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.

CM is payable for the children and RPs should be able to "rely" on it to help cover the children's costs. For most people, it is hardly a generous amount.

@MessAllOver

CM is payable for the children and RPs should be able to "rely" on it to help cover the children's costs. For most people, it is hardly a generous amount.

Yes of course they should be able to rely on it for the children's costs. However what my DP's ex receives is hugely over and above what she actually needs for their costs (without getting into the ins and outs of that particular situation as it's not relevant to the OP). We know for a fact though that it covers more than just those costs and that she does rely not only on that, but on hand outs from her live in boyfriend (whilst then periodically demanding more money from DP when she notices one of our cars or finds out we've had a trip away, etc).

So my point was that in relation to her specifically, I do wonder what she's going to do when the time comes for him to stop making the payments. That's all.

For most people, it is hardly a generous amount.

It was a relatively small amount for me, yes. That's why I said earlier in the thread I just told my DD's Dad to keep it for himself for when she stays with him as it upset me for her to come home from Dad's saying they didn't do anything that weekend because "daddy has no money til payday". Meanwhile I wasn't even noticing or using his money. So I felt it silly that I continued to receive it.

But DP's ex - that's not a small amount. That's because he has 2 though, and he earns well. But still, it's a payment you'd definitely notice if it stopped every month. Not for us or his kids to worry about of course as DP will continue to support his kids beyond the legal CM ages, by giving them cash directly.

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

Agreed. Always the same on step parenting, that undertone.

I wonder what on earth my DP's exW is going to do then, having become so reliant on his cash?

Why does it matter to you? That will be her life up the swanny, not yours. She'll reap what she's sown and learn the hard way. That doesn't mean that any parent expecting the other parent to pay a fair amount to support their joint children is somehow trying to take advantage of someone else's hard work. The problem we have is this:

• don't work, you're a lazy good for nothing relying on 'handouts', work shy, dependent. Ex is a hero, working full time, no one acknowledges that his ability to work full time is greatly improved by his ex having the children most of the time. Ex still needs to pay child maintenance.
• work part time, you're still lazy, expecting the tay payer to fund the difference between full and part time work and expecting the ex to work full time. Ex is a hero, working full time, no one acknowledges that his ability to work full time is greatly improved by his ex having the children most of the time. Ex still needs to pay child maintenance.
• work full time and you're putting your career before your children, working too hard, having them in childcare all the time, why did you bother having them. Ex is a hero, working full time, no one acknowledges that he too is putting his children in childcare and why bother having them if you dno't see them. Ex still needs to pay child maintenance.

When you are resident parent, you can't win. There is always someone judging what you are doing/not doing. Making value judgements on other people's decisions, particularly without knowing their full story or the reasoning behind those decisions, still doesn't change the fact that you need to pay maintenance.

Why does it matter to you? That will be her life up the swanny, not yours. She'll reap what she's sown and learn the hard way.

Oh it doesn't matter to me, not in the slightest. You're right, her doing, her issue. It just makes me curious as to why any woman would want to be in that situation. But we're all different aren't we.

work full time and you're putting your career before your children, working too hard, having them in childcare all the time, why did you bother having them.

I guess I'd fall under this particular judgement then. And having studied on evenings and weekends for 2 degrees as well as FT work, I suppose that makes me even more judged. But it doesn't bother me - my DD has a really good life now with a lot of financial security. And she's a happy well rounded teenager. So I'm proud of my efforts.

There are some very conflicting views on how child maintenance should be calculated.

One suggestion is that CM should be calculated based on an absolute amount. So all parents, regardless of their financial means, should have to pay £200 per month per child (and if they can't afford it, it should roll up as a debt). The objection which is made to that suggestion is that you can't take money they don't have and it's wrong and counterproductive to leave NRPs in financial difficulties. Therefore, lots of people here think it's fine for the NRP to pay the OP precisely nothing.

But then when the NRP does have a good salary and so is required to pay more in CM then the minimum amount necessary to cover their share of the child's basic requirements (and therefore the RP and the children can have a more comfortable lifestyle than they could afford on their own), the RP is "milking them", "entitled" and "greedy" for accepting the money they're legally entitled to for the children.

It just makes me curious as to why any woman would want to be in that situation

Lack of foresight generally. Inability to see bigger picture. Issues you're not telling us about like a disabled child which gets conveniently brushed over when it comes to being able to work. Low self esteem. Lack of education and no knowledge of what could be done to improve that. Friends and family who wrongly stand in the background telling people it's all his responsibility, not hers. The benefits trap generally which makes work not really pay for many single women with children for many years. A sense of entitlement that every other woman she knows is enjoying life so why shouldn't she?.....

@EnoughnowIthink

It just makes me curious as to why any woman would want to be in that situation

Lack of foresight generally. Inability to see bigger picture. Issues you're not telling us about like a disabled child which gets conveniently brushed over when it comes to being able to work. Low self esteem. Lack of education and no knowledge of what could be done to improve that. Friends and family who wrongly stand in the background telling people it's all his responsibility, not hers. The benefits trap generally which makes work not really pay for many single women with children for many years. A sense of entitlement that every other woman she knows is enjoying life so why shouldn't she?.....

Yeah I can see all those things being applicable.

I said earlier in the thread that I was already just about completing my first degree at uni when I fell pregnant with DD. I sat my final exams whilst 6 months pregnant. At that time I worked PT to allow me to study FT (I was only 19/20). After j went on mat leave, I returned to a FT job in the field I'd studied in. So my intention and career path was already set, if you will, before I got pregnant. In order to qualify in my field I needed to complete a further 2 degrees including a PhD. I felt already committed at that point, as I'd got part way there before falling pregnant, so I was just determined I guess to make the original plan work, with or without a child in tow! That might make me selfish, I don't know? But she's certainly benefiting now, that's for sure.

None of us are perfect parents. Just doing our best with what we think is right at the time I suppose!

If OP worked 7 hrs for 250, wouldn’t her benefits be cut accordingly leaving her in the same position?

If so, she would need to work more than 7 hrs pw to make it pay.

Does dad have children EOW or EW? I thought most SM didn’t like EW?

I’m not saying mum shouldn’t work but as a lone parent it may not be as easy as picking up a shift.

*work part time, you're still lazy, expecting the tay payer to fund the difference between full and part time work and expecting the ex to work full time. Ex is a hero, working full time, no one acknowledges that his ability to work full time is greatly improved by his ex having the children most of the time. Ex still needs to pay child maintenance.

• work full time and you're putting your career before your children, working too hard, having them in childcare all the time, why did you bother having them. Ex is a hero, working full time, no one acknowledges that he too is putting his children in childcare and why bother having them if you dno't see them. Ex still needs to pay child maintenance.*

Load of rubbish. Absolutely no one would hold these views of an RP working part-time / full time.

Bold fail

I'm not sure about this "ex is a hero" thing.
Who views their ex in that way? I certainly don't. We're all fallible. My ex is not a "hero", nor is my DP. Just parents doing their best, same as me.

One suggestion is that CM should be calculated based on an absolute amount. So all parents, regardless of their financial means, should have to pay £200 per month per child (and if they can't afford it, it should roll up as a debt). The objection which is made to that suggestion is that you can't take money they don't have and it's wrong and counterproductive to leave NRPs in financial difficulties. Therefore, lots of people here think it's fine for the NRP to pay the OP precisely nothing.

This logic makes more sense for NRPs who have the means to pay, but refuse. I get that. But for NRPs who have lost their jobs through redundancy or other means beyond their control? Would you still apply this logic to them?In a together family, if Dad lost his job, would you still want to take him to court over not meeting had financial obligations? So many questions about this approach.

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 don’t think it’s lazy or greedy to expect a father to financially support a child but both parents should. Moaning one doesn’t pay anything or enough whilst opting out of providing oneself is very off though.

Load of rubbish. Absolutely no one would hold these views of an RP working part-time / full time

I have been single now for more years than I care to remember. I have not worked, worked part time and worked full time during those years. All of that has been expressed to me, by different people at different times. Not ‘rubbish’ at all.

It is wrong to take money from the ex’s partner but if ex signed on he would have to pay £7 per week child maintenance . It’s morally indefensible that he pays nothing. I think there should be a token amount that NRPs are legally obliged to pay whatever their circumstance.

They're going to have to start working when the child related benefits stop though. It's going to be a shock for many
It is already! I became friends with a number of single mums at the time I was.

Most either continued to claim benefits as long as they could it took a 16h job once their kids started school. They had it so much better than I, and yes, I did envy them at times.

Some have remarried and managed to remain SAHM or continue to work very or and do ok but a few remained single (after poor relationships) and have now reached the point if the youngest finishing college and all their benefit and maintenance stopping, and panicking as what they are left with. They are on PT on low paid jobs and face having to go back FT with a much reduced monthy income. Two had to sell their nice family home and could only afford to rent a small flat. I do really feel sorry for them but a part me think that it's the choice they made many years ago when they had it so much better.

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
He certainely have a moral obligation to pay. Maybe if OP was willing to get a job to support herself, so would he? If not, he us a proper loser!

But then when the NRP does have a good salary and so is required to pay more in CM then the minimum amount necessary to cover their share of the child's basic requirements (and therefore the RP and the children can have a more comfortable lifestyle than they could afford on their own), the RP is "milking them", "entitled" and "greedy" for accepting the money they're legally entitled to for the children.

Just to clarify - this is not why I am referring to my DP's ex as entitled, lazy or greedy (if that part was indeed aimed at my comments). Yes he pays a relatively larger amount but also; you're right, she's entitled to it.

She's lazy, entitled and greedy for behaviours such as:

• demanding he pay even more because his new partner (me) drives a nice car, or because we had a break away somewhere.
• refusing to work throughout her children's lives at all, despite offers of childcare from family, to contribute to help clearing the multiple huge debts she racked up whilst my DP was working and struggling to pay off on his wage alone, etc

Many, many other examples but they're too "outing" so I'll leave it there.

But that's where my comments come from.

Maybe if OP was willing to get a job to support herself, so would he?

The support of a child is not some kind of tit for tat game. The OP is already doing the bigger share of childcare and facilitating contact. Why does that count for nothing? Her ex has removed himself from the obligation of financially supporting all his children. Why should OP be 75% parent and 100% financial provider? And he gets 25% of parenting and nothing else?

You lost my support when you said you don't work. You claim benefits for which the income from you ex is not taken into account so as far as I am concerned you are not paying for them and neither is he. It's not the step mums responsibility to pay for your kids.

Well first of all, these comments are all very heavily laced in judgment of his decision to leave OP and be with someone else. I don't believe that's appropriate or relevant

Because some "woman scorned" want their maintenance no matter how detrimental it is to the children involved. You only have to see the support for OP hypothetically being a millionaire, how she should absolutely claim her £4 of flesh so the twins see neither parent and their household suffers, even if she wouldn't even notice the money.

Because some women can't bear that someone had the audacity to leave them. They will talk of "the other woman" because how much better it sits with them to look like the poor defenceless wife whose husband was snatched, rather than admit their husband just couldn't bear to stay with them anymore.

You'll note here, OP and EXh divorced in 2017. Four years ago. Posssibly five when you consider they would have separated first, then had to go through all the divorce.

He's got 1yr old twins. They were born in 2020. Three/four years after he was anything to do with OP. We've got no reason to disbelieve OP saying "he left me for her" so we have to take that at face value. But combined with the fact she doesn't like the idea of pulling her own weight and getting a job five years on, and is looking for his new wife to simply hand her money, I would question whether she falls into the category of many who claim they were left for another woman, when they were in fact just left.

The EXh has worked, and paid her maintenance since the divorce. And had the children 25% of the time. Up until now, where presumably the mother has returned to full time work and he has to remain at home to negate the massive twin childcare bill they would have, as a result of unexpected twins, and not claiming benefits that would give them a massive subsidy.

5 years on she's still making excuses not to get a job when she has no childcare costs, and looking for a woman who is nothing to do with the financial responsibility for her children, but already pays 25% of their upbringing, to pay her extra while she sits at home for another year, "preferring" not to be better off by getting a job.

And seriously, people are in disbelief at how some ExW's are possibly seen as grabby and lazy?

Christ. On. A. Bike.

OP is already doing the bigger share of childcare and facilitating contact

OP is choosing not to use the free childcare available to both her children, and the fact she is not making contact obstructive or difficult to the other parent shouldn't be seen as something to be applauded. It's right.

Why should OP be 75% parent and 100% financial provider? And he gets 25% of parenting and nothing else?

Because the state is the 100% financial provider, OP is able to access this by not getting a job. She is not providing the finance. And the EXh is in exactly the same position as her, except he isn't able to access a load of money for staying at home with his children (a necessity due to 1yr old twins as opposed to a choice by OP with a 5 and 7yr old) because he's married a woman who goes out to work to provide.

OP says how the £4 a day she was receiving, as the EXh has paid her until he was unable too, makes a significant difference to her. But her attitude is not, I could work, as I've got no excuse not too, with free childcare and family to help as well, and I'd be many hundreds better off (as PP have shown with their calcs) but questions, can I get free money from the woman who works full time, already pays for my children 25% of the time, missing out on her own baby twins, while I sit at home through choice.

Ultimately, it could be that OP genuine didn't realise that she would be better off working. We don't know.

I've met separated mothers whose aspiration was always to be sahm and did everything as long as they could to avoid working. Because they didn't want to.

However, I think some get stuck in their lives as sahm and don't inform themselves to how working would leave them better off than in benefits.

In this instance, it's likely OP iseaiting for her youngest to start school to look for work.

Hopefully her ex will return to some form of work when the twins start school too.

Ultimately, it could be that OP genuine didn't realise that she would be better off working. We don't know

OP has said she would be better off working. Just not much.