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.

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

Sorry I meant to add... I totally agree with this ^^

@Youseethethingis

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.

You must know that's not what I meant. I mean a monthly outgoing is something substantial enough that it shouldn't be considered financial abuse for the partner to have to agree to it.

@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 ?

Well said, again.

@Youseethethingis

Child maintenance IS a monthly fee. What's wrong with calling it that? It's something that gets paid by a NRP each month, right?

I'd personally refer to it as a monthly bill or outgoing but I don't see how "fee" causes so much offence tbh.

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

But not irrelevant to the overall point - which is how can the children's financial situation be improved now, going forwards? That's what matters really. No one can force the NRP to go back to work, least of all the OP. But there are options for her that she could do herself, which she is fully in control of, to improve things. I do think that's entirely relevant.

I think the thing people seem to be missing is they for some reason think his household is better off.

They aren’t, they are worse off with 2 extra people to pay for and have lost a whole parents wage. They have lost around £1700 a month in wages (based on previous cms calculation)

So house 1 is £1700 a month worse off

House 2 is £250 worse off

If NRP worked evenings around his wife’s work they could potentially make up maybe £750 at most I would think (he won’t be able to work nights if he needs to be up to care for twins whilst SM works so will only really have until 11pm to work. He pays £250 to ex. Left with £500 (realistically less as travel work costs etc to add to this) = house 1 is still 1k worse off every month - this impacts all 4 children 2 of them 100% of the time and 2 of them 25% of the time, plus by the time the 2 eldest get there on a weekend the whole house is likely knackered playing tag team all week, so they don’t get the best of their dad either.

House 2 is now back to previous standard. Financially and OP still gets to stay home, gets plenty of time without the kids.

Or

NRP becomes SAHP - household still take the hit of a £1700 loss

House 2 takes the hit of the £250 loss

But everyone gets the best of their parents in time.

Or

House 1 decides to become SAHP takes a £1700 but can be more available to his eldest DC also so can do every weekend allowing their mother to work and pick up sick days etc to help.

House 2 loses £250 but can now work easier as dad is more available (yes there is a distance but weekends it’s ok). So OP can work sat and sun, no working in the week and no other kids to look after, childcare available at least 15hrs for youngest and full time school for eldest so has some free time still. OP can earn around £600-£700 doing 2 days a week minimum wage.

House 1 remains £1700 worse off

House 2 is now £400-500 better off.

I don’t see why this is so difficult to understand?

When NRP twins are 3/4 and get some free hours, he can go back to work the exact same and pay even more on top so house 2 will be even better off in the long run.

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?

I say this to DP all the time. DP's exW is going to get a sharp wake up call when he stops paying for his kids - in fact his eldest is getting close to the cut off age now. It's a risky game she's playing. It's not for me personally!

You must know that's not what I meant. I mean a monthly outgoing is something substantial enough that it shouldn't be considered financial abuse for the partner to have to agree to it
At least we have agreed that being a SAHP doesn’t mean you should be allowed zero financial autonomy.
That being the case, I still don’t see why he wouldn’t pay child support IF the budget allowed for it.

@LouJ85

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?

I say this to DP all the time. DP's exW is going to get a sharp wake up call when he stops paying for his kids - in fact his eldest is getting close to the cut off age now. It's a risky game she's playing. It's not for me personally!

And by "stop paying" I mean, stop paying maintenance via her bank account. Obviously he will still financially support his kids beyond the legal cut off age for maintenance, but the difference being she won't be seeing any of it.

fee
/fiː/
Learn to pronounce
noun
1.
a payment made to a professional person or to a professional or public body in exchange for advice or services.

CM is not a fee

In any of my scenarios house 1 always comes out worse off.

House 2 can realistically not only get back to the same situation they can ‘improve’ it.

House 1 can only ever be worse off, in any of the choices available to them. This is why I see it as a no brainer. And find it ridiculous that people would not choose an option that would improve the children’s lives, based on the principle that dad should be paying 50%.

I agree he should contribute but I said previously if he’s not earning he can only contribute time currently so get that agreed with him and get on improving the kids situation.

@Youseethethingis

fee /fiː/ Learn to pronounce noun 1. a payment made to a professional person or to a professional or public body in exchange for advice or services.

CM is not a fee

I just think that's unnecessarily picking apart semantics. It was clear what she meant.

@Blendiful

I think the thing people seem to be missing is they for some reason think his household is better off.

They aren’t, they are worse off with 2 extra people to pay for and have lost a whole parents wage. They have lost around £1700 a month in wages (based on previous cms calculation)

So house 1 is £1700 a month worse off

House 2 is £250 worse off

If NRP worked evenings around his wife’s work they could potentially make up maybe £750 at most I would think (he won’t be able to work nights if he needs to be up to care for twins whilst SM works so will only really have until 11pm to work. He pays £250 to ex. Left with £500 (realistically less as travel work costs etc to add to this) = house 1 is still 1k worse off every month - this impacts all 4 children 2 of them 100% of the time and 2 of them 25% of the time, plus by the time the 2 eldest get there on a weekend the whole house is likely knackered playing tag team all week, so they don’t get the best of their dad either.

House 2 is now back to previous standard. Financially and OP still gets to stay home, gets plenty of time without the kids.

Or

NRP becomes SAHP - household still take the hit of a £1700 loss

House 2 takes the hit of the £250 loss

But everyone gets the best of their parents in time.

Or

House 1 decides to become SAHP takes a £1700 but can be more available to his eldest DC also so can do every weekend allowing their mother to work and pick up sick days etc to help.

House 2 loses £250 but can now work easier as dad is more available (yes there is a distance but weekends it’s ok). So OP can work sat and sun, no working in the week and no other kids to look after, childcare available at least 15hrs for youngest and full time school for eldest so has some free time still. OP can earn around £600-£700 doing 2 days a week minimum wage.

House 1 remains £1700 worse off

House 2 is now £400-500 better off.

I don’t see why this is so difficult to understand?

When NRP twins are 3/4 and get some free hours, he can go back to work the exact same and pay even more on top so house 2 will be even better off in the long run.

It's not difficult to understand- it's pretty clear what the no brainer solution is to me.

I think the difference between mother 1 and mother 2 is that mother 2 is getting thousands of pounds worth of childcare from the father of her children, whereas mother 1 isn't. That's much easier than having to get 2 DC to different childcare settings (once schools reopen), get to work, travel back in time to get both from school/nursery, deal with sick days and school holidays and earn enough to cover the extra expenses that are incurred by working.

@MrsHuntGeneNotJeremyObviously

I think the difference between mother 1 and mother 2 is that mother 2 is getting thousands of pounds worth of childcare from the father of her children, whereas mother 1 isn't. That's much easier than having to get 2 DC to different childcare settings (once schools reopen), get to work, travel back in time to get both from school/nursery, deal with sick days and school holidays and earn enough to cover the extra expenses that are incurred by working.

^*House 2 loses £250 but can now work easier as dad is more available (yes there is a distance but weekends it’s ok). So OP can work sat and sun, no working in the week and no other kids to look after, childcare available at least 15hrs for youngest and full time school for eldest so has some free time still. OP can earn around £600-£700 doing 2 days a week minimum wage.
*^
I think this was the solution to that.

Hmm not sure it is semantics.
If you think of CM as a fee like Netflix, podcasts, gym membership blah blah blah then I can see where it’s easy to leap to the conclusion that it’s an unnecessary luxury that can be cut out when it suits without a backward glance.

@Youseethethingis

You must know that's not what I meant. I mean a monthly outgoing is something substantial enough that it shouldn't be considered financial abuse for the partner to have to agree to it At least we have agreed that being a SAHP doesn’t mean you should be allowed zero financial autonomy. That being the case, I still don’t see why he wouldn’t pay child support IF the budget allowed for it.

It doesn't! But still, that would depend on what is meant by the budget allowing. Does it mean that there is literally plenty of money and this would make little difference to them, or does it mean there is money to spare on top of all their bills, but the SP would be required to go without things they work hard for such as a car or savings? Would this impact them? As I said, I am coming at it from the perspective of a household that doesn't have a large amount of money to spare, everything we have goes into bettering our household.

This thread has been quite divisive even amongst posters who generally see eye to eye, and it does disquiet me that those posters would now think me heartless. None of what I am saying is to do with how much I care for my SC, I simply don't consider myself financially responsible for him in any way and as is often pointed out, there are many people I love and care for deeply, but don't consider myself personally responsible for financially, such as parents and siblings etc. I'm sorry if my language offended you on that front, but when I liken maintenance to other monthly subscription fees or commitments I am looking at it from a financial point of view, in terms of responsibilities, not affection. Financially, that's what it is, a personal, ongoing expense of my DPs that is purely his and not of any benefit to our household. Those are not things we expect one another to automatically cover due to being a partnership and coparents of our own child.

I'd really love to know if the dad is willing to take on childcare of his oldest 2 every weekend and in school holidays. And if he has any intention of returning to work once the babies are eligible for some childcare costs. Because it's all moot if he's one of those who says he'd love to do more, until he's actually asked to do more.
If I was the OP I really would be tempted to call his bluff and offer 50/50.

What ever argument people want to take household, time, RP working, claiming benefits etc etc

A parent has chosen to not financially support all their children - he has prioritised 2 over the others and that is quite simply shit, morally corrupt and said parent is scum of the fucking earth.

When you become a parent you do not get the option unless you an NRP to dip in for a year and out for a year. children are not the affrordable hobby this year but next year I need to tighten my belt so the saving will be not paying for x and y child but will pay for a and b.

Having them 50% of the time but having no monies and the SM not being liable means he can not buy his share of clothes, treats etc. Does he have savings - has this been planned -for as long as he has savings he pays maintenance.

Where, in whatever side of the debate, you sit on - is that right.

@Youseethethingis

Hmm not sure it is semantics. If you think of CM as a fee like Netflix, podcasts, gym membership blah blah blah then I can see where it’s easy to leap to the conclusion that it’s an unnecessary luxury that can be cut out when it suits without a backward glance.

Oh come on.
Who has said the words "CM is like a Netflix subscription"?

I'm sorry if my language offended you on that front, but when I liken maintenance to other monthly subscription fees or commitments I am looking at it from a financial point of view, in terms of responsibilities, not affection. Financially, that's what it is, a personal, ongoing expense of my DPs that is purely his and not of any benefit to our household.

I understood your intent with your comment. It's just another outgoing - which it is. I didn't read into that you were implying it's something that can be cancelled like a subscription.

I am looking at it from a financial point of view, in terms of responsibilities, not affection. Financially, that's what it is, a personal, ongoing expense of my DPs that is purely his and not of any benefit to our household. Those are not things we expect one another to automatically cover due to being a partnership and coparents of our own child.
This is where the disagreement is. Im saying that if as a partnership you decide that the best thing is for one of you not to work, then it follows that the person not working will be financed by their partner, which then follows that they would cover obligations such maintenance.
I can think of no other scenario where I would argue this, as you say we usually see eye to eye.

When you become a parent you do not get the option unless you an NRP to dip in for a year and out for a year. children are not the affrordable hobby this year but next year I need to tighten my belt so the saving will be not paying for x and y child but will pay for a and b.

He isn't paying for any of them.