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.

No I don't think the step-parent should pay.

The dad should pay, which means he should never have made the decision to be a stay at home parent.

OP hasn't been back and contradicted herself. One post she said the children were ore-school and infant than said the youngest was 4, which obviously makes a big difference in terms of her working or not.

Ah I've just seen that neither you nor the dad work. In that case I think it's even more unreasonable to expect stepmum to pay.

Imagine this woman being the only person going out to work to pay for any of these kids.

Sorry to be harsh OP, but I think you could look at getting some work - even part-time - yourself before you start asking another woman to pay for your children.

@dontdisturbmenow

OP hasn't been back and contradicted herself. One post she said the children were ore-school and infant than said the youngest was 4, which obviously makes a big difference in terms of her working or not.

I got the impression the pre-schoolers as the dad's kids with his new wife, not OP's.

@MrsHuntGeneNotJeremyObviously

£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.

He isn’t providing for any, financially as his income is 0. If he offers to hav the DC either 50% of the time or more than this as he cannot pay, then I think he’s offering equally to all 4 of his children

There’s a lot of sexism on this thread. Ops ex is a sahp to twins under one. He also has the older children 25% of the time according to op. He is contributing. Ops children are 5 and 7 she says but she doesn’t work at all and lives on benefits because she thinks there would not be “much” financial benefit in doing so.

In those circumstances I don’t think the ex is being unreasonable. I think the op is being unreasonable by expecting her ex to get a job when she won’t (and he has much younger children to care for and less childcare options and funding). All the children should be taken into account equally here.

It’s also weird that so many pp think that having children means women can’t work or can only do minimum wage jobs. Op is on universal credit so most of her out of school childcare will be covered and her ex has the children 25% of the time. No reason she couldn’t be working. I say that as a fellow single parent who has always worked when I could

@EnoughnowIthink

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.

So she is unable to work at all, until her children are able to be home alone?

If so do all single parents have to do this?

With the 30hrs funded nursery now there is no reason for parents not to work when their children are 3.

There are jobs, there are care jobs, care him jobs where you can just work weekends (because other people don’t want to do the weekend) if NRP has the children then, do this. You don’t need any qualifications for this, just be willing to do some alongside (which she would have time when the DC are in school and the funded nursery hours)

Or work in a nursery, send DC to the same nursery and the other in school can have either wrap around care from school if provided or a childminder. (80% funded)

Both nurseries and care jobs have a huge tribe over of staff, there are ALWAYS jobs available in this sector. You don’t need qualifications, and you can usually pick your hours, especially in care and they would bite your hands off to work the weekend shifts.

It’s not easy, no, but it’s not impossible and i myself have done it. And I have lots of friends that have and still are doing it. I also work with people doing it. I didn’t always drive either when I did this.

There are too many excuses.

OP has resources available to her that NRP doesn’t in funding and she already said she had family to help also. In the same way NRP has a partner that OP doesn’t. They both have different resources available so make it work. If NRP isn’t working he can have the kids school holidays and as I said he can have them on sick days, and even do appts as long as they are not emergency ones in which case yes it will fall to OP as she is closer. But if she works the weekend and NRP has the kids then, then none of this is an issue.

And I don’t see how her finding a weekend job is any harder than NRP finding an evening or weekend job to fit around his wife’s work, and that’s assuming she doesn’t also work shifts/weekends as she may do?

[quote LouJ85]@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. [/quote]
But you still haven't said how you managed to work and pay it all on your own?

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?

Oh please. If a financial situation is so precarious that the possibility of twins means someone can no longer pay for their first two, they have no business trying for a third. Especially not barely a year after someone has left the mother of the first two. Zero sympathy for this man.

@EnoughnowIthink

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.

Come on, loads of single parents work. And OP's kids are in school already.

It's completely unreasonable for OP to imply that her ex's wife should give her money when she is not even working herself.

If neither of these children's parents work then that's their choice, but one can't criticise the other for doing that same thing. Especially when one actually does have children that are too young for school.

Oh please. If a financial situation is so precarious that the possibility of twins means someone can no longer pay for their first two, they have no business trying for a third. Especially not barely a year after someone has left the mother of the first two. Zero sympathy for this man.

I imagine an awful lot of people could afford one additional child, but not two. I dont think enough allowance is being made for the unpredictable spanner in the works that is the babies turning out to be twins, actually, I think that is likely the main cause of this situation and it's nobody's fault. Most people get pregnant expecting one baby, not two. And do we actually know whether the pregnancy was planned?

I'm shocked that this man is having excuses made for him. The only reason he is off the hook from paying for his first two is because he left their mother and decided to have a baby with another woman. Bad decision and now the first children are paying the price.

@dontdisturbmenow

OP hasn't been back and contradicted herself. One post she said the children were ore-school and infant than said the youngest was 4, which obviously makes a big difference in terms of her working or not.

She said one is pre-school age (4, 5 in sept so not at school yet) and one is infant school age (ie between 5-7)

Lots of care jobs advertise as "pick your hours" then when you apply that's not actually the case at all. I certainly never found any where I could either work just weekends, or work only weekends. Luckily for me I had family who were local and happy to provide childcare that fitted around 15 hour shifts, including weekends and holidays.

Not only that but not everyone is suited to care work so just because you can get a job in care it doesn't mean you should. I've worked with people who are doing it because "its the only job I can get" and its horrendous. I'd rather work on my own and not get my breaks than work with some of them!

@LaceyBetty

I'm shocked that this man is having excuses made for him. The only reason he is off the hook from paying for his first two is because he left their mother and decided to have a baby with another woman. Bad decision and now the first children are paying the price.

Don't get me wrong, I do think that he should be paying for his children.

But he has made the choice to reduce his income to zero and that means he has nothing to pay with. I do not believe his wife should be paying.

I think he has made an unfortunate choice which financially impact all of his children, not just the older 2. It just impacts the younger two a little less because their mum does work.

Yes they should pay. We had this situation when DH and I married and he was a SAHP to our biological child, we still paid towards my step child because it was the right thing to do. Also if I had been paying a childminder so DH could work we would have been muhh worse off anyway. You have a child, you pay for child IMO.

But you still haven't said how you managed to work and pay it all on your own?

What do you mean? I just did - I was paid enough so that it was possible. As I said, I recognise that not everyone will have followed the particular career route I did, but it was possible in my circumstances. I assure you.

@Redruby2020

Don't get me wrong I wasn't rolling in cash! I struggled by for a good few years before I began to climb the ladder in my field and earn more. And obviously as soon as my DD went from FT nursery to wraparound before and after school care it became a whole lot more manageable as the fees dropped substantially. But I still did it.

This may or may not also be relevant, but I also live in the north. I'm astounded when I speak to my friends in the SE and hear what their FT childcare fees are - sometimes almost double what mine were!

@LaceyBetty

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?

Oh please. If a financial situation is so precarious that the possibility of twins means someone can no longer pay for their first two, they have no business trying for a third. Especially not barely a year after someone has left the mother of the first two. Zero sympathy for this man.

With this logic no one should ever get pregnant then. You get pregnant planning for one child, not usually any more than that.

No parent plans a pregnancy budgeting for an extra 1 maybe 2 kids ‘just in case’. I certainly didn’t and don’t know anyone else who did either, unless they were having IVF where the likelihood is higher.

@Blendiful

Completely agree. I'm currently pregnant with mine and DP's first baby together - all planned and all completely affordable. If I'd found out it was twins at my first scan I'd have had a mental breakdown I think in terms of financial affordability! The odds are very low though of conceiving twins naturally, so many people don't think about this when they plan a baby. Understandably.

I do get that about twins, honestly, I do. My two are IVF and we transferred two embryos both times and I was terrified! But if he was still married to the OP and had the twins with her, he'd still have to support his first two. Having twins is not a free pass to stop supporting other children.

I'm shocked that this man is having excuses made for him. The only reason he is off the hook from paying for his first two is because he left their mother and decided to have a baby with another woman. Bad decision and now the first children are paying the price.

Well first of all, these comments are all very heavily laced in judgment of his decision to leave OP and be with someone else. I don't believe that's appropriate or relevant, and we don't know enough about the circumstances to cast judgment.

But in terms of the actual issue of him providing for his kids, I'm not making excuses for him. He should be deeply apologetic to OP, and keen to think up any way of generating income (I've mentioned selling items of value several times). He should be fully planning on returning to full time work as soon as is financially viable. But I DO have some sympathy if having twins scuppered plans that would have allowed him to continue working and provide for all the kids. I do see a scenario where they had very little choice without ending up unable to cover their bills. And I don't believe that the SM has any responsibility to make up for this.

As others have said, in order of priority it should be:

1. He brings in some form if income to provide for his older kids.
2. OP gets a job to provide for their kids.

Not he gets a job, or else his wife is expected to pay it.

Well first of all, these comments are all very heavily laced in judgment of his decision to leave OP and be with someone else. I don't believe that's appropriate or relevant, and we don't know enough about the circumstances to cast judgment.

I agree with this. The fact he left OP for someone else and the fact he had babies with a new woman and is now a SAHD are two separate issues. He could surely still have gone on to meet someone new, have twins and be a SAHD, surely, even if OP had been the one to end the relationship. How the two things are being linked on this thread isn't clear to me either.