Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Step-parenting

Connect with other Mumsnetters here for step-parenting advice and support.

Opinions on child maintenance when the NRP is a SAHP

813 replies

CrashesOverMe · 23/02/2021 20:34

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.

OP posts:
MixedUpFiles · 24/02/2021 01:12

Morally I think parents should have to pay based on earning potential if they choose to remove themselves from the labor market. That can actually be legally enforced in my jurisdiction.

MixedUpFiles · 24/02/2021 01:13

Oh and my jurisdiction also expects the NRP to pay for 50% of childcare regardless of visitation schedule. Anything less is absolutely crazy.

excelledyourself · 24/02/2021 01:16

It makes no difference whether OP is single or not, or whether she has a partner who can look after the kids all day, or she earns six figures. The children's dad should be contributing something to their costs. Not just deciding that doesn't suit him and his new wife anymore.

Lbnc2021 · 24/02/2021 01:17

Just on the point of having twins, I’m a single parent to twins and their father won’t provide for them despite battling through court. Someone has to provide for them so I’ve got 2 jobs. And yes men who just decide to stop providing for their children because someone else is keeping their dicks wet are scum.

excelledyourself · 24/02/2021 01:19

@MixedUpFiles

Oh and my jurisdiction also expects the NRP to pay for 50% of childcare regardless of visitation schedule. Anything less is absolutely crazy.
Agreed. I still resent the fact that even though my ex had the DC two school nights and collected them from after school club, that I paid all childcare. Those were his days. I should have told him to pay up or make his own arrangements for after school cover.
CovoidOfAllHumanity · 24/02/2021 01:21

Courtney OP has been too dignified to say so but given the ages of the children involved I think it's going to be very much her ex and his new partner's fault that she is single and raising children on her own and not some kind of unrelated random event/ act of God as you are implying

Legally the fact he's left her makes no odds and has no consequences for him
Morally it really sucks.

MrsTerryPratchett · 24/02/2021 01:24

He moved, he doesn't want to pay for his first children and doesn't do 50% or more of the care?

Sow the wind... new wife, you could be next. I'd have no respect for a man who could move away and neither look after nor support his children. No respect at all.

Courtney555 · 24/02/2021 01:24

As it happens, DH does far less than 25% of the "feeding and entertaining." For both his stepDC and his own twins. And he lives here.

That's because he works. I don't. I do the feeds, the baths, the shopping trips, the housework, the toys, the reading, the homework. He works hard at what he does.

If OP doesn't work, then she's getting far more "feeding and entertainment" than I do! I'd bloody love a quarter of the year off without any job to go too! Grin

Tiredoftattler · 24/02/2021 01:26

If the mom works days, why can't he then work nights? Even a lesser paying night job would allow him to contribute to the support of his children.

Single moms work days and then go home to take care of their children. The mom could work days and take care or her twins at night in the same manner that many single moms of multiple children do all the time.

WhatWouldPhyllisCraneDo · 24/02/2021 01:40

@Courtney555

As it happens, DH does far less than 25% of the "feeding and entertaining." For both his stepDC and his own twins. And he lives here.

That's because he works. I don't. I do the feeds, the baths, the shopping trips, the housework, the toys, the reading, the homework. He works hard at what he does.

If OP doesn't work, then she's getting far more "feeding and entertainment" than I do! I'd bloody love a quarter of the year off without any job to go too! Grin

But presumably you benefit financially from your set up? OP is responsible for 75% of the childcare and 100% of the costs. Vs her ex doing 25%of the care and 0% of the costs. Its not the same.
CovoidOfAllHumanity · 24/02/2021 01:42

Essentially the fair set up is that each family has 1.5 parents

The 2 DC in each family have their own mums contributing wholly to their upbringing with their time and/ or their money. Neither mum has any obligation to the other family.

But the father is the father of all 4 children and should divide his time and money fairly between them. If he has no money he should give his time and if practically he's moved away and can't give half his time he should make up for that with money.

As it happens his new family have 2 parents and his previous family have 1 and a tiny bit. He gives no money and just a tiny bit of his time to them vs all his time to his new family.

It isn't fair and I imagine OP had no choice in this state of affairs she just has to suck it up because those are the choices he has made.

Courtney555 · 24/02/2021 01:42

It doesn't make any difference why OP became single and the emotions/bitterness/or none of the above. Maybe he left her. Maybe she left him. It didn't work out. Blame is irrelevant now, the facts are what they are.

The EXh earns far less than his wife. So they have to have it that she goes to work and he is the SAHP in order to cover the inflated costs of their twins. Because of this Exh isn't contributing anything financially to his own household, or that of OP.

OP (on the basis she's not working as no-one has corrected otherwise) also does not go out to work to support her children while she stays at home. Much like the EXh.

EXh however, has a wife who does work, and provides an income to her own children and partner. What the wife does independently, is not legally connected to OPs children.

Both OP and the EXh are SAHP. One funded by their partner, one funded by the government.

CovoidOfAllHumanity · 24/02/2021 01:45

The OP (and all the DC) are the ones who had no choice in this.

The father chose to leave and chose to have a new family and the new partner was aware he already had 2 DC when she chose to have more children with him. It's fair to expect them both to take his existing children into account because they had that choice whereas OP and her DC had no say.

Courtney555 · 24/02/2021 01:49

But the father is the father of all 4 children and should divide his time and money fairly between them. If he has no money he should give his time and if practically he's moved away and can't give half his time he should make up for that with money.

But OP has already said that logistically, it doesn't work for him to have them anymore than he does, and also, she doesn't want them going there more than they currently are.

If she doesn't want more time from him, and logistically it doesn't work anyway, then yes, he can give them a greater share of his income. Which is nil. Whichever way you look at this, he's got nothing to give.

MrsTerryPratchett · 24/02/2021 01:53

But OP has already said that logistically, it doesn't work for him to have them anymore than he does, and also, she doesn't want them going there more than they currently are.

It only works 'logistically' if you ignore his existing children.

Itsallok · 24/02/2021 01:54

Interesting viewpoints here

SakuraEdenSwan1 · 24/02/2021 01:56

@Courtney555

Just to put a bit of (slightly peripheral) info in to the situation. Twins make a massive difference financially. Without going into a really long speech about why it's absolutely not the same as two children with, say, an 18mth age gap. The expense is unreal. And I say this as the mum of both "singletons" and twins.

I love being a housewife, but it's a good job I do. I could easily go back to work (and did) with singletons. The twins? I can't. Even if I wanted too. And again, there are a hundred reasons why, that I'm not going to derail the thread with, but things that don't even cross your mind (until you are in a "parent of twins" situation) have enormous financial effect.

Someone needs to be the SAHP. Now you've revealed it's twins. If she earns twice as much as him, believe me, they need every penny, he won't have chosen this for the easy life. I know this is of no use to your situation, but I just wanted to add a slightly different angle, as unless you have twins, you can't appreciate the 1000 ways they cost more, need more, the logistics, the time, you just can't explain it.

I'm not saying he's doing right by your DC, but it's likely they have no choice. I love our twins beyond compare, but if I hear one more "oh I know just how you feel, both of mine are under 3" I think I'll explode. It's a completely different ball game. And being real, he most likely has no choice but to be the SAHP. No he can't "just get a job" and if you speak to twin parents who have the time to go into the reality of why, you'll perhaps understand. Again, it doesn't help you, but he couldn't have predicted a multiple birth and all that subsequently entails, also resulting in him no longer working.

The sm isn't going to give up her wage, that she needs to support her own children, and stay at home so her DP can not only bring in far less for her family, but then reduce that further because he's then paying your CMS. Shit, but that's the reality of it. She's not going to voluntarily let her own much more financially demanding twins go significantly without, in order for your DC to slightly gain (I think you said £250 p/m for two children? Less than £10 a day)

It's crap he doesn't contribute. But in the bigger picture, it's less than a tenner a day. Unless you are living in poverty, life is too short. You say 25% of the year your DC are with them. That's actually a hell of a lot!! One day in every four, the SM is covering their costs while they are with her and DP.

I hope your situation is such that you can cope without his shortfall. Our surprise twins have resulted in us changing both our cars, buying a new house, me never working again...all things that we have no choice over, some I like, some I don't, we literally have no choice, it's necessity.

Bullshit, having twins does not stop you working or stop you paying for your existing children, stop making excuses for him, my colleague has twins and works full time as does her husband.
excelledyourself · 24/02/2021 01:58

@Courtney555

But the father is the father of all 4 children and should divide his time and money fairly between them. If he has no money he should give his time and if practically he's moved away and can't give half his time he should make up for that with money.

But OP has already said that logistically, it doesn't work for him to have them anymore than he does, and also, she doesn't want them going there more than they currently are.

If she doesn't want more time from him, and logistically it doesn't work anyway, then yes, he can give them a greater share of his income. Which is nil. Whichever way you look at this, he's got nothing to give.

She didn't say she didn't want the kids having more time? She said it wouldn't be in their best interests. And at 70 miles away, she's right.

He did have more to give. But he decided to move away.

CustardyCreams · 24/02/2021 02:01

Well, as SAHD he must be given pocket money by his wife, can you ask him for a contribution from that based on “as if” he was seeing the kids 50:50?

I can see having the lower income earner as SAHP makes sense as baby twins would mean expensive nursery fees, but it’s hardly your fault, and I do think he should find a way to contribute more to you. Morally that makes sense to me. I’m sorry his new wife has this to bear, but he came with a history and a pre- existing family, so it’s a case of ‘for better, for worse ‘ . Once the twins are older and he is working again, he can recompense his new wife for the money she has subbed you, presumably once the twins are 3 years old he’ll get at least some funded childcare and working will be worthwhile.

I think you have every moral right to know these details.

Try to engage in a calm debate over it, putting the long view and his moral responsibility to care for all his children not just the ones lucky enough to see him every day.

Feel for you, OP. Good luck.

excelledyourself · 24/02/2021 02:07

He could also have put away substantial savings, prior to the babies being born, and used that to be paying at least something for his older DC over the next few years.

SakuraEdenSwan1 · 24/02/2021 02:11

@Courtney555

It doesn't make any difference why OP became single and the emotions/bitterness/or none of the above. Maybe he left her. Maybe she left him. It didn't work out. Blame is irrelevant now, the facts are what they are.

The EXh earns far less than his wife. So they have to have it that she goes to work and he is the SAHP in order to cover the inflated costs of their twins. Because of this Exh isn't contributing anything financially to his own household, or that of OP.

OP (on the basis she's not working as no-one has corrected otherwise) also does not go out to work to support her children while she stays at home. Much like the EXh.

EXh however, has a wife who does work, and provides an income to her own children and partner. What the wife does independently, is not legally connected to OPs children.

Both OP and the EXh are SAHP. One funded by their partner, one funded by the government.

Why do you not work @Courtney555 ?

You are very quick defending the ExHusband here and being goady with the @CrashesOverMe

Perhaps if the ex got off his arse and helped with his older kids, mum would not have to claim government benefits.

PurpleBiro21 · 24/02/2021 07:34

I don’t see why dad cannot get a little job around his partner and provide maintenance for his children that way.
If it were me as he was previously paying 250 pm I’d try to get a couple hours a week and just transfer the lot (minus work costs) and not the CSA minimum.

I’m sorry OP, he sounds just awful.
It doesn’t help you but maybe his new partner doesn’t want to give up her job so she’s not also left high and dry when he moves on.

Pleaseaddcaffine · 24/02/2021 07:50

Op the entirety of this debate is tbh largely pointless. A step parent is not financially responsible for children where she does not have parental rights ie step children.
Yes their father should do 50:50 or try to contribute if course he should morality and legally.
But if he is choosing not to then that's on him, there is no way to force his current partner to pay for him

Persephonegoddess · 24/02/2021 08:04

I read this situation as he is willing to have them 50/50 as he is sahp but you (OP) are not happy for him to do that..... but his situation means that is what he can give/do. It is not your choice if 50/50 or not, he has a choice to do That instead of paying.
The step mother does not have to pay for the Dsc in this situation and the parents need to work out a way to make 50/50 work.

converseandjeans · 24/02/2021 08:08

A lot of women go on to have second families with new partner and don't work (not talking about single Mums on benefits). I don't think there would be the same outrage at her not paying the father any maintenance if the split was similar.

There is still the traditional view on here that men should be the breadwinner but it's ok for women to not work 🤷🏻‍♀️

He doesn't sound a great catch though. Your children are still really young for him to already have moved away and started a new family.

I don't think step mum should pay you maintenance. You've both been stitched up in my opinion.