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.

@EnoughnowIthink. On top of your calculations, you also need to factor in the cost of paying for childcare while taking unpaid leave to care for your sick children. Nursery children get sick the whole time. That "double cost" could sink some families financially.

Yep. Agreed. It's hard enough as a couple, twice as hard when single. Childcare is a massive hurdle when it comes to work. Seems this is only recognised if you're part of a couple. Single mums just get called lazy and money grabbing and benefit scroungers SAHD is a hero, however.

I disagree that the OP not working has nothing to do with the ex not working. Have said before they both have the choice and both are choosing not to.

I don’t think it’s right that the NRP should be expected to work, to continue to fund the £250 a month to his eldest DC at the expense of his youngest, but there should be no expectations on the OP to work either.

I wouldn’t take too kindly to me and my DP both working and making our own lives more stressful and difficult while ex chooses to make their life easy by not bothering because I and the state are the ones paying. I would be expecting my ex to work in that scenario too. If that is the case then NRP is paying 50% for his children (25% when he has them, and 25% in maintanence) while ex pays 0 as the money is claimed from the state so ‘technically’ the state is paying the other 50%. What I am saying is I can see how he has justified being a SAHD and to make this harder for him to do OP ideally would be working, then there’s an argument.

OP has one child in school and one eligible for 30hrs. Working in that time is completely feasible.

Silly Sandy I think if you are in a position where normally you would pay 1k in maintanence and DP had the savings to do so for 7 months, and usually it’s this plus fees plus everything covered, a lot of people would consider that pretty well off. Also your DH did not provide for 3 months out of necessity, this case may also be out of necessity if NRP simply doesn’t have the money he can’t pay it.

The decision he’s made may benefit part of his family, but if he has to work to continue to pay the £250 and his wife works shifts so they need to pay to childcare to enable him to do so, he then only earns 1400 a month, with 1200 of that paying for childcare for his twins and 250 going to his eldest he’s losing £50 for full time work, and sacrificing time with all his children. This could be the situation, we don’t know. That would be at a detriment to his 2 other DC but that’s ok?

Single mums just get called lazy and money grabbing and benefit scroungers

At no point did I say or imply this.
BUT you’re forgetting the important fact that OP has said that she would be better off for working, but not by much... so she chooses a life reliant on benefits. In this case, I do think she is wrong not to work.
Dad too. He’s not off the hook, but OP is just as feckless as him.

I would never judge anyone who needs to claim benefits, I used to have to myself!
I’ll admit I do judge those who have the option to work but choose to solely rely on handouts instead.

The thing about benefits is that they're low but consistent. Minimal income fluctuations.

Working entails significant costs - commuting (in normal times), work clothes, less time to economize, work socialising, convenience food, childcare. Even informal childcare like paying another mum £10 per day to pick up your child from school and bring them home mounts up.

I've spent a fortune on emergency childcare since my DS was born. Once had to hire a nanny for 3 days since he was sick when I was meant to be conducting interviews and he couldn't go to nursery - that cost an arm and a leg. The difference between my situation and the OP's is that the cost of this childcare is shared between two working parents, not one.

she would be better off for working, but not by much

In which case, she'd probably end up worse off, at least in the short-term. Higher costs and less security.

That would be at a detriment to his 2 other DC but that’s ok?

Apparently it's OK my children are in childcare all day, every day whilst I work to support children who also have a father who pays nothing? What is the difference? You are suggesting that the children of 2 parents deserve family time but children with one resident parent don't.

@EnoughnowIthink

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.

Doesn’t have to be full time work, part time, including maybe 1 days when the NRP has them and 2 days in the week. That’s 2 days nursery (30 hours can be funded, so free!) and the other DC us at school so pick up and drop off maybe required, I would guess £60 max for 2 days, less if school provide a before/after club.

That’s £240 a month and hey UC will pay 80% of that so £48.

£7ph 24 hrs (3 days work, and I’m pretty sure minimum wage is more than this) comes to £672 a month. Minus the £48 is £624 a month.

OP just tripped her income.

However SAHD would be left in the first scenario you described of paying 2 full time nursery places for 1 year olds to work if he is expected to work full time.

The thing about benefits is that they're low but consistent
I don’t actually think they’re that low. Don’t shoot me, but I know what I used to get and it was comfortable to live on and I live in an expensive area where the rent for a 2 bed house is minimum £950pcm. I certainly wasn’t on the breadline when my PT wage was taken into account too. And I was on on min wage.
This was only earlier this year so I can’t imagine they’ve dropped that dramatically.
They’ve also been giving extra support payments during the pandemic, at least they were in June when I stopped claiming.

@EnoughnowIthink

That would be at a detriment to his 2 other DC but that’s ok?

Apparently it's OK my children are in childcare all day, every day whilst I work to support children who also have a father who pays nothing? What is the difference? You are suggesting that the children of 2 parents deserve family time but children with one resident parent don't.

Not talking about family time. Talking about money. His household would be £50 worse off at the very least in this scenario. Because as rightly pointed out he would have to factor in commuting costs, work related costs and sick days etc (when nurseries still expect to be paid!) so would realistically end up more like £200 at the least a month worse off. To ensure his other DC are £250 better off.

What’s the logic in that?? How is it ok for one set of 2 children to be £200 worse off but not the other 2?

If we are talking family time then surely both families are entitled to that? And if that’s why OP can’t work then NRP argument for the same is just as valid.

@EnoughnowIthink

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.

It's the ages of the kids that makes this affordable or not tho. One is on school and one in nursery soon to be school. The other two are babies. So the older two get supplemented hours and you're paying for wrap around. The babies require full time nursery

BUT you’re forgetting the important fact that OP has said that she would be better off for working

the point was, someone said that you are always better off financially working, and I showed that this wasn't necessarily the case. There is huge vitriol on this forum towards mums who don't work but I can't remember anyone ever having pointed it out in quite so stark terms just how difficult it is financially to manage small children, work and childcare costs. Even women who have done it themselves forget that the system is ever-evolving and UC is particularly harsh if you have more than a couple of children. I have been through it on Tax Credits with 3 children and managed very well because I waited until the youngest could go to the school nursery where not making a profit meant that the costs were lower than they would have been in a private nursery. Not everyone has that option. Where people live has an impact - the figures I quoted where a private nursery in Hampshire within London commuting distance. Where I live in the NW, costs are about 2/3s that but that's still a significant amount if you're trying to manage 3 children.

I still maintain that the difference between being a 1 and a 2 person household really is key here. Plenty of single mums make it work - but I think you will frequently find they are on salaries and in jobs where getting rid of people isn't as easy as not giving them shifts. I make it work because I have been able to use my skills to diversify my income a little - so I teach but I also tutor at home in person (or used to when it was possible), online, and for a local homeschooling network. I also mark exams which is training at home and work from home. But much of that is at the expense of family time. And my children see me prioritising other people's children. I only hope they are able to see the bigger picture as they get older. I am not so blind as to not see that if I weren't on a salary and hadn't had childcare for all 3 funded, things might have been very different.

@MessAllOver

she would be better off for working, but not by much

In which case, she'd probably end up worse off, at least in the short-term. Higher costs and less security.

Not necessarily but if she did end up worse off in the medium term, she could go back to her life on benefits.

Plenty of single mums make it work - but I think you will frequently find they are on salaries and in jobs where getting rid of people isn't as easy as not giving them shifts.

Plenty of single mums also have family help with childcare. If grandparents will commit to doing 1-2 days a week or school pick-ups, that makes a huge difference.

@EnoughnowIthink your calculation is so far off the mark. You are ignoring the 30hrs free OP gets. As a pp explained, after they had used that free amount, their childcare bill was £11.25 a week.

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.

Christing Christ. The SAHD would not be able to cover the twin childcare on his wage because they are 1yrs old and not funded by universal credit for the rest!

OP has virtually free childcare for one child (over 3) and 80% free childcare for the other who's about to turn 3 as well. She's got zero excuse not to work. Unlike the "excuse" of 1yr old twins like EXh who would then have to foot 100% of the twin bill for, because he's got a partner who is the only one in this scenario that actually goes to work. If he did, after paying for 1yr old twin childcare, He. Would. Be. Working. For. A. Loss.

Why this is so hard to grasp that it's the exact reason EXh is a SAHD (presumably until twina are 3, as they can't get the government to subside anything until then) I don't know!

Literally it can't be explained any simpler.

OP has virtually free childcare for one child (over 3) and 80% free childcare for the other who's about to turn 3 as well.

No, OP has a school-age child and a nursery-age child. She has no childcare at the moment for the school-age child except when they're with their dad.

your calculation is so far off the mark. You are ignoring the 30hrs free OP gets

I have just checked that nursery again - funding removes a little over £200 a month. So not way off at all. Government funding doesn’t cover the whole cost in many settings.

Erm...the OP’s ex lives on a household with 2 people. They can work around each other to provide childcare, like thousands of other couples out there. Or is that not possible if it means taking responsibility for existing children?

Plenty of single mums also have family help with childcare. If grandparents will commit to doing 1-2 days a week or school pick-ups, that makes a huge difference.

Yes, OP has also said she has family nearby to help. But with the family help. The 30 free hours per week. The rest of the very small bill paid off by 80%, OP still prefers not to earn any more for herself or her children. Doesn't want to work.

But wants to moan about the daily £4 each of her children that she only has 75% of the time have been denied, because their equally important 1yr old twin siblings HAVE to have one parent at home in order for their family to merely function. They haven't got the luxury of 30hrs free and 80% of their bill paid off like OP, who even with that on a plate would rather not work, thanks.

Still wants her £4 and is being advised to prevent travel unless she gets that paid for too. These are not babies. One is 4 and the other is nearly 3, OP can't be bothered to work, despite everything facilitating that. She gets 25% of child free time where they are with the SAHD and the SM working full time and paying for all the 25% cost of OPs children whilst there. Unbelievable. Help yourself OP and you might find others more sympathetic to help as well.

I think another point that is repeated a lot is: but the twins get 100% of the father. Yes. They don't get 100% of their mother who goes out to work though.

OPs children do. With up to 25% of their father. They don't go to any childcare even though it's there waiting for OP. But again, it's fine, and indeed moral, for the twins to go without, or even for their household to run at a loss, as long OP gets the £4 she no longer does.

[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]
Exactly this.

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

You aren't quite telling the full story though are you?

Working only me means working part time until after the children go to high school, so that means the household are often still heavily reliant on benefits.

He is a SAHD as for their family it's best financially but obviously not for his older kids

What a wonderful way to show his preference for some of his children over others. I despise men like this.

Government funding covers 30hrs, if you choose a setting that accepts it. So if that nursery doesn’t then fine but use a different one. Most settings cover it now. 80% of the rest of any childcare would be covered by UC. So only 20% of childcare to pay. If OPs children were also 1 that would be different.

I think the point here is there are 4 children. The 2 that currently live with NRP may only have an income from their mum of the equivalent of what RP has. And I mean if evened out, for example if Rp lives in social housing with cheaper rent, gets 25% off council tax, free school meals for eldest, free childcare for 3 yr old, 25% of time without DC there for food etc, and then UC, CB and anything else.

SM’s income may also only cover all the household essentials, leaving all 4 children in the same financial situation. His 2 DC living with him may not be living a lavish lifestyle. Yet he is expected to go to work on top of that to ensure his eldest have more and his youngest have less, so his eldest RP can stay home because it’s easier.

Working and being a single parent isn’t easy but nor is it impossible and on the current benefit system it’s almost impossible to be worse off working because that’s exactly why they changed it, so it paid to work. She has 25% of time without the DC in which to work when NRP is providing the childcare and there is no logistics to consider issue with children’s illness etc etc and all the other excuses. If he currently isn’t having them every weekend, then make it so he is, so OP can work to fill the gap of income.

If you put all 4 children together and 3 parents around them one mum each and a dad between the 4 of them each ‘unit’ should work out the best way to currently meet the needs equally, it may be that in this case the earning has to fall to each mum to do so while NRP provides the childcare to do this.

SM has a partner so not eligible for benefits therefore she must work full time, OP has no partner so could work PT while dad looks after the children (weeekends). Which would be topped up with UC. Both kids (unless SM earns a lot, but even then costs could be higher for house, car needed for work etc etc) should then essentially be in the same position with an income and childcare to facilitate that provided by their dad.