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.

My point is that when you're no longer together you can't always rely on your ex to maintain the status quo and certainly not to keep you afloat. You need to have some level of independence which would allow you to support yourself and your children if his circumstances were to change.

I wholeheartedly agree with this.

@Dugee

You've been told on MN that you should fund your DP's exW's house, car and holidays?! 😳

@Bibidy

So what are you saying? He doesn't have to pay for his first two?

@LaceyBetty

I don't think anyone supports him not paying towards his first two children BUT we don't believe it's a stepmum's responsibility to step in and fill that void, certainly not over and above their actual mother who does not work.

Unfortunately when parents split up they lose the ability to have much influence over each other's lives and choices. If they were still together and had had these twins, of course they would have made an agreement as to how they'd be cared for a who would work to pay the bills. In this case, the dad has made that agreement with his wife, the mother of his twins, about what is best for their household. Right or wrong though that decision may be, OP can't influence that choice.

However, to have 1 year old twins with someone else, ex and OP must have been split up 2 years at the very least. I'd argue that during that time OP could have forseen that his circumstances may change, resulting in less income for herself from him, and that she could have sourced at least part-time work for herself.

My point is that when you're no longer together you can't always rely on your ex to maintain the status quo and certainly not to keep you afloat. You need to have some level of independence which would allow you to support yourself and your children if his circumstances were to change.

As others have pointed out, OP's younger child has been entitled to 30 free hours of nursery for at least a year and a half....that's 30 hours OP could have been working a PT job, plus the weekends when the children are with their dad. Then she would be in a far better position now.

Well said.

Child support is a family expense and should be a priority bill.

Incorrect. Childcare expenses sit firmly with the parents of the children concerned, not with any new partner that either may have.

*LaceyBetty

Youseethethingis
But if he was still married to the OP and had the twins with her, he'd still have to support his first two
In that situation he only has one roof to worry about paying for. And a SAHM already in place so he can go to work.

So what are you saying? He doesn't have to pay for his first two?*

No, I’m saying it’s a daft comparison.

That’s actually me the others are quoting a few posts later arguing that the family should still pay maintenance if possible.
I’d don’t agree at all that you can just sit back after deciding together that your partners working doesn’t suit your family then decide on your own that since you earn the money you’ll be deciding that it won’t be going to his older DC.
It mixes up too many principles IMO.
There’s a limit and if it came down to a choice my own DC would be my priority, no question. It’s the automatic “oh well, it suits me so fuck the DSC” attitude I disagree with.
On the other side, I don’t believe that the dad should be working to the detriment of all of his children (if theres less money in his house then that affects his older kids too) just on the principle that the money must be earned specifically by him. That’s stupid too.

Maybe even his 'allowance' she gives him should be for his older kids.

So you think that the father's new wife should be paying cash to the fathers ex, to pay for children that aren't hers?

She's already paying for the costs of those children (that aren't hers) when they are at their father's house.

@LouJ85

My point is that when you're no longer together you can't always rely on your ex to maintain the status quo and certainly not to keep you afloat. You need to have some level of independence which would allow you to support yourself and your children if his circumstances were to change.

I wholeheartedly agree with this.

Absolutely. If I've learnt anything in life, it's not to be dependent on others.

Unfortunately Mumsnet seems to be full of enablers, encouraging women to be dependent on men and / or the state. That's dangerous territory - the man who you are dependent on could have an in / voluntary change of circumstances meaning he can no longer support you and the benefits system can change, depending on who is in power.

How about we bring our little girls up to be financially independent instead?

So you think that the father's new wife should be paying cash to the fathers ex, to pay for children that aren't hers?
I think the assumption is that the dad will have access to funds in the same manner are stay at home mothers in healthy relationships up and down the country and could, if he chose, give that or a portion of it to pay for his children.

@Youseethethingis

So you think that the father's new wife should be paying cash to the fathers ex, to pay for children that aren't hers? I think the assumption is that the dad will have access to funds in the same manner are stay at home mothers in healthy relationships up and down the country and could, if he chose, give that or a portion of it to pay for his children.

Equally, OP could, if she chose, get a job to better her financial situation? Like many single mothers up and down the country? This argument really doesn't only work one way.

@Youseethethingis

So you think that the father's new wife should be paying cash to the fathers ex, to pay for children that aren't hers? I think the assumption is that the dad will have access to funds in the same manner are stay at home mothers in healthy relationships up and down the country and could, if he chose, give that or a portion of it to pay for his children.

But the result is the same, the father's new partner is financially contributing to children that aren't hers.

Morally it's wrong, but legally there not much you can do.

Also OP, I do empathise with what your going through. Morally it is wrong and your ex and his wife should both be ashamed.

However, I do agree with some posters that this may be the push you need to be self sufficient? When I split from my ex, I spent the next 5 years in education and I now have a career as a professional. My ex pays me child support but it's a small amount and I don't rely on it.

You cannot rely on anyone. Remember that.

@ukgift2016

Also OP, I do empathise with what your going through. Morally it is wrong and your ex and his wife should both be ashamed.

However, I do agree with some posters that this may be the push you need to be self sufficient? When I split from my ex, I spent the next 5 years in education and I now have a career as a professional. My ex pays me child support but it's a small amount and I don't rely on it.

You cannot rely on anyone. Remember that.

For what reason should his wife be ashamed? She has a job and she goes out to work to pay for her own 2 children. What's she done wrong?

@ukgift2016

Also OP, I do empathise with what your going through. Morally it is wrong and your ex and his wife should both be ashamed.

However, I do agree with some posters that this may be the push you need to be self sufficient? When I split from my ex, I spent the next 5 years in education and I now have a career as a professional. My ex pays me child support but it's a small amount and I don't rely on it.

You cannot rely on anyone. Remember that.

Arghhhh why should his wife be ashamed for not paying for children that aren't hers when their own mum doesn't even work to pay for them???

Maybe this wife would be more inclined to help her out if OP did anything at all to help herself - like what you have suggested here.

I would be more ashamed and embarrassed to ask another woman to bankroll myself and my children when I didn't even work at all!

I would be more ashamed and embarrassed to ask another woman to bankroll myself and my children when I didn't even work at all!

This.

@LouJ85 because the wife knows she is reducing her step children, family income by a significant amount.

[quote ukgift2016]@LouJ85 because the wife knows she is reducing her step children, family income by a significant amount.[/quote]

How is she reducing the SC's income? Their mother doesn't work, neither does their father. They are the people who are both responsible for reducing their children's income. Not the new wife.

But the result is the same, the father's new partner is financially contributing to children that aren't hers.
I get that.
I just can’t quite work out how it would be financial abuse for a woman not to have access to family money if she was a SAHP but if the man is the SAHP suddenly that would be a problem. Or would be be allowed but only if he promised faithfully not to contribute to his older children?
Why is that?
Can we really not see how this is a problem?

Equally, OP could, if she chose, get a job to better her financial situation? Like many single mothers up and down the country? This argument really doesn't only work one way.
I agree. In a country where it’s so easy for a parent to walk away from their responsibilities I’d not be sitting at home relying on anyone else’s good graces either.

I agree OP should get a job however, I am not heartless and I feel sorry for OP losing £250 a month!

When I was a single mum and studying, there were periods of time where I really relied on my ex child support money. I would not have coped without it.

Life is not simple. Have some empathy.

@Youseethethingis

How do we even know for sure that the new partner's wage is enough to contribute maintenance for his older kids, above and beyond their own household's living expenses? Have we been told for definite what she earns and what surplus is left on her wage only?

How is she reducing the SC's income? Their mother doesn't work, neither does their father. They are the people who are both responsible for reducing their children's income. Not the new wife.

Exactly. Neither mother nor father work. To call this the stepmother's fault or responsibility is utter madness.

The point is that the OP's ex is 50% responsible for financing his children. So when he and his wife were discussing how to manage when the babies arrived and it was suggested that he should be a SAHP, he should have said, "No, that doesn't work for me because I won't be able to contribute towards my older children if I'm not earning and, as a responsible father, that's something I have to do". Then they should have come up with another solution.

Life is not simple. Have some empathy.

It's still not the father's new partner's responsibility to pay for children that aren't hers. She goes out to work to provide for her own children, why should she also be expected to work to pay for the children of a woman who chooses not to work?

[quote LouJ85]@Youseethethingis

How do we even know for sure that the new partner's wage is enough to contribute maintenance for his older kids, above and beyond their own household's living expenses? Have we been told for definite what she earns and what surplus is left on her wage only? [/quote]
Exactly, this woman is providing for her family. That is all that should be expected of her. To expect her to contribute to the household of a woman who chooses not to work is madness.