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.

@MrsHuntGeneNotJeremyObviously

I missed that. Did OP say this was an affair?

@Sillysandy

All this squabbling about figures and payments is I think detracting from the most important aspect; the father sat down and made arrangements with his wife with it seems only her and their shared children in mind.

@Blendiful when we didn't pay three months maintenance we didn't write if off, we are back paying. Also my DH did not decide with me to stop working as they made sense for our family. He makes his decisions with all of his children's needs in mind.

The OP's ex has four children. Half of his parental attention / support should go to their shared children. All of OP's attention / support should go to her own children. His new twins are not her concern. SM married a man who already had children. She married him understanding that he had other commitments. If he and SM came to an agreement to benefit the children then all of his children should have been considered. It is not on to be a SAHP to two of them and leave OP to manage on her own. Although I am happy for OP that SM is now stuck with a man with such a terrible character.

But people aren’t expecting him to make a decision with all his children in mind. Just his eldest it seems?

If he works and pays childcare; his other 2 DC will likely be worse off As he would be working at a loss to maintain the £250, otherwise I assume that’s what he would be doing.

If he works around his wife’s hours - fine if this is viable he should do this. But 50% of income should be for his 2 DC and 50% for the 2 others minus any of his costs related to working (this is unlikely to amount to £250)

If he stays home to care for 2 DC and doesn’t work he’s potentially maintaining an even playing ground for all 4 (financially) with both Mums having an income and 0 from him?

You are back paying but that wouldn’t have helped at the actual time is what I was getting at. That if NRP and SM can’t afford anymore then they simply can’t afford it. He may back pay also when he returns to work? Is it ok if he does do that? But does not pay right now. It doesn’t change the fact his eldest still have costs associated with their living right now and it that £250 is needed she will still have to pick that up.

I think he very well may have made his decision with all of his children in mind. That if he works right now, he will simply be working for a loss, due to extortionate childcare for 1 year olds who are eligible for no extra funding. So he still wouldn’t have the money to pay his eldests RP. It makes no sense for him to be the one to continue to work if he earns significantly less than his wife, because again, that may be better for his eldest DC who would still get the £250 but it may be a loss to his youngest DC on their household income. And the family may not be able to afford to pay their bills on only his wage only on his wifes.

Sorry I wasn't blaming the SM. I suppose I'm just surprised she would even agree to it. I would be beyond disgusted if DH said "well I won't work, I will let ex know there will be no more maintenance"

@Blendiful yes if he planned to backpay I would feel differently. I guess this situation could be more nuanced than it looks with one perspective

But based on what I have read he really does seem to be operating as if his responsibilities toward his eldest children are optional. He didn't come to an agreement with op, he told her what himself and his wife had decided.

@DelphiniumBlue

I think it's wrong for a parent to make a decision ( like being SAHP in a new relationship) that means they can't support their own children. It's not the step-parents responsibility, but the fathers. He needs to find a way to ensure he contributes fairly to the cost of raising his offspring. Some people suggesting he can't work if he is looking after his (new) children. Well, he could, he could work evenings/weekends.

But OP could also work - either school/childcare hours. Or weekends when they are with their dad? But she doesn’t?

If OP can’t afford to be a SAHP without the contribution from her ex I don’t think she should make that decision any more than he should. I’m not saying he should contribute I am saying both parents should not be making this decided they should both be working.

If he works weekends to contribute he can’t have his eldest DC at all? What is SM can’t cope with all 4 at home while he works, she doesn’t have to after all his contact time with his eldest is his, not hers. If he has to work sat and sun to find this £250 his kids don’t get to see him at all. This is ok?

You say he needs to contribute fairly to his offspring, he is, all are getting 0 money from him. His youngest get his time, his eldest can also have this if OP chooses that option and they agree. If he wouldn’t do that, that’s wrong then yes.

@Chewingle, yes, the OP says he left her for the SM

Just done the maths: if the £250 CM is worked out using the CSA formula the OPs ex is on £26k a year. After paying CM his take home would be around £1,500, which I assume wouldn't cover childcare for twins, or if so only just. Add on top the costs of commuting or whatever and it means it would be highly likely it would actually cost money for the NRP to work plus all the hassle and restrictions of both parents working with two tiny ones in childcare.

And let's assume that new wife is on, say £35k (picking a random sensible-ish figure out if the air) their household expenses will be based on a joint income of £61k and now they have only c60% of that. Plus the expense of twins, which noone could have predicted. So she's highly unlikely to be able to step up and pay the CM on his behalf, even if she wanted to. And probably will be even less inclined to do so if the OP doesn't work herself.

Literally the only option here is for the NRP to get a part time job, or to offer more childcare to the RP. Sometimes the finances simply are what they are, and noone can make it any different. Likely that with just one baby the new wife would maybe have stayed home or gone part time, but two babies has thrown a massive spanner into the works all round. It doesn't feel to me like they had much choice if she's the higher earner, and she may not be very happy with the situation either!

[quote Sillysandy]@Blendiful yes if he planned to backpay I would feel differently. I guess this situation could be more nuanced than it looks with one perspective

But based on what I have read he really does seem to be operating as if his responsibilities toward his eldest children are optional. He didn't come to an agreement with op, he told her what himself and his wife had decided.[/quote]
He probably should have discussed with OP but ultimately if she had turned round and said, no I need that £250, should he have not agreed to give up work? Even if that meant his other 2 DC would lose their home and bills would go unpaid?

I highly doubt he has decided to be a SAHP based on wanting to stay home all day and not pay a penny. Most people who have been in work want to continue to work; if they can, even part time. He paid £250 before it seems and when together agreed to be the main breadwinner so OP could be a SAHP, why would he choose now to decide to not bother paying for anything unless it wasn’t financially viable to?

Most of the time the reason any parent becomes a SAHP is because it makes financial sense to do so due to high childcare costs. Sometimes because the parent wants to stay home with the child also. But given they have twins and their costs are 2x I am making an assumption that it is likely to be for financial reasons.

If his wife earns more and either way they are going to have to go from being a 2 income household with 25% of SC to a 1 income household with 2 100% children and 2 25% SC then surely she needs to be the one to work. To literally survive and pay the bills.

If the calculation was done on CMS and he was paying £250 it seems like he probably earns around 25k a year, that’s not a lot to pay for 1 household of 2 adults and 2 children 75% and 4 children 25% and another 25% of the other DC care especially if living costs are high. It’s £1720 a month, take off maintanence leaves £1500 to cover all of the above plus including babies needs which include nappies/milk etc as their DC are still young. If his wife earns more and that meets their living costs then that’s what they have to do. I think a lot of families of that size would struggle on that income to cover all costs.

@noeffingwayyyy

Just done the maths: if the £250 CM is worked out using the CSA formula the OPs ex is on £26k a year. After paying CM his take home would be around £1,500, which I assume wouldn't cover childcare for twins, or if so only just. Add on top the costs of commuting or whatever and it means it would be highly likely it would actually cost money for the NRP to work plus all the hassle and restrictions of both parents working with two tiny ones in childcare.

And let's assume that new wife is on, say £35k (picking a random sensible-ish figure out if the air) their household expenses will be based on a joint income of £61k and now they have only c60% of that. Plus the expense of twins, which noone could have predicted. So she's highly unlikely to be able to step up and pay the CM on his behalf, even if she wanted to. And probably will be even less inclined to do so if the OP doesn't work herself.

Literally the only option here is for the NRP to get a part time job, or to offer more childcare to the RP. Sometimes the finances simply are what they are, and noone can make it any different. Likely that with just one baby the new wife would maybe have stayed home or gone part time, but two babies has thrown a massive spanner into the works all round. It doesn't feel to me like they had much choice if she's the higher earner, and she may not be very happy with the situation either!

Seems like we were just doing the same thing! Haha.

Agree with what you said. And your final point is the one I was trying to make. He can get a PT job but I don’t think this should be at the expense of
Time with his eldest Dc (eg weekends if that’s when he has them).

He could offer more childcare but due to distance that would likely mean he has to become RP. Current RP may not ‘want’ that, but it is an option.

There is a third option that RP currently could work to make that money up too. That doesn’t absolve NRP of his responsibility no, but he could as you say do more childcare and so RP could work easier.

He has left his older children destitute

He has reduced each child's support by under £4 a day.

@MrsHuntGeneNotJeremyObviously

Arguably the SM does have some responsibility here since she was instrumental in the break up of this family. I guess someone who is so morally bankrupt that they would sleep with a married man who had young children, isn't going to baulk at non payment of CS though.

This is just mud slinging. She behaved poorly in terms of the affair but you wouldn't expect compensation from an affair partner if they didn't end up staying together, so it isn't appropriate here. She isn't responsible for keeping him in his marriage (any more so than she is responsible for paying his CMS)

@Courtney555

He has left his older children destitute

He has reduced each child's support by under £4 a day.

Also if they are destitute then the RP should be working to fix this in an equal way the NRP should be. If they are genuinely destitute why is it ok for RP to stay home when she has childcare available to be able to work, either funded, or through the 25% of the time NRP has them?

@needadvice54321

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 because you have a conscience.

This woman who was the OW is not the kind to be bothered...I mean she's not demonstrated that she has the best morals or values so far.

Her behaviour thus far hasn't been in the best interests of his kids, so she's not about to start now...especially as she has a man who has shown he isn't prioritising his DC.

Sofa mud slinging or fact? Obviously he is ultimately responsible for the break up of his first family but she too has behaved in a way that has had very real consequences for other people. Under the circumstances I do think they both owe his first family a hell of a lot more consideration than either of them have shown.

But OP could also work - either school/childcare hours. Or weekends when they are with their dad? But she doesn’t?

The OP is being a SAHM. Same as her ex is a SAHD. Why does she have to work when he doesn’t?

I also don't understand this breaking down of CM to £8 per day as if to imply its a piddling amount of no consequence. £240 per month is not nothing - that could be what a family spends on food for a month.

But OP could also work - either school/childcare hours. Or weekends when they are with their dad? But she doesn’t?

And how many jobs are every other weekend? And her ex provides childcare for his new partner but his ex should have to pay for it?

It sounds like they discovered they were having twins and decided to deal with the financial impact of that by essentially "cutting off" the two older children.

@MrsHuntGeneNotJeremyObviously

Sofa mud slinging or fact? Obviously he is ultimately responsible for the break up of his first family but she too has behaved in a way that has had very real consequences for other people. Under the circumstances I do think they both owe his first family a hell of a lot more consideration than either of them have shown.

I can't agree that having an affair leads to any kind of meaningful responsibility for a non parent to pay maintenance.

I'm wondering whether OP unwillingness to work is one factor that contributed to the ex and new wife to decide he should give up his job,not that it makes it ok

OP hasn’t said she is unwilling to work. Her life has been turned upside down by her ex and OW. She was a SAHM when ex left her with 2 young children. We have just done 12 months of pandemic where jobs that might have been accessible to the OP are no longer accessible. Even assuming she could find work right now, not all childcare providers have been working all of the time so finding a childcare place may have proved difficult. She may also have been obliged to pay for that space whilst in lockdown with no income.

Why have people decided that OP lives in social housing and her ex doesn't? Or that her ex and his DW don't claim any UC?
Surely if OP could claim "up to 80%" of childcare costs back (and it is up to depending on income) then its possible ex and his DW could also claim some?
Of course its likely they couldn't with 2 incomes. But there's a lot of assumptions going on.

OP provides 75% of the care, and 75%+ of the child related costs (imo it makes no difference where she gets that income from, she is still paying those costs)
Ex provides 25% of the care (and id bet less of the emotional/practical stuff like drs appointments, dentists, homework etc) and 25% (actually less as OP provides all clothing) of the costs.
How is that in any way fair?

Yes sure OP could (probably depending on location etc) find a job. But that's not easy with small children, needing to find childcare which has to be paid up front when UC pay in arrears. That's assuming there is some that has space and accepts the funding.
Ex could also get a job working around his DWs work like hundreds of other families.

I can't agree that having an affair leads to any kind of meaningful responsibility for a non parent to pay maintenance.

It almost sounds as if the stepmum owes compo to the ex or something.

*Rather than choose to live off the maximum level of benefits, and expect another family who already have and pay for herchildren 25% of the time, with their own two babies, to turn their life upside down, and negatively affect those babies for her to receive £8 a day, OP would do well to look at how she could increase her income and provide for her children herself as opposed to focussing on any income, irrespective of the hardship it may cause other children, that avoids her taking any kind of job.

I think that is possibly the most disgusting thing I have read on here in a very long time.

I can't agree that having an affair leads to any kind of meaningful responsibility for a non parent to pay maintenance

When you have inserted yourself into someone else’s life, uninvited, and blown that life apart, the least you can do is behave with a bit of decency and respect.

Does that mean paying maintenance? No, I don’t agree it does. But being happy to be with a man who gayly abandons all responsibility of both ex wife and his children speaks volumes.

I wouldn't say compensation exactly - not sure you can compensate. I'd view it more as doing what you should to mitigate the damage