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.

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?

@LouJ85 , I would be embarrassed if the decision I'd made, along with my DH, was impacting his older children. I wouldn't feel obliged to pay anything (it's not a sm duty) but I would struggle to not have an element of guilt.

@Youseethethingis

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 don't think it's as straightforward as man vs woman when it comes to being a SAHP in this scenario, I think it's more that where people have children to support they do need to both contribute.

So some posters think OP is OK to be SAHM as she doesn't have any other children that this impacts and she is doing it to care for the only children reliant on her. Ex is not OK to be SAHD because it only helps the children that live with him and disadvantages those that don't. OP's kids live too far away for him to take on more childcare for them, although arguably they could have been with him for weeks at a time over the past year or so when not at school.

I personally don't think it's acceptable for this dad to become a SAHP when he knew it meant he couldn't financially contribute to his older children.

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.

Tbh my thoughts re the 'family funds' in this case would be that the difference is whether those funds stay within the household or not. SAHPs usually have access to the family funds to contribute to their own household and buy things that themselves and their children need - which in this case would include anything that dad buys for his older children for when they are with him. OP did say he provides everything when they are there, minus a case of clothes.

Him handing over a chunk of money to his ex from his wife's wage is directly taking it out of their household and impacting them all.

@mangoandraspberries

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....

I totally agree, but quite often feel in the minority on here with that opinion.

@needadvice54321

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?

@LouJ85 , I would be embarrassed if the decision I'd made, along with my DH, was impacting his older children. I wouldn't feel obliged to pay anything (it's not a sm duty) but I would struggle to not have an element of guilt.

I might feel more inclined to pay something if the mum actually worked herself.

There is absolutely no way I would go out to work full time, leaving my own 2 young babies, to then hand over MY money to a woman who does not work at all so that she can stay at home with hers.

If the budget is that each parent has even £50 personal spends to do what they like with, my problem is that posters are suggesting that the dad either should not have access to an equal amount as his wife, because he didn’t earn it, or that if he did have it and decided to contribute to his other children then that shouldn’t be allowed because then his wife would be paying for his children and that would be terrible.
Disagree that it’s not financial abuse in either scenario if you like, but it’s certainly not a sign of a healthy and respectful relationship is it?
If it’s not there then it’s not there, as I said.

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?

Correct, none of this applies to me.

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.

Incorrect - the family were struggling on my DP's wage alone. He encouraged her repeatedly to find work, any work, to help them stay afloat (free childcare available from her family). She refused, instead wracking up multiple debts, which he was expected to clear time and time again.

She was (and still is) an entitled and lazy person.

@MessAllOver

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.

Ummm it has happened to her own children???

Father has no income to contribute to any of his children, only his time. His older kids live too far away for him to have them more otherwise he probably would.

@LouJ85 , I would be embarrassed if the decision I'd made, along with my DH, was impacting his older children. I wouldn't feel obliged to pay anything (it's not a sm duty) but I would struggle to not have an element of guilt.

Perhaps. But she didn't consciously choose to conceive twins either. They planned for one baby and presumably their budget allowed for this, with childcare included. Like I say, DP and I are expecting our first baby together at the moment - we planned and budgeted for just the one. We can afford childcare for this baby while we both continue to work, as well as his maintenance bill for his two other kids. If I'd found out I was expecting twins at my first scan - we'd probably have been looking at one of us needing to become a SAHP, too, in all honesty.

Fair enough if she refused to work when it was desperately needed. Sah only works if both partners derive benefit and agree that it's best for their family.

@Youseethethingis

If the budget is that each parent has even £50 personal spends to do what they like with, my problem is that posters are suggesting that the dad either should not have access to an equal amount as his wife, because he didn’t earn it, or that if he did have it and decided to contribute to his other children then that shouldn’t be allowed because then his wife would be paying for his children and that would be terrible. Disagree that it’s not financial abuse in either scenario if you like, but it’s certainly not a sign of a healthy and respectful relationship is it? If it’s not there then it’s not there, as I said.

I think it's probably more that if he does have any personal spends that it would be fine for him to spend this on things for any of his children or himself, but not for him to just hand it over to his ex and then on top of that be dipping into the family funds to provide the things that he and his children need.

@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.

Spot on.

That’s the issue. Not that NRP shouldn’t pay. But that actually both parent should.

And no parent should be a SAHP on the basis that someone else’s money allows this to be the case I believe that for everyone, even those in a couple because as we have seen here things can change.

OP would most likely have know his new wife was pregnant and that it was twins given I imagine he would have told his older children. She has time then to prepare to earn her own income, knowing his house was significantly going to change all this would have been pre-pandemic so can’t use that as an excuse either.

The other thing that concerns me is how are DP's ex, Lou's DP's ex and the OP planning on surviving once the children grow up and the state benefits and child maintenance stop? They aren't going to walk straight in to a job with a good salary, they're looking at 40 hours a week in a NMW job. Plus, having not worked for 20 odd years, they are unlikely to have built up any assets for retirement. Living in a shared house and still working 40 odd hours a week on NMW at the age of 70 isn't something I'd be planning.

[quote ukgift2016]@LouJ85 because the wife knows she is reducing her step children, family income by a significant amount.[/quote]
But her own family income is reducing by a much much higher amount? A whole other persons wage, plus 2 extra people to pay for.

*I might feel more inclined to pay something if the mum actually worked herself.

There is absolutely no way I would go out to work full time, leaving my own 2 young babies, to then hand over MY money to a woman who does not work at all so that she can stay at home with hers.*

And this.

I wouldn’t pay the maintenance no matter what the mum is doing with her life or what her circumstances are.

Fundamentally, what we have here is two women, each of whom has two children with a man who can no longer financially contribute.

Mother 1 works full-time, she has herself, her two children, and her husband to support 100% of the time. AND her two stepchildren 25% of the time (as stated by OP). She has lost a full wage from her household income, presumably £1000+.

Mother 2 does not work, has herself to support 100% of the time and her 2 children to support 75% of the time. She has lost £250 from her household income.

In what world is Mother 2 worse off? And more to the point - why should Mother 1 pay for Mother 2 ?

There is absolutely no way I would go out to work full time, leaving my own 2 young babies, to then hand over MY money to a woman who does not work at all so that she can stay at home with hers.

Pretty entitled to expect another woman to go out to work, leaving her children at home, so that she can pay for the OP to stay at home with her children. I'm really not comfortable with this level of dependency on others. The OP needs to get a job and start providing for herself and her children.

@MessAllOver

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.

And that other solution is?

For him to work and not her and eveyrone have less overall, so actually the older SC get virtually nothing anyway? Or so that his youngest DC’s bills can’t be met at their house?

Should both ex and SM said, we’ll both quit work and claim aswell and pay virtually nothing?

And if we are back to suggesting he should work around his wife’s hours, that largely depends on what she does, if she’s a nurse or something almost impossible for him to do.

If she works a normal 9-5 he could work evenings or weekends, but the weekends would probably mean he can’t see his eldest DC at all for the 25% of time he has them. I wouldn’t be expecting SM to have all 4 children alone over the weekend after working all week when 2 aren’t hers. Plus that’s not quality contact time for the 2 eldest with their dad. That household would be absolutely knackered doing that, I don’t think that’s in any of the kids best interests either, but people only seem bothered about the money here?

And if he could work evenings, then yes he should; but him finding a job to suit evenings he can do is no more easy than OP finding a job in childcare hours or the 25% of the time NRP has the kids, so she should also do this.

I may have missed it, but has the OP said she is struggling for money now that the exH is working? All the comments saying she should work to better her position are completely irrelevant to whether the exH should pay CM. He's their father and has just walked away. Again, not the SM's problem, but the OP's financial situation is not relevant to the exH's obligations.

@Youseethethingis

If the budget is that each parent has even £50 personal spends to do what they like with, my problem is that posters are suggesting that the dad either should not have access to an equal amount as his wife, because he didn’t earn it, or that if he did have it and decided to contribute to his other children then that shouldn’t be allowed because then his wife would be paying for his children and that would be terrible. Disagree that it’s not financial abuse in either scenario if you like, but it’s certainly not a sign of a healthy and respectful relationship is it? If it’s not there then it’s not there, as I said.

I don't disagree on paper, but in actuality I think this can be a slippery slope. If the earner took issue every time the SAHP spent an isolated £50, for example, I would think that was in financially abusive territory (assuming they could afford £50). But £50 a month, or indeed more than that a month, is akin to an ongoing subscription or suchlike, and those are things that I would expect to be discussed and potentially vetoed. They are in my household, in fact we don't have any monthly fees over £10 that aren't to the benefit of the household, or my partner's business.

In my opinion, crying financial abuse if your partner won't agree to you taking on an expensive monthly fee for something that doesn't benefit the household, unless you are all filthy rich, is a bit disingenuous. I think if you have such expensive monthly outgoings, you need to be able and willing to pay for them yourself, or potentially be told you are taking the piss.

@LaceyBetty

I may have missed it, but has the OP said she is struggling for money now that the exH is working? All the comments saying she should work to better her position are completely irrelevant to whether the exH should pay CM. He's their father and has just walked away. Again, not the SM's problem, but the OP's financial situation is not relevant to the exH's obligations.

She says

I claim universal credit etc to survive, £250 is a lot of money.

£250 being the amount lost in maintenance.

So yes, it sounds as though she's financially struggling.

You’ve now said child support is “a monthly fee” and “frivolous”. Comparing it to an Amazon prime subscription or something.
If that’s not disingenuous I don’t know what is.

I think I’m learning that I might actually care about my husband and DSD more than I had realised.
What a time to be alive.

@LouJ85 fair enough. But her financial situation and what she should be doing to improve it is still irrelevant to his obligations.

@Bibidy

Fundamentally, what we have here is two women, each of whom has two children with a man who can no longer financially contribute.

Mother 1 works full-time, she has herself, her two children, and her husband to support 100% of the time. AND her two stepchildren 25% of the time (as stated by OP). She has lost a full wage from her household income, presumably £1000+.

Mother 2 does not work, has herself to support 100% of the time and her 2 children to support 75% of the time. She has lost £250 from her household income.

In what world is Mother 2 worse off? And more to the point - why should Mother 1 pay for Mother 2 ?

Good point.
Interesting when you see it like that, isn't it.