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.

Oh come on.
Who has said the words "CM is like a Netflix subscription"?
It’s implied isn’t it. Netflix is a monthly fee which can be easily cancelled if you don’t want to pay it anymore.
Just like child maintenance.

@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.

As Lou said underneath I offered a solution for that.

Mother 1 is getting childcare off Dad because she is working. Mother 2 can also have this at the weekends and through school holidays from dad too, so she can also work. Both are then having the same. What’s the issue with that?

If she’s working weekends when dad has the kids there is no childcare settings to get to, no issues with sick days or any of that.

Dad has the kids; mum goes to work. Exactly the same as mother 1.

@Youseethethingis

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.

But again - how do we know the new wife's wages alone would even cover the maintenance bill? We don't know what she earns, or what their household outgoings are, etc?

It’s implied isn’t it.

It wasn't to me. Nothing I read in her post implied to me that she saw CM as a something that can be cancelled.

We don’t know anything about her finances.
I repeat - it’s the automatic “I don’t legally have to pay so I’ll be damned if I do, even if the whole thing was for my benefit in the first place” argument that I don’t agree with.

When people talk about paying CM as being of no benefit to their own household, it does kind of put their step child on the same footing as their dp's gym membership. Do people not see providing for step children as a benefit to their family as a whole?
Or is this literally about partners having completely separate incomes? DH and I have pooled our money since we first started living together so we would just pay all our bills from the one pot and never consider where it came from. Neither of us has asked for clearance to spend money either, again irrespective of who earned it. All we would do really is check it hadn't been put aside for something specific. But we both have a similar approach to spending, so I can see that wouldn't work if one person burns through cash and the other is more cautious.

@bogoffmda

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.

He hasn’t prioritised 2 at all though.

He is paying for none of them. And his house with the 2 where he lives are £1700 a month worse off compared to £250 worse off where his eldest live.

SM appears to be covering the 25% costs when they have them currently. If they can do 50/50 spread over weekends and holidays SM will need to cover the costs when they are there. No maintanence due.

Blendiful I think the dad doing weekend/holiday childcare is fine so long as he would actually do it (including half the travel for it) and not just say he would until he was expected to step up. I have my doubts if he's going to do that because as things stand he already expects the OP to bring the kids to him when he only has them 25% of the time.

@Youseethethingis

We don’t know anything about her finances. I repeat - it’s the automatic “I don’t legally have to pay so I’ll be damned if I do, even if the whole thing was for my benefit in the first place” argument that I don’t agree with.

Like I said though, my wage alone wouldn't cover all of our household expenses plus DP's maintenance bill for his 2 kids. We'd be running at a deficit. So regardless of my moral position on it, it simply wouldn't be affordable. Maybe that's the case for OP's exH partner too?

Have I misunderstood the thread? I thought the point of him being a SAHD was to save the family money paying for childcare? Are they worse off now than they are would be if the children were put in childcare? In which case I'd say their children are benefitting to having their dad as a SAHD financially, even if he's not working?

Apologies if I've misread it though! I might have missed one of OP's post

@Youseethethingis

We don’t know anything about her finances. I repeat - it’s the automatic “I don’t legally have to pay so I’ll be damned if I do, even if the whole thing was for my benefit in the first place” argument that I don’t agree with.

I think what people are taking more of an issue is. She isn’t legally obligated to pay, but some people think she should, which makes their household now £2000 worse off a month to do so. Whilst OP does nothing to make her household better off eve n though she could do so by about £600 a month.

If I were the step mum in this situation there is no way I would pay to make up some money for someone who isn’t helping themselves when they could. I already get taxed on my income to pay into the welfare system that funds benefits, I wouldn’t be paying extra on top of that and making my own household worse off to allow someone else to stay at home.

What I would be doing is expecting DP to offer to have his eldest DC so that his ex could work to make that money up; in the same way he was looking after ours to allow me to do so.

Maybe it is, in which case she’s right to prioritise her own babies and that’s that.

@MrsHuntGeneNotJeremyObviously

Blendiful I think the dad doing weekend/holiday childcare is fine so long as he would actually do it (including half the travel for it) and not just say he would until he was expected to step up. I have my doubts if he's going to do that because as things stand he already expects the OP to bring the kids to him when he only has them 25% of the time.

This may have been the case when he was working though. It sounds like he’s only recently stopped and so this is a new issue.

When he was paying the £250 a month and working it may have made sense for OP to take them as she isn’t working, for example she could travel straight from school, if he was working till 5 then had to travel it would waste time the SC could have been there already.

That’s a guess. But yes as it stands he should do as much care as possible given the distance and he should do half the travel for this too.

@Youseethethingis

I don't view CM as something that can be cancelled, at all, but BY HIM. It doesn't follow that I would take on that responsibility myself if my DP couldn't do it.

I would not become a SAHP if I had such an outgoing myself that I would therefore be relying on my partner to cover. That goes against my morals, personally. I would only put myself in a position where I was fully financially entangled if I had no such outgoings, or I could comfortably cover them myself. My idea of "joint finances" involves equity, and the assumption that our lives are entwined enough that we both need the same things, broadly speaking, so all our money goes towards those things. If there was some kind of imbalance (such as debt or outgoings like maintenance), I wouldn't do it.

I understand what you are saying about having a responsibility if they made a joint decision that he would be a SAHP, and would agree if it was one child, and that child was planned. But it being twins throws in the very real possibility that it was not planned at all and was the only option that would have allowed the household to stay afloat, and therefore not a choice at all. In that scenario, I don't believe the moral obligation is there for the SM. I do see and take your point about if the situation they are in was jointly planned and chosen.

*If I were the step mum in this situation there is no way I would pay to make up some money for someone who isn’t helping themselves when they could. I already get taxed on my income to pay into the welfare system that funds benefits, I wouldn’t be paying extra on top of that and making my own household worse off to allow someone else to stay at home.
*
Exactly.

I don't view CM as something that can be cancelled, at all, but BY HIM. It doesn't follow that I would take on that responsibility myself if my DP couldn't do it
That’s a circle that won’t be squared because I think it was probably the right short/medium term financial decision for the dad to give up work. So he can’t pay out of money that he has earned.
So we are back to the principle of the SM not paying because a she’s not legally obligated to, regardless of whether the household can actually afford to pay something or not.

Anyway, on another not in rather enjoying respectfully disagreeing with posters that are usually all of one mind.
Don’t we get accused of being a SM echo chamber all the time??

@needadvice54321

Have I misunderstood the thread? I thought the point of him being a SAHD was to save the family money paying for childcare? Are they worse off now than they are would be if the children were put in childcare? In which case I'd say their children are benefitting to having their dad as a SAHD financially, even if he's not working?

Apologies if I've misread it though! I might have missed one of OP's post

It’s to save money on paying childcare yes, but not save it in that sense.

2 full time nursery places would be average about £300-400 a week. Over a month thats £1200-£1600 a month. It seems NRP was earning maybe £1700 at a guess. So if it’s the higher amount he’s left with £100 lower he’s left with £500. £250 of this is expected to go to the ex so on the higher he’s running at a loss and on the lower he has £250. I imagine for work expenses (running a car, drops offs, sick days to care for twins) etc etc. That’s gone. So whichever way the house is working for £0. Nursery fees may also be higher than that depending on where they live. Soo imagine given doing their sums they could afford it. So they have decided one parent needs to stay home.

NRP is the lower earner so he stays home. SM works. They are still £1700 a month worse off, but the children don’t need to go to childcare and there are not the logistical issues with work, having time off, drop offs and pick ups etc.

In each scenario his house is £1700 a month worse off.

The only difference is, he may have been able to pay £250 to ex still, he also though may not have as he may not have had £250 left at all. In fact with petrol factored in to get to and from work even with the £500 left I don’t think there would be enough to pay £250 to ex.

Ex would likely have ended up with next to nothing and his household would be running at a loss too.

Him being a SAHD doesn’t make that family financially bette off, they are still worse off as have lost his wage and the childcare would be an additional expense not one they were already paying. They can’t afford it, so he stays home. They still lose out financially, significantly more so than his eldest do. £1500 more so.

The main thing frustration for me on reading this post and thread is that OP does not work but is quite clear that her financial situation isn't good. She claims UC and losing that £250 in CM makes life difficult for her. Yet her post is focused on whether the stepmum should be paying maintenance now the dad can't, rather than considering whether she herself should find a job to cover that shortfall to support her own children.

To me, that is not on. If OP was working as much as she could around her children's routines, then she would have a leg to stand on in complaining about her ex not contributing financially at the moment. But, as it is she also does not contribute financially beyond what is handed to her - either by the state or by her ex. In my eyes, they both now equally do not contribute. They both provide childcare only and all income for both sets of children comes from elsewhere.

I do not support her ex voluntarily giving up his job to be a SAHD when he knows that it meant no longer paying towards his older children. To me, that option should never have been there.

But I equally don't support a woman expecting another woman to foot the bill for her children rather than stepping up herself.

@Bibidy

The main thing frustration for me on reading this post and thread is that OP does not work but is quite clear that her financial situation isn't good. She claims UC and losing that £250 in CM makes life difficult for her. Yet her post is focused on whether the stepmum should be paying maintenance now the dad can't, rather than considering whether she herself should find a job to cover that shortfall to support her own children.

To me, that is not on. If OP was working as much as she could around her children's routines, then she would have a leg to stand on in complaining about her ex not contributing financially at the moment. But, as it is she also does not contribute financially beyond what is handed to her - either by the state or by her ex. In my eyes, they both now equally do not contribute. They both provide childcare only and all income for both sets of children comes from elsewhere.

I do not support her ex voluntarily giving up his job to be a SAHD when he knows that it meant no longer paying towards his older children. To me, that option should never have been there.

But I equally don't support a woman expecting another woman to foot the bill for her children rather than stepping up herself.

I agree entirely, with every word of this.
That's where my frustration is coming from too.

@Beforethetakingoftoastandt3a

It’s not the stepmums responsibility to pay. But what an absolutely shit father with no morals who would give up work, and not feed or help house his children, to stay home with his ‘new family.’ Absolute scum bag. What woman would find that attractive. Id also question her morals.

This! How could anyone be attracted to a man that shirks his responsibilities? And have children with him? Who's to say he won't do the same thing to the new family? That's the sort of thing these kind of "fathers" would do.

Legal but disgusting.

How could anyone be attracted to a man that shirks his responsibilities? And have children with him?

He was working and paying maintenance before the twins were conceived. So the situation wasn't as it is now, when the new partner made a decision to have a child with him.

@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.

Realistically though, mother 2's household has actually given up £1700 a month for that childcare. And mother 2 has a lot more expenses to pay out given the amount of people who are relying on her in her household, including her 2 stepchildren 25% of the time. I can't imagine there is much money leftover from one wage after taking out every cost for their home & household.

I appreciate mother 1 has to support herself 100% and her children 75% of the time, but equally she has had the last 18 months when one child has been in school and the other could have had 30 free nursery hours to have found some sort of work to at least boost their income a bit.

OP has also stated she does have some local family support options though not people who could look after the children full time - maybe these people could have been doing a couple of school pick-ups a week for her while she worked 2 days? Maybe dad could pick up his kids from school on the Fridays they're coming back with him so she could work that day?

I just feel like as unreasonable as it is that dad has decided to stop working here, it's similarly unreasonable that OP doesn't seem to have taken any available opportunities to get work for herself when she's able. If neither parent wants to pay for these children then fine, whatever, but OP shouldn't really come on here saying the SM should pay.

When they got together he was still married to someone else though and had 2 small kids he was willing to leave. There's no accounting for taste!

@Youseethethingis

I don't view CM as something that can be cancelled, at all, but BY HIM. It doesn't follow that I would take on that responsibility myself if my DP couldn't do it That’s a circle that won’t be squared because I think it was probably the right short/medium term financial decision for the dad to give up work. So he can’t pay out of money that he has earned. So we are back to the principle of the SM not paying because a she’s not legally obligated to, regardless of whether the household can actually afford to pay something or not.

But there are other avenues to explore, other than the SM paying. As has obviously been said many times, he could get a part time job around her working hours to cover it, or he could sell things. That is what I would do in his shoes if I felt working was impossible. I wouldn't ask my wife to cover it.

If I were very rich, I might offer to pay it for him, just to save him the trouble, but from the perspective of the kind of income I am accustomed to, I am not rich, so it would be a choice of me experiencing some level of hardship to allow this maintenance to be paid, or him doing so. I would expect it to be him. If he didn't do it, I would be disappointed with him on a moral level, yes, but I wouldn't do it instead just so it gets done. It is quite simply nothing to do with me, excepting as per the previous comment, if I was actively complicit in his inability to pay.