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.

It's not so much that the stepmum owes the OP money as that the OP's ex should divide his time and money equally between his four children.

And, if the OP's children are being materially disadvantaged, it is the responsibility of both parents to pull their socks up and take on more work to provide for them. The OP's ex has the option of his wife providing childcare at evenings/ weekends so he can work then. The OP will hopefully have childcare from September
and she can then look around to see what's available in school hours.

Rather than choose to live off the maximum level of benefits, and expect another family who already have and pay for her children 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.
Another family???? He's the FATHER of the op's children!!! Where do you get off @Courtney555 imposing such a division? He's responsible for all his children - 'First' children can't be just written off & ignored no matter how much some would like that.
That's a pretty disgusting comment aimed at a woman who's husband had an affair, left, moved & then went on to have more children IMMEDIATELY!
Yes - op should aim to get work for both her sake & that of her dc & so she can contribute faulty, but that should NOT mean that her exh should then never have to contribute to his older dc.

@EnoughnowIthink

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?

Or vice versa.

She doesn’t, but she is expecting him to work while she doesn’t. This, is exactly my point.

@EnoughnowIthink

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?

He needs to have them every weekend. I already said that: then she can commit to every weekend to work.

@ partyatthepalace how is it that NRP’s moving on is frowned upon and yet PWC can carry on having kids and it's fine?

The issue isn't moving on per se. It's moving on and ignoring your responsibilities to your existing children.

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?

Exactly.

Another family???? He's the FATHER of the op's children!!!

Yes. And they are no longer living as a family unit. Rather than get hung up on wording, that "family" has separated. Whether you want to call it a family, a unit, a group, OP now has her fully government funded situation, and has her children 75% of the time. EXh has his fully partner funded situation and the children in that situation 100% of the time, out of necessity. The partner has those children far less as she works. He has the children from OPs situation 25% of the time.

Like it or not, the EXh does have a new family, as in a set of people living under the same roof acting as a family, and the only business it is of OPs, is how her children form part of that as non resident children. OP may well form her own family unit in the future. Bugger all to do with her EXh.

The point is, OP openly chooses not to work, prefers that the EXh doesn't have her children any more than the 25% he does, but is moaning that he has denied her children £4 a day, while he cares for 2 small babies that matter just as much as hers do.

@MessAllOver

The issue isn't moving on per se. It's moving on and ignoring your responsibilities to your existing children.

Thing is he isn’t is he. He paid, his £250 until he couldn’t. He and his wife may or may not have planned a baby, but they didn’t plan 2, that’s just life. So they have to adjust.

With any children there is no reason ever for both parents not to be working, one parent should. With his youngest DC he is now the SAHP and wife continues to work; because that makes sense. Previously Op was the SAHP and he worked because for them THAT made financial sense to do. Now he has 4 children to consider. He can be SAHP to all 4, no reason why he can’t. So OP could now work too.

I don’t agree with the consensus that when you have chosen to be a SAHP you are entitled to do so regardless. When this was chosen, she could afford it, now she can’t, things have changed. So other things have to change too.

What is UC changed and cut by £250, would we be saying the state needs to find the money and fund that extra 250 regardless of if that means that we have to pay for healthcare now; or council tax goes up again to cover it. No, we’d be saying, things have changed, so you are going to have to work to find that extra.

It’s life, if you aren’t entitled to it, you can’t forcibly have it. If you can change your own circumstances but are choosing not to and looking at someone else to do it, then I don’t have sympathy for that. If you can rightfully say you are doing all you can, and then someone screws you over; then that I can get on board with.

Thing is he isn’t is he. He paid, his £250 until he couldn’t. He and his wife may or may not have planned a baby, but they didn’t plan 2, that’s just life. So they have to adjust.

The "adjustment" the OP's ex made was essentially to square their finances by cutting off his two older children financially. He could have adjusted in a way which spread the burden more equally but he chose not to. Instead, he heaped it all onto his older children who are now suffering.

I don’t agree with the consensus that when you have chosen to be a SAHP you are entitled to do so regardless. When this was chosen, she could afford it, now she can’t, things have changed. So other things have to change too.

I agree, but it's likely to take a former SAHP some time to adjust. It can't be done instantly. And they deserve support while that adjustment is going on (especially in the middle of a global pandemic when finding work amidst widespread shutdowns and school closures is likely to be difficult for a single mum).

@EnoughnowIthink

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?

Primarily because her situation is more precarious than his. when he has a wife supporting him. He's not saying how hard he is. Op is but also saying that she's above working as it won't earn her enough! Well, if we all had that attitude....

@Courtney555 you seem fixated on the £4 a day. If it's seemingly such an insignificant amount in the grand scheme of things, why didn't he save it while still working so that he could still contribute to his first DC? You're dismissing this £4 a day as a pittance which OP should be ashamed to need. Perhaps it's the father who should be the target of your scorn for paying such a pittance even when he did bother.

@MessAllOver

Thing is he isn’t is he. He paid, his £250 until he couldn’t. He and his wife may or may not have planned a baby, but they didn’t plan 2, that’s just life. So they have to adjust.

The "adjustment" the OP's ex made was essentially to square their finances by cutting off his two older children financially. He could have adjusted in a way which spread the burden more equally but he chose not to. Instead, he heaped it all onto his older children who are now suffering.

I don’t agree with the consensus that when you have chosen to be a SAHP you are entitled to do so regardless. When this was chosen, she could afford it, now she can’t, things have changed. So other things have to change too.

I agree, but it's likely to take a former SAHP some time to adjust. It can't be done instantly. And they deserve support while that adjustment is going on (especially in the middle of a global pandemic when finding work amidst widespread shutdowns and school closures is likely to be difficult for a single mum).

I’m interested in how you would suggest he adjusts the burden more equally?

His household have lost a whole income of 25k per year, which I doubt they were planning (if only planning 1 child)

OP has lost around 3k a year.

If the family were already living to their means, they will likely now be living beyond them or have already had to make significant adjustments to mitigate the loss of 25k. There simply may not be any other money.

Or is there another suggestion I am missing.

OPs ex has been gone long enough to have a pregnancy 9 months and 1 year old twins, he’s been gone at least 18 months, and if for 18 months (which takes us to pre-pandemic days) he has had the DC 25% of the time. I would consider that sufficient enough time to find work for that time period.

The answer is the same for both the OP and for him. They both need to get a job.

You could apply the same argument about having enough time to him. He's had a year at home with the younger ones and chose not to save any money to pay for his other two children prior to the babies' birth. Time to get back to work since all his children need to be financially supported. He has evenings and weekends to work or could work shifts with his wife to avoid paying for childcare. What he can't do is pretend that his first two children don't exist and that they're not entitled to financial support from their father. The money is not for the OP, it is for the children. People seem to be forgetting that. He is cheating his children.

If there's not enough money, the parents need to work harder and make more money. Both parents.

At the end of the day, this man decided to have at least 3, but had 4 children. My husband and I decided to stop at 2 because, financially, 3 or more would be hard. I can't even imagine the thought process of this man. He's left his first family with a single mother who has had to collect benefits. The first children will know what they did one day.

It’s life, if you aren’t entitled to it, you can’t forcibly have it. If you can change your own circumstances but are choosing not to and looking at someone else to do it, then I don’t have sympathy for that. If you can rightfully say you are doing all you can, and then someone screws you over; then that I can get on board with.

Amen.

And I'm not fixated on £4. It's just trying to hammer home how ridiculous the concept of putting tiny twins into childcare so they see neither parent, whilst OP additionally sits around refusing to get her own job and support her children, all so OPs children get £4 a day each. Not £40. Not £400.. ... £4. That's a preferred "price" to one year old twins having one parent stay at home, while OP does just that with no excuse for not working. Frankly, deplorable.

Everyone should support their children. Mother and father, unless it's completely unfeasible. If a parent is in a circumstantial life situation, that they could not control, then allowances have to be made, mother or father. He doesn't work out of necessity, and is berated. OP with a primary aged child and the other with free childcare and family to assist, chooses not to work, but believes others should put themselves and their children into severe financial difficulty to benefit her even the smallest amount, or failing that, a woman with no parental responsibility for her children, who already pays for them 25% of the time, should pay extra for when they are with OP!

He's left his first family with a single mother who has had to collect benefits

He's left his first family with a single mother who prefers to claim benefits than work when her school age children are at school or have free childcare.

Wow this is a very long thread! I've read most of it.

I initially had more sympathy with OP, then I read that she's essentially made the same decision as the NRP by not working for childcare reasons. I think it's a little hypocritical to expect NRP to have made any different a decision in this scenario.

I agree that both parents should be equally responsible for financially providing for their joint children. And I believe that SM has zero obligation (legally or morally IMO) to provide for them.

@LaceyBetty

At the end of the day, this man decided to have at least 3, but had 4 children. My husband and I decided to stop at 2 because, financially, 3 or more would be hard. I can't even imagine the thought process of this man. He's left his first family with a single mother who has had to collect benefits. The first children will know what they did one day.

I guess if the second time you were pregnant you had been told it was twins or triplets then, you would have just had to send one or two back?

He very well have been able to afford 3, with both him and his wife working, maybe her returning PT. but it’s very different having 2 instead, especially when it’s 2 exactly the same age, double nappies, double milk, double illness, double sleepless nights. Family may have offered to help with 1 and childcare but may not physically be able to manage to help now it’s 2, again it’s a very different ball game.

And I disagree that he’s left his family with a single mother who ‘has’ to collect benefits. Unless you are unable to work, no one has to collect benefits. If you are able to work, it’s a choice. OP has already said she could work and would be better off but not much. Regardless if she did work and was that little better off and there was still a shortfall I would be expecting NRP to be picking that up somehow, either through care, providing actually things whenever he can, or working around his wife’s shifts to help.

As it stands with OP doing nothing to improve the situation herself even though she could I have less sympathy for saying NRP should.

Unless you are unable to work, no one has to collect benefits

Because jobs just materialise out of nowhere the exact moment you need them, with the right amount of hours and an understanding boss who will never question why you have to be off to care for sick children or make their appointments. And there will be a childcare space at the nearest nursery with the exact hours you need, ready to start the same hours you are working. And public transport will conveniently run at the exact time you need it to get you between home/nursery/work. And all that during a pandemic too when thousands have lost their jobs.

@Blendiful Incorrect! You can not live on one salary and pay for everything, unless you earn a very good wage, without a top up. It would cost around £300 upwards a week to put a child in nursery etc to enable one to work. That's nearly a weeks salary for some, so tell me where do you pay your rent, bills, food and everything else from?! Having paid for childcare?!
Okay then once they go to school, that cost is not there, but if the child finishes at 3.15/3.30pm you need to be there to collect them, so you can't do a full day, meaning you lose more money, and if you earn the same per month as what it costs for a flat here, that's before all your other costs, tell me how you would do it then?!

I'm not fixated on £4. It's just trying to hammer home how ridiculous the concept of putting tiny twins into childcare so they see neither parent, whilst OP additionally sits around refusing to get her own job and support her children, all so OPs children get £4 a day each. Not £40. Not £400.. ... £4. That's a preferred "price" to one year old twins having one parent stay at home, while OP does just that with no excuse for not working. Frankly, deplorable.

Very, very good point

£4 per child per day isn't nothing though. If it's such a piddling amount, he shouldn't have any trouble paying it!
OP isn't obliged to care about whether his twins are cared for by him or by a nursery. Her concern is for her children. She's been told often enough on this thread that ex's family arrangements are none of her business - that cuts both ways. Whether she works or not isn't her ex's concern - he has 4 kids not 2 and he ought to be providing for all 4. If possible then I agree it would be better for her to work but that shouldn't be because she needs to make up his shortfall - it should be in addition to CS.

Yes. Even if the OP were a millionaire, her ex should still offer to pay to support his children. It's made even worse by the fact she's on benefits but her situation/ lack of job doesn't affect his obligation to support his children. That exists regardless of the OP's situation. He is 50% responsible, financially and in other ways, for these children.

@MessAllOver

Yes. Even if the OP were a millionaire, her ex should still offer to pay to support his children. It's made even worse by the fact she's on benefits but her situation/ lack of job doesn't affect his obligation to support his children. That exists regardless of the OP's situation. He is 50% responsible, financially and in other ways, for these children.

Yes, perfectly put. He has walked away from his obligations.