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.

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

It depends. The OP has limited resources. She has to decide how to use them best for her children's welfare. For example, it may be better to pay for fresh fruit and vegetables or a new pair of shoes than petrol costs so the DC can visit their father.

@Userwoman1990

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

If the mum doesn't have enough from UC to pay for travel and everything else, then travel is of lower importance and the father can be responsible. If he chose to move away, he should take responsibility for the costs incurred.

The 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

Probably the best and most succinct post on this thread!

@Youseethethingis

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.

A few others have touched upon the fact that they view "family money" as money to cover the household and things that are needed/wanted for all that live there, which is how I see it. I think the views people have on this subject are probably influenced by how well off they are. You've touched a few times on what would happen if it were a man that was the breadwinner and he didn't give his SAHM partner freedom to do what they want with that money, and the honest answer is if I came to my DP and said "I've said up a direct debit of £250 for something that's just for me", the answer would be "er what?", because we can't afford that. I don't think is controlling, we are simply not that well off and a vast majority of the money we bring in is streamlined to pay for the things our household needs. I might buy the odd thing as the SAHP, but I don't spend much. I would feel dreadful adding £250 to what my DP needs to earn, and would consider it necessary for me to earn that myself (I'm freelance so do still bring some in).

I have been looking at this situation from the point of view that they probably don't have much money to spare. Having gone from two incomes to one and having twins, this seems most likely to me. If they are stinking rich, my view might be somewhat different.

The 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

Probably the best and most succinct post on this thread!

Agreed!

"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"

What a load of rubbish🤦🏼‍♀️😂
Seriously made me laugh out loud!
OP MUST PAY and use her own time to travel 70 miles to drop her kids off to a man that doesn't even pay maintenance for them or even their clothes on their back whilst they are there!
He hasn't offered any help with drop offs or pick ups to help her better their own children so she could work instead he's moved 70 miles and refused to pay any maintenance for them.
And if she doesn't do it on her low income she's using them as a weapon!?
Most ridiculous thing I have ever read on here! 😂
How about he get off his arse gets a job and pays for his own fuel and wastes his own time getting his children 100 percent of the time because you know.. he moved away!

My DH moved away from my SC for work.
He pays for his child he makes all of the journeys to collect and drop off his child and wouldn't ever expect his ex to pay or do any of the running about, she does it enough of it when we don't have him!

This thread gets stranger as it goes on what some people do to justify deadbeat dad's.
I am bowing out now it's honestly got so ridiculous..

Good luck op 👍

I agree that, even if she were willing, the SM would have to rightly prioritise her own children/home/bills and will double the mouths and half the wages coming in most people wouldn’t be able to afford to maintain the first family in the manner to which they had become accustomed.
CM arrangements absolutely have to take into consideration the new financial circumstances and I can’t get on board with the idea some people have that CM shouldn’t take into account the birth of younger siblings either.
Put it this way, if I were in this situation, we certainly wouldn’t still be paying ex £375 like she gets now. But if we could make the numbers work to give her even £100 then we would because it’s the right thing to do.
If we couldn’t then that’s life, as others have said OP could work and has access to stage help that the dad and SM don’t.

There is still a lot of ‘OP can’t work’ here.

OP can, she can work in the 25% of time the NRP has the children, no issues with schooling/homeschooling or childcare to consider then at all. So that argument doesn’t stand. As I said earlier even 1 days work would make up that missing £250. NRP would then be providing the free ‘childcare’ to both Seths of his children to enable both mothers to work. Is this still then wrong?

He provides the same to all 4 of his children in that scenario, except less time to the 2 DC with ex due to distance.

Another solution as another poster said above is for them to move closer. As SM is working probably they can’t move if she needs to be where she is for work. OP and the DC could move closer (yes it would probably mean a school change for one DC but seems they are only just at school so it’s not like they have been there ages). NRP then could provide childcare full time for all 4 and both mums could work full time.

I somehow have a feeling this still wouldn’t be acceptable to some though.

It seems to have a heavy weight on the financial provision here. Even to the point of suggesting contact is stopped as no travel provided. Personally I would provide the travel even if at my own expense to make sure DC saw their dad, if he was a good dad and they enjoyed seeing him.

If we are saying the ability to pay financially makes you a good parent or not then the only difference is that OP is eligible to claim benefits whereas NRP is not. Both are not working to provide currently.

My own dad never paid a penny to my mum, he was as it stands a pretty rubbish dad too, so had nothing going for him really. He was inconsistent and unreliable. My mum still always made sure I had some contact when he was around and willing, even at her own detriment, tbh I thank her for that, she did the right thing. I realised for myself he is a rubbish dad and a rubbish provider. But because of the way my mum handled it I don’t hold a grudge which I think would actually eat me up and effect me more.

If he is a good parent, and provides when the children are with him (even through wife’s earnings) then yes it sucks he is not earning himself and helping pay for that missing 25% of which would also be his half to pay. But he is giving time and parenting of value.

He could work on the weekend and earn maybe £500-£600 a month minimum wage, he wouldn’t be expected to pay £250 out of that, maybe £150 at most but he would also have sacrificed 2 whole days to spend with his children who only see him the weekend as it is. Do people really think this could be the best solution?

If we are talking financial input only as importance that applies to both parents. If we are talking time and availability for children as being important that also applies to both parents. It can’t be one rule for one and one rule for another.

As I said previously if RP were working and having to then potentially pick up extra hours to cover the shortfall for her kids, then I think we would have a different argument in saying NRP should be responsible for this too. But as it stands both parents could do something to improve the situation and neither are. So both are as bad/good as the other depending on how you view it.

This man provides nothing practical for his first two children. No money, no school collection, no travel to collect them from their mum's house (OP says she does this). He cheated and moved away. Why should the OP uproot her life to be closer to him? I am not saying the step-mum should pay, just saying that this dad sounds like a real loser.

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

The OP is currently on benefits with a very limited income. The father is making zero financial contribution. The least he can do is cover the costs involved in seeing his children. What is reprehensible is making this the OP's problem to solve - with £250 from her ex, it was reasonable she made every effort to facilitate contact. Given he moved away and he's making no contribution, it's really no longer something she should concern herself with. Give him notice that she can no longer make the journey from X date and ask him what he intends to do, OP>

she can work in the 25% of time the NRP has the children which only works of he's having then for 10+ hours at a time on a weekly schedule m. And even then how many jobs can you just work a Wednesday or a Sunday? Let alone every other Sunday and Wed-Thur every school holiday.

OP and the DC could move closer op shouldn't have to uproot her kids away from all her support to move closer to her ex and the OW. She's not a trialing ex-spouse.

Even to the point of suggesting contact is stopped as no travel provided given they're only paying for 25% of the kids food bill, why shouldn't they provide the travel? HE moved away. HE chose not to live near his first two kids.

It isn't the left spouses responsibility to ensure that the NRP is handed his kids at his whim. She shouldn't stop access but she shouldn't be expected to finance it either

she can work in the 25% of time the NRP has the children

will that be whilst she is facilitating contact by doing all the travelling as well? And of course, finding a job in the current climate that allows her to work just those exact hours will be easy, and even easier given that her ex is will more than likely make decisions to do useful things like go on holiday and leave her in the lurch for childcare, cancel at short notice etc etc etc

[quote SpongebobNoPants]@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.[/quote]
Wholeheartedly agree @SpongebobNoPants

If he can’t do childcare because of distance but is doing 25% of the time this will likely be weekends. There are loads of jobs you can work sat and sun because actually most people want those days off. So that really wouldn’t be that difficult to find a weekend job.

Or at least OP finding work in that 25% of the time would be as easy as NRP finding work around his wife’s hours or evening/weekend work.

As people previously stated schools are currently closed so if eldest DC is virtual learning anyway he could actually currently (and for this past year or however long he has been given up work) has the DC 50% of the time, thus allowing the RP 50% of the time to work. Even if this can’t continue post pandemic it would for the time being allow an income to plug that gap. When schools return etc that would have to be reassessed and potentially OP to either give up work again or find something to work in the 25%.

I am not saying she SHOULD move closer I am saying she COULD, given not working.

If he is not working then a solution would also be to say to him, I have a job sat and sun, you will need to have the DC from Friday night to Sunday night to allow me to work. Meet half way for travel, or ask him to collect them. Or drop them and ask him to do the alternate journey or pay half towards it. It doesn’t say if this has been explored.

It’s not really feasible to say it’s being made ‘op’s problem to solve’ because realistically it is. He is paying for his DC the 25% of the time he has them, legally at the moment that is all he has to do. Morally it may be different but in reality it is OPs problem to solve, it’s OP who has lost the money and she can’t force him to work, and even then it wouldn’t neccesarily solve it anyway or replace the full £250 if he worked part time and only paid the 20% that CMs expect him to on potentially minimum wage.

[quote MessAllOver]**@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 ?[/quote]
Guess what? The same as millions of families have been doing for most of the last year!

Yes an infant school aged child is currently working on school work whilst I have been working also!

And no, he doesn't live in a freezer! 😂

OP I know there is nothing you can do legally but I am aghast by your ex's (and to a lesser degree the Sm's) attitude.

He's divorced from you, not his children. How can he be a SAHP in another house? He has made a decision for only a portion of his family. How dare he? How can they justify this to themselves?

To give a personal perspective - I am the second wife, we have DC and 3 DSC. Maintenance is 1k p/month plus fees, dental stuff, hobby stuff etc. We are not well off. DH lost his job and didn't find another one for ten months. He applied and interviewed consistently but persevered despite numerous rejections. I really felt for him as it was frankly soul destroying for him but didn't think we had any option as my salary would just about cover mortgage and bills but not maintenance. He paid every month for seven months from savings but then the money ran out. (We are now paying back the outstanding maintenance in installments). I had advanced cancer at this stage and had run out of paid sick days. Things were extremely tight, family had to step in to cover childcare and getting me into treatment.

At no stage did it occur to either of us that he could just choose to stop providing for his own children. I don't think this is anything to brag about, I think it is the bare minimum. And yes while I shouldn't have to pay for his other children (and I don't as he is the higher earner) we both pay into 'the pot' with our salaries and the necessities come out first; mortgage, maintenance, bills, groceries, savings, luxuries in that order.

I appreciate there is nothing you can do here but I just wanted to reassure you that your feelings are very valid on this matter. And also - well done for ending your marriage with that dead weight.

Guess what? The same as millions of families have been doing for most of the last year!

Yes an infant school aged child is currently working on school work whilst I have been working also!

That's entirely different. You might be able to keep a job without childcare by trading on your already established reputation, your employment rights and your employer's tolerance but there's very little chance of getting a job when you can't show you have reliable childcare in place. The employer will just pick someone else. No shortage of candidates for unskilled, minimum wage jobs atm.

Whether the OP works or not has nothing to do with the exH doing nothing. She sorted UC for herself and spends that money caring for her children. The exH does absolutely nothing. How did he get off the hook?

The dad pays 2/3 of the travel already and has the kids 25% of the time. Contact usually is the first thing OP's use to get what they want and that is not right. Lots are alluding to stopping contact. I don't think that's best here. The OP hasnt said they cannot afford the 1/3 she pays in petrol. The OP has alot more options to gain more income. The SAHD doesn't.

@LaceyBetty it doesn’t let her off the hook but it does make her unreasonable to expect the SM to fill the financial void caused by neither of the biological parents working.
They could both do more to support their children financial... both have chosen not to.
It’s not down to SM to rectify things.

Sorry doesn’t let HIM off the hook

@SpongebobNoPants agree that it is not the SM's responsibility. I have said that in prior posts. Although, I would struggle to be with a man who has structured his affairs this way. I would certainly be worried about being next!

@LaceyBetty maybe that’s why the SM has insisted she is the one who keeps working
Perhaps she doesn’t trust him much either

It is ALWAYS financially better to work

Erm...no. No it isn't. Much depends on your basic outgoings but childcare is the sticking point.

Let's do the maths, shall we?
UC pays a maximum of £1108.04 towards childcare costs per month for 2 or more children.

Cost of a south east nursery I have just looked up comes in at £1365 per month, per child full time So £2730 for 2 full time places, minus the full UC amount (and this will be adjusted according to earnings) so thats around £1.6k a month the OP will need to find from her earnings. She will need to pay for the roof over her head, bills, food, transport as well. Minimum wage for an average 40 hour week would be £350 a week or £1.4k every other month.

Sure, she will receive additional UC on top - and I can't do that calculation without knowing the OPs address, whether she rents or is mortgaged, whether her children have disabilities etc. But it's easy to see how, with the cost of working added in (transport, clothing), things quickly become difficult for one person. Sure, a childminder would be cheaper (although only just in my experience) but as a single parent, I steered clear of childminders because of the potential for being let down when they are ill. It's not what you need when you also have to manage your own illness and that of your child - few employers are sympathetic enough to also allow for childminder illness.

I can't stand the 'work always pays' because it doesn't when you're on your own. And there's the thorny issue of the 2 child policy to consider as well - I had three children when my ex walked out. Under current rules, I wouldn't get any more than the above mentioned figure for childcare. That would have made a massive difference to my ability to work - about £3k a month in childcare fees based on the above. It's not manageable until children are in school.

The OP has alot more options to gain more income. The SAHD doesn't

Are you for real? If the OP has options to gain more income, so does the SAHD. Put his children in childcare like the OP will have to for a start. Jesus wept.