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.

@ukgift2016

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.

But OP isn't studying or working. She could easily be earning this £250 herself by working even just the weekends the dad has the children.

I am not saying she is fully responsible for paying for the children alone, I do agree that he shouldn't have made the choice to be a SAHD when he knew it meant not financially contributing to his other children.

But if the loss of £250 leaves OP right on the edge of being able to support herself and her children then she definitely should have made moves to bring in some income herself before now, because that is a really narrow margin.

@SittinOnTheDockOfTheBay

I was sitting thinking, if my DP didn't work, we'd financially be able to run our own household on my wage (it'd be tight but we'd do it, just about), so there's no way in hell I'd have the funds available on top to pay his maintenance bill for his 2 kids as well! So I think the assumption that the money is just sitting there available from the new wife's wage is interesting, too.

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.

I do appreciate this argument, but they'd have to be pretty well off for £250 to just be casually taken out by him every month as just one of the things he uses his "free access" for, and it's really not a given that they are that well off, especially given they're on just one wage. And if it isn't an amount that can be frivilously given away, then it does amount to the SM actively having to work hard to provide for someone else's kids.

I am, for the sake of argument, the SAHP, my partner could never be described as financially controlling or abusive, but I do not spend as much as £250 on myself in a month, because it isn't within our budget.

But if the loss of £250 leaves OP right on the edge of being able to support herself and her children then she definitely should have made moves to bring in some income herself before now, because that is a really narrow margin.

Agreed.

We don’t know much for sure apart from that the OP certainly isn’t the party taking the largest financial hit in all this.
She’s lost £250 a month. The dad has lost his entire wage plus got the expense of twins on top.
I understand all this.
What I don’t understand is why the rules for male and female parents are apparently different WRT being a SAHP.
OP is allowed to be a SAHP. She’s a woman.
Her DS isn’t allowed to be a SAHP. He’s a man.
A SAHM should have access to family funds or it’s financial abuse. She’s facilitating the mans career.
A SAHD shouldn’t have access to family funds. He might spend it on his children. He’s a cock lodger, and he’s certainly not facilitating anyone’s career.
OP shouldn’t have to work if it doesn’t make financial sense to her. She’s a woman.
Her ex should have to work even it means making a loss because he has CMS to pay. He’s a man.
I don’t get it.

I do appreciate this argument, but they'd have to be pretty well off for £250 to just be casually taken out by him every month
Not once have I argued that the full normal amount must be paid regardless.

OP shouldn’t have to work if it doesn’t make financial sense to her. She’s a woman.
Her ex should have to work even it means making a loss because he has CMS to pay. He’s a man.
I don’t get it.

I don't get your last part either - hence my arguments on this thread that she's made essentially the same decision as him for the same reasons, but he's wrong and she's not.

I can't comment on the other contradictory "rules" as I've not come across them.

I can't comment on the other contradictory "rules" as I've not come across them.
They are all over this thread.

[quote LouJ85]@Dugee

You've been told on MN that you should fund your DP's exW's house, car and holidays?! 😳[/quote]
Yep. It was on a thread about the difference in lifestyles between children in blended families. Our situation is that DP and I work full time to provide for DD. DP also pays maintenance to his ex and he pays directly for things for DSD, such as classes.

We also pay for DSD to come on two family holidays a year with us. A poster, with her buddies backing her up, decided that I should pay for DP's ex, DSD and DSD's brother (not DP's child) to go on holiday as apparently I am lucky to earn a good salary (nothing to do with studying and working hard to gain professional experience and qualifications) and DP's ex is just unlucky to work part time (even though her kids are 10 and 14 and she keeps losing jobs). The concern seemed to be for DSD's brother who didn't get a holiday (still not sure why that is mine or even DP's responsibility).

On another thread, DPs ex old car had broken down and she couldn't afford to get it fixed, so couldn't drop off or pick up DSD. These posters weren't happy that we would be picking up and dropping off DSD, apparently we should have paid for DPs ex car to be fixed, or contributed to a new one, for DSD's benefit.

On another thread, it was suggested that we pay for DSD, her mother and brother to live in our area to benefit from a better school catchment area. This is so that DSD's brother has the same opportunities as my DD in terms of schooling.

I do feel sorry for DSD's brother, although I barely know him, as I am aware that he does have a different life from DD and DSD but I'm failing to see why that is my responsibility any more that it is any other poster's responsibility.

@Youseethethingis

I can't comment on the other contradictory "rules" as I've not come across them. They are all over this thread.

I did say when I first commented I'd read most but not all of the full thread. Still, I can't comment on them because I don't subscribe to them personally. Your last one I'm seeing loud and clear on the thread - and I don't get it either.

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.

This is the problem though - that we live in a country where a parent can just walk away and there are no meaningful consequences.

*A poster, with her buddies backing her up, decided that I should pay for DP's ex, DSD and DSD's brother (not DP's child) to go on holiday as apparently I am lucky to earn a good salary (nothing to do with studying and working hard to gain professional experience and qualifications) and DP's ex is just unlucky to work part time (even though her kids are 10 and 14 and she keeps losing jobs). The concern seemed to be for DSD's brother who didn't get a holiday (still not sure why that is mine or even DP's responsibility).

On another thread, DPs ex old car had broken down and she couldn't afford to get it fixed, so couldn't drop off or pick up DSD. These posters weren't happy that we would be picking up and dropping off DSD, apparently we should have paid for DPs ex car to be fixed, or contributed to a new one, for DSD's benefit.

On another thread, it was suggested that we pay for DSD, her mother and brother to live in our area to benefit from a better school catchment area. This is so that DSD's brother has the same opportunities as my DD in terms of schooling.*

Fuck me. That's amazing.

Oh and I despise this "you're lucky enough to have that income/job" nonsense. Yes - that's exactly what got me to where I am today. I carried a four leaf clover in my pocket and sheer luck carried me through. It wasn't the decade and a bit of insanely hard work, through studying for 3 degrees and working my arse off. No. It was sheer luck.

Completely agree the stepmum shouldn't pay for the OP's kids. In her shoes, having seen the ease with which he financially abandoned his older children, I'd be saving for the day that happened to my own children.

Not once have I argued that the full normal amount must be paid regardless.

I know that, and I know you've said you wouldn't pay out to the detriment of your children. But there is an underlying assumption on this thread that SOMETHING must be available. I don't think that's all that likely to be the case, especially given they have just gone down to one income.

I also don't think it's financially abusive for there to be some limits on what SAHPs can spend out of the family pot, that very much depends on how much money there is spare.

But OP isn't studying or working. She could easily be earning this £250 herself by working even just the weekends the dad has the children.

Exactly, even on minimum wage, she would only have to work 7 hours a week to earn this. If it's that easy for the father to get a little part time job, then it should be that easy for the OP to get 7 hours a week of work. Especially as she has access to free childcare.

I also don't think it's financially abusive for there to be some limits on what SAHPs can spend out of the family pot, that very much depends on how much money there is spare.

Agreed. I think financial abuse is being confused with family budgeting...

@Dugee

But OP isn't studying or working. She could easily be earning this £250 herself by working even just the weekends the dad has the children.

Exactly, even on minimum wage, she would only have to work 7 hours a week to earn this. If it's that easy for the father to get a little part time job, then it should be that easy for the OP to get 7 hours a week of work. Especially as she has access to free childcare.

Wow is that all, 7 hrs a week...

@LouJ85

*A poster, with her buddies backing her up, decided that I should pay for DP's ex, DSD and DSD's brother (not DP's child) to go on holiday as apparently I am lucky to earn a good salary (nothing to do with studying and working hard to gain professional experience and qualifications) and DP's ex is just unlucky to work part time (even though her kids are 10 and 14 and she keeps losing jobs). The concern seemed to be for DSD's brother who didn't get a holiday (still not sure why that is mine or even DP's responsibility).

On another thread, DPs ex old car had broken down and she couldn't afford to get it fixed, so couldn't drop off or pick up DSD. These posters weren't happy that we would be picking up and dropping off DSD, apparently we should have paid for DPs ex car to be fixed, or contributed to a new one, for DSD's benefit.

On another thread, it was suggested that we pay for DSD, her mother and brother to live in our area to benefit from a better school catchment area. This is so that DSD's brother has the same opportunities as my DD in terms of schooling.*

Fuck me. That's amazing.

Oh and I despise this "you're lucky enough to have that income/job" nonsense. Yes - that's exactly what got me to where I am today. I carried a four leaf clover in my pocket and sheer luck carried me through. It wasn't the decade and a bit of insanely hard work, through studying for 3 degrees and working my arse off. No. It was sheer luck.

The reason for the difference in DSD (to an extent, as she is treated the same as my DD when she is with us), DSD's brother and my DD's lifestyle is blatantly obvious - DD has a mother who works full time in a professional job whereas DSD and her brother have a mother who works part time in an NMW job. It isn't mine, or DP's responsibility to compensate for DSD's mum's choices.

Whether the OP works or not really shouldn't have any bearing on the father's moral obligation to pay support. She has arranged her affairs to ensure there is money for her children (whether or not we all agree with how she has done this, she has done it). He, on the other hand, has done nothing ensure there is money for his first children. He's just washed his hands of 75% of their upbringing financially speaking. Not saying it's the SM's responsibility though.

The reason for the difference in DSD (to an extent, as she is treated the same as my DD when she is with us), DSD's brother and my DD's lifestyle is blatantly obvious - DD has a mother who works full time in a professional job whereas DSD and her brother have a mother who works part time in an NMW job. It isn't mine, or DP's responsibility to compensate for DSD's mum's choices.

Oh trust me, I hear you!
Like I said earlier upthread, after DP moved in with me his non working (through choice - free childcare available) exW demanded he now increased his maintenance as she had "seen the nice car I drive" so he could obviously afford to pay more now. Unbelievable entitlement.

@LouJ85

The reason for the difference in DSD (to an extent, as she is treated the same as my DD when she is with us), DSD's brother and my DD's lifestyle is blatantly obvious - DD has a mother who works full time in a professional job whereas DSD and her brother have a mother who works part time in an NMW job. It isn't mine, or DP's responsibility to compensate for DSD's mum's choices.

Oh trust me, I hear you!
Like I said earlier upthread, after DP moved in with me his non working (through choice - free childcare available) exW demanded he now increased his maintenance as she had "seen the nice car I drive" so he could obviously afford to pay more now. Unbelievable entitlement.

Might I add I worked my arse for many, many years to afford said nice car!!

Like I said earlier upthread, after DP moved in with me his non working (through choice - free childcare available) exW demanded he now increased his maintenance as she had "seen the nice car I drive" so he could obviously afford to pay more now. Unbelievable entitlement.

And people wonder where the dependency and entitlement labels come from.

But Lou, the only thing you have in common here is that you are both SM. Presumably you didn't have an affair with a married man which resulted in him leaving his 2 small children and moving 70 miles away. And presumably you didn't jump into having a new family almost immediately and agree to your dp giving up work (which does have a financial benefit to the wohp) resulting in no CS being paid for your dsd?
If your dp's ex didn't work during their relationship, I'm assuming that was their joint decision, so I wouldn't criticise her for it. I do agree that you don't owe her additional support so that her new kids have the same standard of living as yours but I would assume you think your dp should pay CS for his daughter. That's all the OP is asking for.
Yes, she could make up the difference herself but she shouldn't have to. Her earnings should he extra, not to cover him.

What I don’t understand is why the rules for male and female parents are apparently different WRT being a SAHP.
OP is allowed to be a SAHP. She’s a woman.
Her DS isn’t allowed to be a SAHP. He’s a man.

I don't think being allowed to be a SAHP is a gendered issue here. He isn't "allowed" to be a SAHP because he isn't caring for his older children, so this is of no benefit to them. If he was providing childcare for all the children so both the mothers could work, it wouldn't be an issue.

A SAHM should have access to family funds or it’s financial abuse. She’s facilitating the mans career.
A SAHD shouldn’t have access to family funds. He might spend it on his children. He’s a cock lodger, and he’s certainly not facilitating anyone’s career.

I actually think that if a SAHM was using her partner's wages to pay for her kids from a former relationship and this wasn't something offered by him, she would be in cocklodger territory. There's a thread like that that's been going on for a while on the SP board. That isn't a double standard for me either. I think access to family funds comes with limits when considering things that aren't household expenses.

OP shouldn’t have to work if it doesn’t make financial sense to her. She’s a woman.
Her ex should have to work even it means making a loss because he has CMS to pay. He’s a man.
I don’t get it.

This is do think is a double standard.

Interesting discussion, and has certainly made me think. IMO I can’t understand a father who is happy for any of his kids to lose out - so if I were him, I would either be asking/expecting my new DP to pay, or I would be getting a job myself so I can pay, or I would be having them 50% of the time.

That said OP, if he won’t do any of those, then I think you have no option to continue as you are. I can understand why from his new DP’s POV she may not want to pay to support his kids. BUT equally, I would have an issue being with a man who thinks it’s ok to not have his kids 50% and not pay maintenance....