet people think she should pay out to support his older DC whose mum could also improve the situation but currently isn’t. OP may not be much better off working but I bet it’ll be at least £4 a days worth, more than likely more; and in the long run obviously a lot more, when there will likely be career progression, childcare duties ending, work experience to move to to WhT jobs, able to pick up more hours later etc. I think that is as morally wrong as him not working if he is able to do so.

The money is family money, as far as her household goes. She is paying for 100% of costs in her house. So in that case yes, she is already as I said paying the 25% for DSC when they are there.

This should not extend beyond that household though. If you swapped this around and had the dad working, mum at home and say mum had 2 other DC living with dad, I would not expect the man to pay for them either.

The gender is irrelevant here. But her obligation does not fall beyond that household and her family. The DSC are part of that for 25% of the time and she is paying that. If they were there 100% of the time she would be paying that too.

But I do not think that family money extends as far as paying for children that aren’t yours when they are not with you, that’s ludacris.

I wouldn’t pay maintenance if DH packed in his job. Not my kids, not my responsibility. She’s already tried to ask for my earnings and got a very snotty text from me in response. I basically said that she might as well as some random In Sainsbury’s because I wasn’t coughing up.

I do think family money is family money apart from when it comes to things like maintenance. It’s not the same as helping to pay towards a partner’s car finance or their credit card. There are certain things I wouldn’t want to pay for, such as maintenance and big debts from a partner’s previous marriage.

That’s getting into a whole other discussion about simply not viewing your DSC as part of your family, as well as not allowing your hypothetical SAHP proper access to the family funds, because if he did have access and still didn’t pay (this is assuming there’s enough in the coffers) then he’s just an out and out dick isn’t he.
Why would you pay his other personal bills but not for his children on principle?

Irrespective of whether you consider step children to be part of your family (or not) - I'm not sure this has any influence wanting to pay for them (or not). DH's brother is a family member, but there's no way I'd be paying his bills! Being part of the family, and being part of the immediate household budget are two different things entirely.

I think that if a partner is unwilling to pay CS (and I do agree that in most cases they shouldn't be paying it) then the parent really shouldn't sah ft. But then I do view CS as a household expense in situations where both partners pool all their income. I don't think it's right that RP have to get themselves into positions where CS is a nice extra but not to be relied upon. To me, a mother should absolutely be able to rely on her children's dad paying his fair share and the state should not allow (mostly) fathers to behave as if parenting is optional.

There are a few issues here (apologies for the length of this!).

The first is that the OP has essentially been screwed over twice by her exH. Firstly, by doing all the family "donkey-work" and being encouraged by her then H to rely on his income to support the family. Now, this is seldom a wise move unless there are substantial family assets to which you can look to support the children in the event of a divorce and your H is a very high earner who will be able to pay decent maintenance. Because you're essentially sacrificing job/career progression and, even if your exH does pay maintenance, it will rarely put you in the financial position you would have been in had you continued working. Having said that, lots of parents (mostly women, including myself to a certain degree, so I'm not judging, OP) end up having to scale back their working hours when they have children (mine from 80+ hours to 25 hours a week) and some have to give up work because the cost of childcare in the early years is so high. Hopefully, things will be better when your youngest starts school and the kids are all back at school, OP, and you can look and see what work is available to improve your financial situation.

Secondly, your exH has also screwed you over because, having positioned himself as the "earner" of the family and I presume benefited from your unpaid labour and career sacrifice, he then abandoned you and your DC, leaving you in a poor financial situation and failing to ensure his children were provided for even by paying the maintenance you could reasonably have expected giving his earning capacity. Now, there's no reason why he has to stay in a relationship where he's not happy or support his exW indefinitely, but it doesn't even sound like he gave you much time to transition towards finding work and becoming more independent. Yes, when a relationship breaks down, the parties have to stand on their own two feet, but it doesn't happen instantaneously. In this case, it sounds like Covid and lockdown has been going on for a lot of the time since he left, and so it would have been very difficult for the OP to get a job that she could balance with caring for the children, given nursery and school closures.

The second issue is that he has had two more children without being able to provide adequately for his existing children. I'm very much in favour of reproductive freedom but there has to be some element of responsible planning and this is deeply unimpressive. NRPs should treat maintenance payments like a mortgage payment or a utility bill - they just have to be paid. Because the reality is that children just have to be fed, clothed and their reasonable educational and recreational expenses met and benefits aren't sufficient to do this.

The third issue is his new wife's responsibility. I'm with pp above. She has no responsibility to provide for children who aren't hers. However, her husband should say to her, "Look, I have a moral obligation to support my children, so I'm going to need to get a job one day a weekend or an evening job so I can make payments to them so they don't go without". Yes, it's difficult and looking after young children is exhausting. But people do work around young kids. Many mums work part-time from home or have evening jobs when their partners get back. Many parents work shifts so they can share the childcare and avoid having to pay for nursery.

@SpongebobNoPants I generally agree with you & I generally think it's better for women & if both parents work - not just from a financial viewpoint - working gives women independence, an identity outside the home & makes parenting more equal.
However, until this is widely promoted & expected within society I can see how many women still get caught on the hop so to speak. From what I've seen over the years many women have a child & go back to work at least part time. They often find themselves struggling especially if their job in not in a higher paid sector & begin to query why they are exhausting themselves to often pay for nothing more than childcare. They are also most likely doing the majority of housework. A second child or more children come along and giving up work often then becomes very attractive - dc will be happier, mum will be less exhausted, dp/dh is the (generally) bigger earner so it makes sense that he continue working. I have seen this scenario play out again & again & while it often seems like a great idea initially, in the long run it's not because you can then end up in a situation like op whereby your partner fecks off & leaves you either totally dependent on him or with nothing - like op.
I absolutely agree that the attitude of benefits being better than working is wrong - but I can see how women get & feel defeated. If you're a single parent of very young children & you haven't worked outside the home for a few years the prospect of trying to juggle work, small dc, lack of sleep, school/nursery runs etc. can seem overwhelming. Off course it can be done - I did it & plenty of others did it - but I wasn't a single mum until my dc were a bit older. I also had had good earning capacity & could afford some home help to collect dc from school & do a bit of laundry.
I feel in this situation if this couple made a joint decision for her not to work while the dc were young (& in couples it mostly is a joint decision) & he then decided to hightail off leaving her & the dc in a very vulnerable position he should at the very least have stayed working & given op an opportunity to train/get employment. And even if the op was working/gets work he is still morally obligated to provide for his older dc.

What a completely pathetic specimen of a 'man' he is. Leaving his wife and children for another woman who he then lives off in order not to have to support his existing children. She really has struck gold with this PoS hasn't she!

That aside, in my opinion he is a complete deadbeat dad, no different to any other who doesn't pay any support for their children. Worse if anything, because he has consciously given up paid work in order to prioritise the financial welfare of his new family at the expense of his children. When they grow up and realise that, how do you think they will feel?

If I were you I would do NOTHING to facilitate contact - travel will cost you and you can't afford that now. I don't see how it's in your children's best interests to encourage their relationship with someone who cares so little for their welfare. If he wants to see them he can travel and bear the cost. And I would be vocal about him being a complete deadbeat who doesn't contribute, to any family and friends you may still have in common. Embarrass him. He may be legally within the rules but morally he's bankrupt.

The step mother must have such low self-respect to be with a cheater who manipulates their situation not to have to support their children. Who on earth would have such a low bar to settle for someone like that - you should pity her.

Why would you pay his other personal bills but not for his children on principle?

In this particular situation because they also have a mother who chooses not to work.
Why on earth should the SM work and support 1 household 100% and the other 25% of the time and still get asked for more??

Nope.

DH's brother is a family member, but there's no way I'd be paying his bills! Being part of the family, and being part of the immediate household budget are two different things entirely
Agreed. The difference if that I’m viewing my DH as a member of my family and paying for his child is one of his essential bills, not an optional extra.
So if we take a decision to benefit our family and take him out of the workforce, my personal earnings are now family money and paying for my husbands child is one of the family’s essential bills and not an optional extra, nice to have thing, like Sky TV or paying for the bins to be cleaned or paying extra for the local dairy to deliver or whatever other little luxuries you might cut in order to afford life on one wage.
All this said, if it simply can’t be afforded then I’d not be making my own child suffer to pay for someone else’s, I’m not saying a SM should be turning herself inside out to make sure the first children’s lifestyle isn’t impacted. Sometimes shit happens.
I’m saying this automatic principle that the DSC are an optional add on seems wrong to me.

My ex didn’t pay for 9years. I didn’t demand any personally as my dh and I didn’t want to beg because it was ex’s problem I could afford it and I was happy to provide for my child.
But I also have a dsd and dh pays every month. Dsd mother wouldn’t have as much money and has 3 other kids with fathers not on scene, when I had a really good wage I’d give her more and give her 300 extra towards Christmas and things and pay for dsd presents.
I think it comes down to personal family income. I do believe if it was a joint decision him being stay at home father then the step mother has taken on the decision to pay for step children. Morally that is the correct thing to do.
We have dsd almost 50% the reason we give extra is because it wouldn’t sit right dsd having less than our children in this house.

Also agreed that you can’t decide not to work and then make demands of someone else doing the same.

If you're a single parent of very young children & you haven't worked outside the home for a few years the prospect of trying to juggle work, small dc, lack of sleep, school/nursery runs etc. can seem overwhelming. Off course it can be done - I did it & plenty of others did it - but I wasn't a single mum until my dc were a bit older. I also had had good earning capacity & could afford some home help to collect dc from school & do a bit of laundry.

Completely agree. You really need some leeway income-wise to make it work. Pre-Covid, I was working in the city centre, the trains were disrupted due to a suicide and I was going to be really late for nursery pick-up. So I took a taxi the whole way back. Cost me £60 but I was there in time for nursery pick-up.

Here, we pay our way out of most logistical issues that arise with two working parents. Not a luxury available to a low-paid single parent.

Why would you pay his other personal bills but not for his children on principle? Because in this particular situation they also have a mother who chooses not to work

Indeed.

he then lives off in order not to have to support his existing children
who manipulates their situation not to have to support their children
I do think that as a household th y should be contributing to the older children but he's not "living off" his new partner, he's a SAHD because they can't afford childcare for the EXTRA child they didn't plan. And he didn't manipulate anything to make the extra unplanned for baby. He isn't going to work to earn say £1k a month, pay £900 in childcare and £250 in maintenance and leave his household unable to cover their bills. Regardless of him being a cheating dick, the babies are here and they they all need the bills paying in their homes.

I don't think the stepmum should feel obliged to pay out of her income. I would, but that's just me, I wouldn't think badly of someone who didn't

I would however think badly of a Dad who has another family, becomes a SAHD and then subsequently can't support his older children. That's appalling behaviour, he really should be looking for some way of getting an income. I've been in this position (thankfully it didn't last long), and it was pretty shit - esp as he just shrugged it off as one of those things! Yeah try telling that to DS when I can't afford the things I'd been able to when maintenance was coming in

I wouldn’t pay for his personal bills, but I paid for family bills. Things such as his phone bill, any credit cards etc etc, I didn’t pay for. I paid for what would usually have been his half towards household bills that benefit both of us, because ultimately I needed to provide for myself and my own children, as well as his when they are here. I realise this is a different situation as it was pandemic related loss of income; not a SAHP loss, but it was a close example I could give.

I don’t think it’s about seeing DSC as family or not either. When mine are here they are part of the family and integrated. When they are not here I am not responsible for them, neither do I feel responsible for them, I don’t miss them etc not Like I feel I am/do for my own children. for example, if I was home, one of my DSC was ill and needed collecting from school and DP and exes were working I would do so, if I could. But if in that example I was also at work; I would not expect to be the one to leave to collect them; as it’s not my responsibility, one of their legal parents would need to do so. I would expect the same for my own DC. As long as SM treats them like family and funds them when they are there; I think she is doing what she should. This doesn’t extend to paying maintainence for them outside of costs when they are there.

My main point is that if benefits aren’t sufficient to pay for what the children need then BOTH parents should be working to improve this. Not just one. I think they should both work ideally. But I don’t think you can use an excuse as to why RP shouldn’t work, when there is help available to enable this. And then not allow the same excuse for the NRP it’s a contradiction. If the children’s costs aren’t met it is up to both parents to resolve this, it can’t be all put onto one parent here, and excused because she does 75% of the care for the children, as it’s been said some single parents do 100% and dads aren’t around, they would have no choice but to find work if they couldn’t afford to meet the costs of their children.

Both parents could change this situation for the DC in question and so both parents should do so. What I can see is why NRP feels he would be able to justify choosing to be a SAHD when RP is also choosing to be a SAHM. The difference is he can’t claim any benefits because he has a partner who is working.

And even if the second wife in this scenario wanted to pay maintenance, the fact that she's got twins and a non earning partner would probably make it impossible!

@Magda72 I agree with some of your points but not others, which I’m finding odd because I normally think you are 100% spot on.

I feel in this situation if this couple made a joint decision for her not to work while the dc were young
We don’t know this. We don’t know how long she’s been unemployed for but we do know she can’t have been unemployed for long after having the kids whilst still in a relationship with there DF... less than 2 years max.

At what point do women start taking responsibility for their own choices? As I pointed out earlier, she hasn’t been out of work for a long time and for the majority of it she has been single.

It doesn’t matter if she’s only marginally better off, she needs to work.

If you're a single parent of very young children & you haven't worked outside the home for a few years the prospect of trying to juggle work, small dc, lack of sleep, school/nursery runs etc. can seem overwhelming

Trust me, I get it. I was a single parent from day 1 with my DD (dad left me and emigrated) and then I had a DS with my ExH and we split when he was 6 months old.

I have worked as a single parent with a baby with no CMS. There were no free nursery hours for this child either as they didn’t exist yet.

Years later I then also worked as a single parent with 2 DCs, one aged 5 and the other aged 6 months. I got minimal CMS for the baby and still nothing for the older child.

I did it. It is manageable. I couldn’t afford to not work or “feel defeated”. I had children to feed and bills to pay.

OP has not been out of work for a considerable amount of time - unless of course she didn’t work before having children, which again is a lifestyle choice I have no sympathy for.

It is ALWAYS financially better to work. Even part time wages & UC together.
Choosing not to because you don’t think it’s worth it is a ridiculous decision.
There’s a whole division of people who do see claiming benefits as a right or a lifestyle and it’s totally wrong. If you are able bodied and healthy (including mentally) and choose not to work and claim benefits instead then it is disgraceful.

How much do you think you’re worth OP? Do you not feel you’re worth more than this?

I do feel sorry for mother’s who don’t receive any financial support from their children’s father(s), but the OP is also not financially supporting her own children through choice so it comes across hypocritical that she is angry with her ex for doing the same.

Your ex is a dick just like mine. I also think step mum is too, she knew he had young children also.
It’s like saying his previous kids are less important.

I love dsd but I love my own kids more but I’m not stupid to think mine deserve more or are more important, I’d hate to think my kids had a better deal. I would hate for dsd growing up resenting us or her half siblings.