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.

@Coffeepot72

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

It is a good point.

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

And again....the ex in this situation is part of a couple, he has options that the OP doesn't. A couple can work together to ensure that their children have one of their parents there for them all of the time.

The OP doesn't have that same flexibility with her time. She is only one person. It will be her that is called upon when her childare are ill. She is the one having to do every drop off and pick up. She is the one having to manage the logistics of working plus childcare. Is it impossible? Of course not. But if her options are limited to minimum wage work, probably on a zero hours contract, things won't be easy. On top of that, childcare is crazy expensive and is not free (despite what people want to believe) and if she is reliant on public transport, the logistics of home/nursery/school/work are even more complex. And I'm sorry, but unless you've done it, I don't think you can appreciate just how utterly soul destroying it is. Yes, plenty of single parents manage it - largely ones who are on salaries with jobs they were doing prior to splitting up or have managed to retrain for and make work - I was lucky I was able to retrain in teaching so have never had to worry about school holidays, for example. Otherwise, hang on for a bit and when the children are both in school, things get a bit easier and a bit more mangeable.

Are there many nurseries where the "free hours" cover the whole bill?

My DS was 3 in Jan and we'll start receiving the 15 hours universal entitlement next term. He'll attend 20 hours in total (so 5 "paid for" hours). But our bill is only reducing by a very small amount to reflect the free hours (under 20%). So my personal experience is that the "free hours" aren't really free at all.

Also OP has their shared children 75% of the time and helps with travel for his access to the remaining 25%. Is she supposed to wipe his arse for him too?

LouJ85

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.

I initially assumed OP was also working. I don't think she can expect ex to work if she's also not working. Being a SAHP is a luxury (I know it's not easy either and can be tiring - but it's nice for children to have a parent with them). I was back at work when mine were tiny (4 months & 6 months). DH didn't earn much and it was very stressful at the time getting to work on time. It never occurred to me to not work and get extra help from government.

I think OP needs to get a job & then she will get UC top ups.

It's ridiculous that the state has to pay for children because neither parent works. Both parents are responsible not just the father.

@converseandjeans

LouJ85

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.

I initially assumed OP was also working. I don't think she can expect ex to work if she's also not working. Being a SAHP is a luxury (I know it's not easy either and can be tiring - but it's nice for children to have a parent with them). I was back at work when mine were tiny (4 months & 6 months). DH didn't earn much and it was very stressful at the time getting to work on time. It never occurred to me to not work and get extra help from government.

I think OP needs to get a job & then she will get UC top ups.

It's ridiculous that the state has to pay for children because neither parent works. Both parents are responsible not just the father.

I did the same. I didn't have two kids, just one. I became a single mum when she was 18 months old. She went to nursery while I worked full time then wraparound before and after school care after that. I've worked full time ever since and she's a teenager now. I know not everyone will have followed the career path I did, but it's definitely possible.

I don’t agree that if the rp is a millionaire that the nrp should pay maintenance. Where is the logic in that? I think the money should be spent on going to towards providing a better life for the child when with the nrp.

Rp has 10 million in the bank. Owns a house. Very comfortable. Etc...

Nrp works minimum wage. Could do with the money more in order than the the rp in order to provide a better housing situation for their child when with them.

All it will do is just enter the rp’s bank account and it won’t even be noticed, while the nrp is counting pennies. I really do think some people take the principle of maintenance way too far.

I’m an rp. If I become a millionaire I won’t take maintenance from my ex because he will need it more. I’d want him to use that money to provide a better life for the children when they are with him. Because I’m reasonable like that.

And on top of all this, if the SM is a millionaire, I don’t think her income should make maintenance go up.

@funinthesun19

Entirely agree, I thought the same about that comment - taking the principle too far.

There was even a stage in my life where I was earning a lot more than my DD's dad - not a millionaire by any stretch but I mean 2.5 x his monthly income. I didn't even notice his maintenance payment each month. And he had another child to support with his new wife. So I actually voluntarily said to him just forget it, I don't need it and I barely notice it. I felt that my DD might benefit more from EOW / holidays with her Dad if he kept that money as I knew they weren't a well off family.

So if I won the lottery would I be demanding maintenance? Would I shite.

Of course the NRP should still consider themselves obliged to pay even if the RP is a millionaire. Their obligation to their children doesn't simply disappear because the children's mum has lots of money (just like the OP has no entitlement to her ex's new wife's money even if she was the millionaire).

The RP may refuse the money but it's their decision, not the NRP's, and should be based on what is in the children's best interests.

So I actually voluntarily said to him just forget it, I don't need it and I barely notice it. I felt that my DD might benefit more from EOW / holidays with her Dad if he kept that money as I knew they weren't a well off family.

That’s exactly it! People seem to think that a child’s life is only important when with the rp.
The extra money that the nrp will have could mean the child gets to live a better life when with the nrp. For example the extra money might mean the nrp can afford to upsize their house and then the child gets a bedroom (we all know how important bedrooms are for first children so....) The nrp might be able to afford a nice holiday which are precious childhood memories with their father.
Or it could just mean that they are living more comfortably.

It actually sickens me that someone would take maintenance if they have millions in the bank while the nrp just gets by. It’s nothing more than a power trip.

I think most parents would prefer that the maintenance money be used to improve their child's life with the nrp if they truly didn't need it and the nrp did. Because RP mostly want what is best for their DC and that includes for both of their homes to be nice and for the DC to have a good quality of life wherever they are. But OP isn't a millionaire and her ex isn't keeping that money to improve the lives of their shared children.

The children’s best interests?
What is in the best interests about money going in to their mum’s account that doesn’t even get noticed?

Their best interests would be for the money to remain with their dad and their dad provide a better life for them when with him.

The RP may refuse the money but it's their decision, not the NRP's, and should be based on what is in the children's best interests.

Common sense in this extreme situation probably dictates that what's in the child's best interests is to have as even a life as possible at both parents' homes, surely. Millionaire RP mum is rolling in it - NRP struggling on minimum wage with other kids to support. It's not hard to figure out why no maintenance paid to mum in this situation is common sense and probably in the child's best interests to free up that extra cash for the child to enjoy whilst with Dad.

*The children’s best interests?
What is in the best interests about money going in to their mum’s account that doesn’t even get noticed?
*
Exactly this. Which is precisely why I made the decision I did. Because my DD would come home from Dad's and when I'd ask what they had done that weekend, it was often (not always but often): "not much because Daddy doesn't have much money until pay day". My heart just broke for her; and I realised that his money went into my account every month unnoticed. I thought what's the point in that? And how is this beneficial to my child?

@LouJ85 Being at home is a luxury? Is it?! Good for you that you went back to work, do you think you would of had the same attitude if you didn't have a DH?!

You’ve hit the nail on the head LouJ85

Like I said, it’s just power trip and because of this, the big irony is that people aren’t thinking about what is best for the child.

Sorry @LouJ85 and @converseandjeans I am not sure exactly who wrote the bit about staying at home is a luxury, as there is a bit that mentions a DH, and then a bit below, that says about being a single parent, so a bit confusing.

[quote Redruby2020]@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?![/quote]
I have done it. I worked, part time. And paid for wrap around care (childminder) to collect and drop my children at school and nursery. And paid for a house for us to live in. I didn’t earn minimum wage but I didn’t earn what I would consider a ‘good wage’ either. A bit more than minimum. OP would still get help from UC more than likely in this scenario. She would be better off than claiming solely UC.

Also @LouJ85 I think reading back now, it was not you who said it is a luxury to stay home. You mention your DC being a teen now, not sure how far in to teen years they are, but the system was different years ago as opposed to how it is now. So are you saying you worked full time, paid your rent, bills, food, clothing, essentials, and paid for day care until school started, no help from exP in terms of maintenance and all on one salary and no benefits at all.

@EnoughnowIthink

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.

There are lots of jobs. And most at the moment are working from home.

A good example is that the DWP themselves, they have needed to employ lots of other staff to meet the demand of those needing to claim who have lost their jobs.

This is WFH.

It’s not impossible there are thousands of single parent doing it. And if NRP is not working. Even though he is a distance away, I would be saying to him, that if the kids needed to be off due to sickness etc he could have them for that time. He could do appts as long as he knows in advance to travel on time etc.

It would only really be emergency pick ups RP would need to do, for example school call to say eldest is poorly and needs collecting. Even as a 2 parent family this is an issue.

When I was with ex and we both worked I still had to do the appts, emergency pick ups etc.

@Redruby2020

Also *@LouJ85* I think reading back now, it was not you who said it is a luxury to stay home. You mention your DC being a teen now, not sure how far in to teen years they are, but the system was different years ago as opposed to how it is now. So are you saying you worked full time, paid your rent, bills, food, clothing, essentials, and paid for day care until school started, no help from exP in terms of maintenance and all on one salary and no benefits at all.

Yes that's what I did.

I

[quote Redruby2020]@LouJ85 Being at home is a luxury? Is it?! Good for you that you went back to work, do you think you would of had the same attitude if you didn't have a DH?![/quote]

Sorry?!

@Redruby2020

My career path was already underway and established before I fell pregnant though. I was already part way through my first uni degree and sat my final exams whilst heavily pregnant. I then went back to work full time when DD was 8 months (partner and I separated when she was 18 months). Following this I continued to work full time whilst completing two further uni degrees including a PhD. DD is now almost 15 and is benefitting hugely from my years of hard work. I'm not saying this is achievable for all. But I made it work through sheer determination, mostly.

Interesting turn of conversation. This is exactly why we own our house 50/50 against solicitors advise. The very large deposit came from me via inheritance from my grandparents. In Scotland, I could have protected this money from DH even after marriage.
I didn’t because I was pregnant with our DS at the time. I saw DH struggle to afford somewhere watertight to live after he split with his ex. Always thinking “I can’t possibly have my DD stay here, it’s a shit hole”. I don’t want that for my child if we ever split up. I want us both to have a good shot at providing him with a decent home.
He was paying way over the CMS minimum, in debt and struggling to find somewhere to live that was adequate for his DD and yet he wouldn’t broach cutting the maintenance because his ex had form for stopping contact.
Who came first in all this? It certainly wasn’t DSD.

Oh and I wasn't always not receiving maintenance during this time - I voluntarily stopped receiving it when my earnings surpassed my ex partner's. So for some of that time, yes I was receiving maintenance.