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.

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.

Well, this depends. In normal times, I agree with you. But the past year has been something else. No one atm is going to offer a job to a single mum with no childcare and homeschooling responsibilities.

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 can respect a position that’s consistent, this is fair enough. It’s also very different when job loss is involved rather than actual financial planning as such, and I have been very vocal on other threads where SMs have been expected to pay maintenance in that situation. Everyone’s caught on the hop and no one set of children are more important than the other.
It’s the bending your position to make it acceptable to actively decide to pay no maintenance I seem to have a bee in my bonnet about!

In normal times, I agree with you. But the past year has been something else. No one atm is going to offer a job to a single mum with no childcare and homeschooling responsibilities

I suppose it depends on how long she’s been unemployed for. Her and her ex have been split at least a couple of years so she’s either lost a job or chosen not to work pre-pandemic.
If it’s the latter, again I’m inclined to be unsympathetic.
Same applies if she chose not to work before having kids.

My DP’s ex is the same. She hasn’t worked for nearly 3 years now (through choice) and is blaming the pandemic... but she was unemployed for 2 years prior to covid 19 so it’s utter tripe.
The kids are old enough to not require constant supervision either at 16 & 12. It is undoubtedly a choice.

Whether the mother works or not, it doesn't change the fact that the father isn't paying a penny to support his children. Also, the mother is their main carer. The father has run off with someone else without a backwards glance. Criticising the OP for not working doesn't detract from the fact that the father is pond scum.

For what its worth I agree that the OP should be getting back into work. But I sympathise with her situation because she has been dumped for another woman, left with almost sole care of two young children, and the father (whose income was previously part of their household income and was taken into account when she gave up work) has worked things out so he doesn't pay a penny. If she needs a bit of time to get back into work then that is understandable I think. There is literally NO excuse for the father to have abandoned his children with no financial support.

@CrashesOverMe

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.

Wait, so you don't want to work and financially better yourself? That's not a good work ethic to be showing your children, if you want more money and your ex won't/can't contribute, go and earn it. And I say that as a single mum who was on benefits for nearly a year and has worked since my child was 3.

@SpongebobNoPants. But 16 and 12 are totally different to having a 4 yo around! Much less need for childcare, for a start. The OP can't work unless she has childcare (including school).

@Pippa234
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.
That may have been the situation in years gone by. Not now.
I know of women ordered to travel 3 hours by public transport to the nrp. Give their 9 month old for overnights. So what you're saying is very outdated.
Going to court simply requires a miam where mediation has failed and an application cost of a couple of hundred pounds. Solicitors and barristers are unnecessary. And actually your saying the costs etc being exorbitant is what makes people not use the family court system when the whole premise is that it IS affordable for all.

If the op has child nights off, she should be utilising this time to earn.
She has access to 30 hours free childcare and 85% paid via uc. She is choosing not to support her family. She is in effect not in any more of a superior position than the father, in terms of financially supporting her children. In fact she is now choosing not to improve their prospects on principle that she won't gain "much" by doing so.

@SpongebobNoPants I should have emphasised the 'if' .
No, we don't know exactly what happened. I'm surmising as I've met a lot of women who give up work as a joint decision & then get the land of their lives when their partners leave. Among others I know it also happened to a very close extended family member (joint decision as he had a long commute as did she) & it took her a while to get re-established in a good job. Her dc were older so a bit easier but it was hard for her to get established work wise & she did need to live off benefits for a bit. Her exh moved to another county with ow so she didn't get a penny from him.

IF - it was a decision op & exh made together for the 'good' of their family then I really feel that op has been badly left in the lurch.
IF not working was op's decision alone & was made unilaterally & exh wasn't on board, then I absolutely take your point.

She has access to 30 hours free childcare and 85% paid via uc. She is choosing not to support her family.

But schools are shut! She's presumably homeschooling the older one. When is she supposed to work?

@MessAllOver

She has access to 30 hours free childcare and 85% paid via uc. She is choosing not to support her family.

But schools are shut! She's presumably homeschooling the older one. When is she supposed to work?

Nurseries aren't! Childcare is permitted as are bubbles.

OP, you chose not to work so you look after kids instead of getting childcare, the kids' father chose not to work so he can look after his other kids. Essentially your kids have parents who made a decision to rely on someone else providing financially for them. Less than ideal. I don't believe the step parent should pay for your kids.
If you were working I would advise to try shame your ex into getting some sort of income to provide for his kids, but as you are not working yourself I don't think you have a strong argument.

@LaceyBetty

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.

He is providing for them at his home. He's not reliant on the op for this.

The travel element is a different issue.

Yes, if he were single on uc, he'd be paying the ex £7. But that is a pointless comparison. He's not single. He's married. Has twins. So totally irrelevant tonthe discussion.

@BusyLizzie61. Nurseries aren't! Childcare is permitted as are bubbles.

But she has two children. Yes, one could go to nursery but what is she meant to do with the infant-school aged one. Put them in the freezer ?

@MessAllOver of course it’s different. But most women manage it just fine. I know I did and my children were younger than OP’s.
I was making a point that some people choose to live on benefits and it’s wrong. The OP has even admitted she has chosen not to work because she “wouldn’t be much better off”... so she’s aware she would be better off and can’t be bothered.

It’s wrong.

Their DF is wrong too, I’m not absolving him of any of his atrocious behaviour either. BUT the SM, who supports her own household financially on her own and also pays to house and feed OP’s kids when they’re at her house, should not be expected to pay OP maintenance.

OP doesn’t want to help herself, her ex doesn’t want to help either but that doesn’t then make the only non-parent to those kids responsible for supporting them either.

@MessAllOver
But she has two children. Yes, one could go to nursery but what is she meant to do with the infant-school aged one. Put them in the freezer confused?
What??? They can BOTH go to nursery!
Older child will be entitled to 30 free hours and the younger one she can claim up to 70% of the nursery free back via UC!

When my DS was in nursery I claimed the maximum I could in UC which meant I had less than £200pcm to pay for his nursery place.
When he was eligible for the 30 free hours I paid only £11.25 a week which included his lunch.

So she’s looking at around £250 a month in nursery frees for a 3yo & an infant.
Plus they’ll have lunch their everyday so that cost is covered.

If OP worked min wage for 16 hours a week she’d be circa £300 a month better off and not eligible to pay tax on her wages.

Yet she chooses not to.
Her choice, it’s the wrong one though.

@SpongebobNoPants. I agree with you, but I think it's unrealistic to expect the OP to have secured a job in the past year given the Covid restrictions, repeated school closures and bubbles bursting which we've had. No employer is going to take on an unreliable single mother who might have to disappear off to do childcare for anything up to 3 months. And flitting between work and benefits might have made her family worse off rather than better off. It's not like she can even work nights because there isn't another parent in the house to stay with the kids.

Long-term, with schools reopening and hopefully things returning to normal, part of the solution for the OP is securing paid work. The other part of the solution is her exH pulling his head out of his arse and contributing.

Sorry @MessAllOver I misread the infant as an actual infant I.e. a baby. Not infant school age!
My error

What??? They can BOTH go to nursery!

Well, that's news to me. I didn't know nurseries accepted school-aged children.

Sorry @MessAllOver I misread the infant as an actual infant I.e. a baby. Not infant school age!
My error

No worries . I think we've been arguing at cross-purposes. My understand is that there is a child in the house who needs home-schooling and gets no childcare funding since schools are shut. So the first thing the OP needs to work is for this child to go back to school.

part of the solution for the OP is securing paid work. The other part of the solution is her exH pulling his head out of his arse and contributing

I agree. They’re both in the wrong here.
I can totally understand why the SM wouldn’t be sympathetic or want to support OP though.
We don’t even know what SM’s wage is, it could be low too and she might simply not have any spare.

The perfect solution would actually be for either the OP or her exH to move closer to each other so the exH can be a SAHP for all the children. The OP could drop them off in the morning and collect them after work. Probably impractical, though!

@SpongebobNoPants. I agree with you (actually I agree with most of what you're saying now we've established the children's ages). SM has no responsibility to contribute.

Sorry... I clearly need more coffee today

People advocating for doing nothing to facilitate contact when the state is paying UC to the OP for two kids is reprehensible. Only the children suffer and used as weapons shame on them