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.

@Blendiful honestly, I think what you were able to do is fantastic and I have nothing but respect, my mum did the same.

[quote LaceyBetty]@LouJ85 fair enough. I just think it must be ridiculously hard for the OP right now and telling her to just go get a job that "fits exactly around the 25% of the time the kids are with him" or one that is "only term time and during school hours" or to "just take parental leave when they're sick" is not realistic. I know some have done it, but, in the meantime, the kids at doing without because of their father's choices. [/quote]

I didn't tell her to do any of those things. Another poster made those specific suggestions. I simply said that she has options.
Like I say, I managed to work full time, pay for childcare, and complete 2 university degrees whilst a single mum to my now teenage daughter (not saying she should do all of that - I think I'm an extreme example!) But my point being, it's not easy, of course it's not, but it's also not impossible for her to find ways, however small, to improve her situation.

I realise that want you @LouJ85 just explaining why I thought the thread was derailed.

[quote LaceyBetty]@LouJ85 fair enough. I just think it must be ridiculously hard for the OP right now and telling her to just go get a job that "fits exactly around the 25% of the time the kids are with him" or one that is "only term time and during school hours" or to "just take parental leave when they're sick" is not realistic. I know some have done it, but, in the meantime, the kids at doing without because of their father's choices. [/quote]
I am only making these suggestions based on what other people have suggested the father do. Which is work around his wife’s shifts, that may also not be easy, but people are suggesting it like this is the only and easiest solution.

I said before if his wife works shifts, or long hours, or in a job without set hours, or varying shifts each week (I.e. not set days) then it’s no easier for him to do this as it is for OP to get a job in that 25%.

My issue with the whole thing is the fact that people/OP are expecting a solution from NRP along the lines of a solution that do not expect or say is too difficult for OP. There are plenty of excuses being made about why it’s too difficult for OP to do these things like it’ll be a walk in the park for NRP and I disagree.

Both parents are responsible for the children so both parents need to find a solution. I don’t like the view that it’s £250 is lost NRP needs to find it. There are other solutions than this. I don’t think lots are taking into account the reasons why NRP may have stopped paying and the impact quitting work will have had on his other children either I.e the loss of one parents whole income.

It seems there is a view on here sometimes that if someone leaves a relationship they should keep the status quo for the ‘first family’ no matter what, they cannot move on or change their circumstances if that means the status quo changes. But sometimes what was, is unmanageable long term. And if people can help themselves too, I think they should do so. Peoples lives change and sometimes in ways they cannot help, I believe for this scenario this applies as NRP did not plan twins. Adjustments have to be made to accommodate and unfortunately that’s going to have some effect on his eldest DC too, but also his youngest and I think they are being ignored.

[quote LaceyBetty]@LouJ85 fair enough. I just think it must be ridiculously hard for the OP right now and telling her to just go get a job that "fits exactly around the 25% of the time the kids are with him" or one that is "only term time and during school hours" or to "just take parental leave when they're sick" is not realistic. I know some have done it, but, in the meantime, the kids at doing without because of their father's choices. [/quote]
Because of their father and mother’s choices

My issue with the whole thing is the fact that people/OP are expecting a solution from NRP along the lines of a solution that do not expect or say is too difficult for OP.

This is basically my issue with it too.

@LouJ85

My issue with the whole thing is the fact that people/OP are expecting a solution from NRP along the lines of a solution that do not expect or say is too difficult for OP.

This is basically my issue with it too.

The OP only needs to work 7 hours a week on NMW to make the £250 a month. Given that she has access to free childcare, is 7 hours a week of work too much to ask?

@Dugee

I'd personally love a 7 hour working week with childcare taken care of.

These are the things that employers would be worried about and what make it more difficult being single. Again if she works when NRP has the kids, these things won’t matter
I must be living in another planet! I worked FT when my kids were still at nursery. Being single or not made no difference because my OH worked 2h away, so couldn't help with the children in the week. I had to find a job that meant I could do drop offs and pick ups.

I worked with many women who did FT hours who has the sole responsibility of the kids during the week, single or not.

The kids being ill always comes up as a reason why working is an issue. It makes it sound as if kids are poorly all the time. They are not, unless you think that a slight cold means they can't go to childcare.

The reality is that just comes down to money and thinking that there's no point in working unless you are significantly better off financially. Except that if a parent has only ever earned nmw, they are unlikely to ever get a better paid job unless they accept that they will have to start working for little benefit in the short term but big ones in the long term.

unless you think that a slight cold means they can't go to childcare

Well, that’s certainly the case at the moment....

The reality is that just comes down to money and thinking that there's no point in working unless you are significantly better off financially. Except that if a parent has only ever earned nmw, they are unlikely to ever get a better paid job unless they accept that they will have to start working for little benefit in the short term but big ones in the long term.

They're going to have to start working when the child related benefits stop though. It's going to be a shock for many. The benefits system is more generous to those with kids than those without dependents.

I don't know why childcare is still being debated when it's provided free by Dad 25% of the time, and as someone calculated below - in order to make up what she has lost in CM the OP would only need to work 7 hours a week, even at NMW. If this is honestly too much, I genuinely have no other constructive advice or solutions. 🤷‍♀️

@Dugee

The reality is that just comes down to money and thinking that there's no point in working unless you are significantly better off financially. Except that if a parent has only ever earned nmw, they are unlikely to ever get a better paid job unless they accept that they will have to start working for little benefit in the short term but big ones in the long term.

They're going to have to start working when the child related benefits stop though. It's going to be a shock for many. The benefits system is more generous to those with kids than those without dependents.

Exactly. My DP's exW is in for a huge shock in a few years when maintenance for one of their kids will stop. The other not far behind either.

@dontdisturbmenow

These are the things that employers would be worried about and what make it more difficult being single. Again if she works when NRP has the kids, these things won’t matter I must be living in another planet! I worked FT when my kids were still at nursery. Being single or not made no difference because my OH worked 2h away, so couldn't help with the children in the week. I had to find a job that meant I could do drop offs and pick ups.

I worked with many women who did FT hours who has the sole responsibility of the kids during the week, single or not.

The kids being ill always comes up as a reason why working is an issue. It makes it sound as if kids are poorly all the time. They are not, unless you think that a slight cold means they can't go to childcare.

The reality is that just comes down to money and thinking that there's no point in working unless you are significantly better off financially. Except that if a parent has only ever earned nmw, they are unlikely to ever get a better paid job unless they accept that they will have to start working for little benefit in the short term but big ones in the long term.

Me too, I did the same and I am certainly no exception.

I have worked my way up and studied my way into a good career now, but I did plenty of NMW job before then and juggled childcare.

I also have lots of friends, single and otherwise who did the same. Some with partners who worked away so even though not single they were still juggling.

It’s unusual IMO for couples to purely do jobs where the Hours work around eachother, usually one parent is more flexible. So for me, my ex did shifts, different hrs and different days every week, so I was responsible for 100% of childcare. So I worked, part time in jobs that fit around that to accommodate, this was 3-4 different ones so it’s not ‘that’ hard to get that.

It’s just the way of life when you have kids. There’s always going to be days where they are ill; have to be collected, you are running late etc etc. It happens. But it doesn’t mean every child needs a parent available 100% of the time, you just make it work through a variety of means.

For me exactly that, it paid off in the end I’m now in a good job earning a good wage. But I had to start at the bottom on NMW part time. If I hadn’t done that then, I’d probably be having to do that now, as I couldn’t be where i am without significant experience and studies which all took time.

The benefits system is more generous to those with kids than those without dependents.

Well, yes obviously . More mouths to feed and bodies to clothe, and unfortunately you're not allowed to send them down the mines anymore to earn their keep.

It’s just the way of life when you have kids. There’s always going to be days where they are ill; have to be collected, you are running late etc etc. It happens. But it doesn’t mean every child needs a parent available 100% of the time, you just make it work through a variety of means

So again, if a single parent can manage it, surely so can 2 perfectly healthy individuals working together as a team? Sure, children don't need someone available 100% of the time and yet, the ex is now available for half of his children 100% of the time and that's apparently fine. No reason for him to change that. OP, on the other hand, should run herself ragged as a single person for no financial gain whatsoever.

I am not advocating that the OP shouldn't work. I am suggesting that much depends on her experience, qualifications, where she lives, availability of suitable work, resources available to her like public transport, a car, proximity of her children's school and nurseries, opening/closing time of school clubs and nurseries, availability of a childcare place when she needs it, the nature of the job she is able to secure when it comes to flexibility etc. etc. etc. A blanket 'I made it work so everyone else' can ignores the reality of many people's situations. Having a child with a health condition that needs regular hospital appointments, for example, can really throw a spanner in the works and is very difficult to overcome - I had to permanently lose half a day to manage that and was lucky my employer offered that flexibility. Future interviews will involve me saying 'my child has a life threatening condition which needs constant management and regular hospital appointments. I might be late some days whilst we sort it but it probably won't happen often but then again, it might. No way of knowing. And I know you advertised a full time job but I'll need some Tuesday mornings off to manage the hospital appointments. Or Tuesday afternoons. The clinic is always Tuesday. Except in a pandemic when the clinic have inexplicably changed to Fridays. I don't want to work part time 'cos frankly I can't afford it so thought I'd chance my arm. Will that work for you?!' Of course, the ex could face similar issues but he has the advantage of being part of a parenting team.

The suggestion is the OP needs to solve the problem but even if she were working flat out, that doesn't mean she shouldn't expect her ex to sort out his side of the bargain and to find some flexibility in his week to ensure his children receive some financial support. He keeps being given a get out of jail free card as far as I can see whilst she is villified for not doing what he's not doing either.

Amazing how this thread has totally become about how the NRP has no moral or legal obligation to pay for all his DCs and that the RP needs to work harderwork around the NRPs hours and poor NRP - is worse off than the RP.

At what point did he consult with the RP as to the impact his decision may have on the lives of all his children and the RP.

DO NRPs use maintenance as a weapon and punishment on another thread - well on this one the NRP is wholly justified in dictating the RPs life, making the RP adapt working patterns to them and provide everything for their DCS.

Oh and child care is not being provided free by the Dad 25 % of the time - that is called being a bloody father. To all those Dads out there who look after their DCS - they are not providing childcare to the mother - they are being a parent

Amazing how this thread has totally become about how the NRP has no moral or legal obligation to pay for all his DCs and that the RP needs to work harderwork around the NRPs hours and poor NRP - is worse off than the RP.

It’s the misogyny. Our standards for men, as a society, are on the floor.

Misogyny

No.

Many of the posters advocating that mum would be better off if she was able to work just 7 hours a week to make up what's she's lost in CM, have also very clearly said - What NRP has done is wrong. The fact remains though, that we can debate Dad's moral shortcomings back and forth all the live long day, and OP will still be in exactly the same financial position she's in now. So how does it help to keep going over that? She can't change Dad's mind, she can't force him to hand over cash. So we are pointing out where she can effect positive change over her life.

That, I'm afraid, is not misogynistic.

Oh and child care is not being provided free by the Dad 25 % of the time - that is called being a bloody father.

The word "free childcare" was used not to minimise Dad's responsibilities as a father, but purely to illustrate the point that OP wouldn't need to pay for childcare if she could possibly find work within the 25% of days that kids go to Dad's. So in theory she'd be able to replace the lost CM money without even needing to fork out for childcare. It was aimed at being helpful to the OP and pointing out where the positives are for her particular situation so she can hopefully try and change things for the better.

It is misogyny to accept that fathers can just leave, pop out more kids and there's no legal way to make him pay and that the mother can just go to work to make up for it. Her wages shouldn't have to compensate for his total lack of contribution - even if it only required 7 hours of work, that money should be extra to and not instead of cm.

A blanket 'I made it work so everyone else' can ignores the reality of many people's situations.

I agree that "I made it work so can everyone else" isn't a helpful comment. I don't think I've phrased my input on this thread in that particular way myself - and if I have at any point, then I apologise, as it's not helpful you're right.

I'm pretty sure I acknowledged that my achievements as a single mum (2 uni degrees and full time work whilst building a successful career), are likely to be on the extreme end of do-able. That's OK, I get that. I was simply hoping to be able to point out where the OP might be able to make some small positive changes to her situation.

There is an undertone to many of these posts that it's a moral failing on the part of "lazy" and "greedy" single mothers to expect fathers to contribute to their own children.

@MrsHuntGeneNotJeremyObviously

It is misogyny to accept that fathers can just leave, pop out more kids and there's no legal way to make him pay and that the mother can just go to work to make up for it. Her wages shouldn't have to compensate for his total lack of contribution - even if it only required 7 hours of work, that money should be extra to and not instead of cm.

No one is "accepting" that - like I said, many of the posters advocating that OP finds part time work have also simultaneously said "it's not right what he's done".

The angle is - what can OP do now, realistically, to make positive changes for her and her children? Because there's nothing she can do about Dad's decision.

@MessAllOver

There is an undertone to many of these posts that it's a moral failing on the part of "lazy" and "greedy" single mothers to expect fathers to contribute to their own children.

I for one have not used the words lazy or greedy to refer to the OP. I've used these words to refer only to my DP's exW because that's a whole different story and she is a very lazy and entitled person (e.g. demanding more CM because she noticed I have a nicer car than her so DP must have more cash to spare, whilst refusing to work ever in her life herself despite free childcare from family, etc)...

I don't believe the OP is those things!

Also - my comments about it being unhelpful to rely so heavily on CM (and I'm thinking mostly about my DP's exW here!), is that when the kids are old enough CM will no longer be payable. I wonder what on earth my DP's exW is going to do then, having become so reliant on his cash?
It's a matter of years away, too.