Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

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:
Userwoman1990 · 24/02/2021 08:15

I think realistically you can't make the step parent pay they are not legally responsible. Both households have income from one parent . As it stands it is fair. The SAHD isn't contributing financially to any child. He just happens to live with the twins and isn't working. Unfortunately families break up. Not everyone is meant to be with the person they have babies with . We live and learn. Children adapt and step families are the new normal. His first family are no worse off then his family with his twins. From what he is doing. The step mums wage or family dynamics has nothing to do with the dynamics of the older children's upbringing.

lunar1 · 24/02/2021 08:24

Honestly anyone making excuses for the ex must be as morally bankrupt as he is. What on earth does it say about our society that it's ok for a parent to just move on to the next set of children and neglect the first ones.

I think you need to stop contributing to travel in any way @CrashesOverMe, it's the only way to claw back a little of the loss. He should have expected to be doing it all when moving 70 miles away.

MrsHuntGeneNotJeremyObviously · 24/02/2021 08:27

It's not their fault they are raising children as a couple and OP is (presumed) a single woman.

Eh? How is it not their fault? No one should be having more children if it means they can't look after their existing ones.

MrsHuntGeneNotJeremyObviously · 24/02/2021 08:34

Userwoman the second family is very much better off, since there are no childcare costs. Life is so much easier when one parent sah - no stress over what happens in school holidays or when the children are unwell. His new wife benefits from that at the financial expense of his first wife and DC.
One day his DC are going to be old enough to know where the money and care comes from. What they are going to see is that their mum did everything and their dad loved away and didn't even pay child support. It will colour how much respect they have for him and the relationship. I don't understand how people can live with themselves being a deadbeat parent.

PurpleBiro21 · 24/02/2021 08:36

@converseandjeans if a mum has a second family as a SAHP, NRP with her existing children she would be questioned as to maintenance, she cannot expect the kids to live on fresh air.

Most of the time the existing DC will live with her and new partner will be subsidising the SC.

I don’t think SM should be obliged to contribute to SC, but I’ve also seen it where CM was seen as a ‘saving’ if dad stays home.

It’s immoral and I just couldn’t be with a man who didn’t move heaven and earth to provide for his offspring.

70 miles distance is probably too far for 50:50 and again, who would be paying for uniform/ clothes etc?

LaceyBetty · 24/02/2021 09:07

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.

I find would fine this absolutely as outrageous. You can't abdicate responsibility for your children because you split with their other parent. I would judge a mother who did this as much (assuming she was perfectly capable of work).

If you can't afford the second family while still paying for the first, you don't have the second.

aSofaNearYou · 24/02/2021 09:21

Morally though when you think about it a bit more he is saving them a lot of childcare money by not working so it is a benefit in kind that she is getting and perhaps she does have some obligation morally if not legally to help him to pay a small amount of maintenance. If she was paying him the value of the childcare then he should pass some of it on to you.

Well my DP is currently the main breadwinner, while I am at home with our toddler. As much as it would be dangerous and incorrect to say I "owe" him for providing for us, when in reality what I am doing is looking after the child we share because one of us has to, it is equally wrong to say he owes me. We are equal, because our tasks are an equal contribution to our joint household, and equally important. She doesn't owe him for looking after their kids.

He has put himself in a position where he is financially reliant on somebody that does not owe him or his older children anything.

Magda72 · 24/02/2021 09:23

The SAHD isn't contributing financially to any child.
@Userwoman1990 - but he is!
He's saving his dw childcare costs. Sahm's often use the above argument to apply for spousal maintenance & pension rights on divorcing - they are 'owed' money for providing childcare & maintaining the home - so why is it different for a sahd?
This issue here is two of his dc are directly benefitting from his being at home but the other two most definitely are not. I would agree with him not paying maintenance if he was geographically able to also mind his older dc thus also saving op childcare but he's not. Not only is he not paying maintenance, he has also moved away.
I don't often say this as I don't generally believe the care of sdc should fall on sparents. However, in this case where the dad has voluntarily given up work to benefit his family, then his wife should use her wage to pay maintenance as SHE is directly benefitting from his giving up work. I think the actions of both the dad & the sm in this situation are awful as they both know they can't take the op's dc 50:50 but are somehow making this op's issue.
I do get the argument that twins are a huge expense but that's life & it doesn't mean that other dc should be so financially neglected!
@CrashesOverMe I can't really give you any advice as I'm in Ireland & here maintenance is enforced even if the nrp is unemployed - some contribution is enforced no matter how small so I'm a little astonished that legally you can't challenge your exh on this.

MrsHuntGeneNotJeremyObviously · 24/02/2021 09:27

Sofa, isn't it more that you 'owe' each other? You are contributing equally, but in different ways.
I think his wife does owe him/his older children because that's what being in a family is - it's the joining of lives. If there's no responsibility or obligation to each other, what is the point?

Courtney555 · 24/02/2021 09:28

I think realistically you can't make the step parent pay they are not legally responsible. Both households have income from one parent . As it stands it is fair. The SAHD isn't contributing financially to any child. He just happens to live with the twins and isn't working. Unfortunately families break up. Not everyone is meant to be with the person they have babies with . We live and learn. Children adapt and step families are the new normal. His first family are no worse off then his family with his twins. From what he is doing. The step mums wage or family dynamics has nothing to do with the dynamics of the older children's upbringing.

Exactly this.

If the EXh was to move out and live on his own, and not work (live on universal credit also) his CMS would be something akin to zero, like £7 a week.

The problem here is him moving on and living with his twins. Relationships break up. He can't live with all of them, he's being berated for the audacity to live with children other than OPs. That's life. This isn't about money. He could offer more time, but OP isn't interested in that.

His first family are no worse off then his family with his twins. From what he is doing. The step mums wage or family dynamics has nothing to do with the dynamics of the older children's upbringing

Just to repeat, as @Userwoman1990 got it spot on.

combatbarbie · 24/02/2021 09:31

Morally the NRP should still pay, legally he doesn't have too if he has no income.

aSofaNearYou · 24/02/2021 09:36

@Courtney555 You raise some great points and your initial comment was very much something I was trying and struggling to express. They won't have anticipated having twins and will have has to respond accordingly - if his partner was earning more than him/he was earning less than childcare for twins then this course of action will have been a necessity.

In terms of the SM, if I were her, I would not be giving up my career prospects purely because my DP had older kids, particularly given the oft cited implications for women that do give up work and the onus of funding raising twins going forward, should they ever split. Nor would I have paid his maintenance. I would have made it clear before trying for a baby that I planned on continuing working, and DP would have had to agree or not. The morally ideal amongst us might say that she should have walked away rather than allow him to agree to a situation that would disadvantage his older kids, but the honest truth is she was just doing what worked for her, in her own life. Quite possibly in response to unexpected circumstances (the twins), rather than in a premeditated manner.

I don't police my DPs moral decisions, they are his to make, and a solution is his to find. There are ways he could have conceivably done that, from her perspective. He could have sorted out contact so they had them more. If he has anything of value to sell, he could have done. A laptop sold for £1000 would cover 4 months of maintenance. If there is no way for him to work and their household to stay afloat, he needs to be looking at solutions like that, rather than looking to her to sort it out.

LaceyBetty · 24/02/2021 09:37

If the EXh was to move out and live on his own, and not work (live on universal credit also) his CMS would be something akin to zero, like £7 a week.

Which would also be outrageous assuming he could work. You can't make choices like this when you have two very young children needing food.

MrsHuntGeneNotJeremyObviously · 24/02/2021 09:37

The dad lives 70 miles away. Realistically how can he offer the OP anything she needs on a daily basis? Even if he has them more during school holidays, that means the mum gets all the term time slot and less of the fun downtime. How is that fair?
Taking an 'it's life' attitude is very dismissive of his children's need to be supported and cared for by both of their parents. Children's needs don't diminish because dad has decided he made a mistake in marrying their mum and is entitled to a second family!
And it's ridiculous to say the situation would be the same for those kids if the dad moved out and lived alone, on benefits. He's unlikely to do that - I bet his standard of living is nicer now than it would be on benefits and if he was on them, the state would be pressuring him to get a job and support himself and his kids.

It sets the bar very low to equate a parent's obligation to the worst case scenario of him living alone, on benefits. That's meant to be a safety net, not the criteria by which we assess parental responsibility

aSofaNearYou · 24/02/2021 09:40

@MrsHuntGeneNotJeremyObviously

Sofa, isn't it more that you 'owe' each other? You are contributing equally, but in different ways. I think his wife does owe him/his older children because that's what being in a family is - it's the joining of lives. If there's no responsibility or obligation to each other, what is the point?
No, neither of us are in deficit to one another because we are both contributing equally to our JOINT responsibilities. I don't agree that the wife owes him/his older children because they are "family", it's not how I view step families or finances. They are his responsibility.
ineedaholidaynow · 24/02/2021 09:43

This dad has really put his children’s needs first -not! To move away so can’t see them regularly or provide term time childcare and then stop paying maintenance. Bet they will also argue that they can’t afford to take them anywhere too when the twins are older (but will still take the twins)

SleepingStandingUp · 24/02/2021 09:44

If the EXh was to move out and live on his own, and not work (live on universal credit also) his CMS would be something akin to zero, like £7 a week. And everyone would berate him for not contributing to his children. But because he's only not contributing to half of them it's ok?

he's being berated for the audacity to live with children other than OPs no, for abdicating financial responsibility for his first two young children in favour of his next babies.

He could offer more time, but OP isn't interested in that. He MOVED 70 miles away. You think someone who moves 70 miles away is interested in seeing their kids any more than they currently are, esp with toddler twins on top (I'm part because if he's driving 70 miles to see them during working week he'd have them with him. He can't sleep over anywhere because he has to care for the twins)? Sounds like he's already having them most holidays, should op never see her children except term time whilst he gets all the fun time to go on holiday? Is that good for such young children?

His first family are no worse off then his family with his twins he's likely contributing more than his full wages in the form of childcare.

EnoughnowIthink · 24/02/2021 09:51

Shouldn’t be allowed to happen? So what’s your solution? Force him to work? Force him to pay? How? Interested in how in a perfect world it wouldnt be allowed

It is a very sad reflection on our society that we need a CMS in the first place. In an ideal world, we would support our children come rain or shine without question. Sadly, child maintenance is something associated with women/mothers and is surrounded by unpleasant misogyny deeply rooted in our legal system. If men needed to claim maintenance in the same was as women do, you would find it was far harder to dodge - look at how the non-payment of council tax is handled. The Law and child maintenance don't quite fit - there has been absolutely no political will, for example, to ensure that the children of self-employed parents are fairly supported.

Women are labelled 'grabby' and 'dependent' when they expect the father of their children to pay for them. It is considered a 'family matter', something that happens behind closed doors - almost as if if she were decent and reasonable he would pay but he doesn't, therefore she isn't, it's quite clearly her problem. You see/hear comment after comment along the lines of 'she got the house/gets all the benefits' with the silent 'so why should he have to pay?' closely behind. If a woman dares to earn more than a man then again, why should he pay?

We don't judge men who don't pay maintenance, they can brag about it in the pub with their mates, their sisters and mothers, female friends and colleagues will all agree she's a money grabbing bitch if pushed to do so. Few people who are uncomfortable feel able to speak out because it's simply not the done thing. Some women actively seek to intervene and are happy to see a first wife struggle because it seems to say 'I love you more than I ever loved her' and that is so very satisfying. There are any number of women happy to be in a relationship with a man who has children and ask no questions about their support.

We have villified the 'single mum' to the point that many people rush into unsuitable relationships because they dont' want the stigma for them or their children. Working single mums are judged - plenty of 'oh, those poor children, always in childcare, why on earth did she ever bother to have them?' whilst dad who picks up once a week gets 'what a wonderful father he is! the children really should live with him, not that bitch who puts her career first!' Non working single mums are judged - who do they think they are on benefits, not even trying to help themselves. And again, wonderful dad rocks up once a week and takes centre stage.

The non-payment of maintenance should become as socially unacceptable as drink driving or smoking whilst pregnant. People should fear others knowing they do it. They should seek to hide it and family and friends should feel confident to challenge because they know there is the law and some kind of moral/social back up in our psyche that say's it's wrong.

Magda72 · 24/02/2021 09:56

@aSofaNearYou - all fair points but the implication here is the exh also moved to be with his new family. This combined with giving up work is a pretty bad reflection on both his & his dw's attitude to his older dc - who are still really young - as they must have had discussion around the move and once pregnant around what would happen next.
@Courtney555 - I for one am not and would not berate anyone for moving on with their lives & having more dc, but as a person I would find it very hard to procreate with & respect a man who felt no financial responsibility towards his two very young children - just like I vehemently disagree with men who fork out vast sums of money for the benefit of their exw's & 'first' dc & to the detriment of new partners and/or subsequent children.
If you decide to have children then you need to be prepared to provide for all of them. This man did not lose a job. He & his dw actively chose to have dc but then actively chose for him to give up work & that is not the action of a responsible parent & I'd be saying exactly the same if he was a woman.

excelledyourself · 24/02/2021 09:57

@Courtney555

He could offer more time, but OP isn't interested in that.

They 70 miles away. How can he offer more time in a way that doesn't further disrupt the lives of his children and their mum.

Should she move nearer him to make this feasible? Should she give up all school holidays to him?

It is not a case of not being "interested". It's far too disruptive for the kids, and again just an easy option for the dad.

funinthesun19 · 24/02/2021 09:58

If the EXh was to move out and live on his own, and not work (live on universal credit also) his CMS would be something akin to zero, like £7 a week.

This is my ex. He pays no maintenance for the children he has with me (never has done) and nowadays he also now pays nothing the child he has with his ex wife.
His child with his ex received maintenance for the whole 10 years I was with him. My children probably never will. And he begrudged our children stuff when we were together.
So honestly, I feel like my children have just been shitted on their whole lives and it will never change. First children aren’t always the only ones who get a bad deal.

EnoughnowIthink · 24/02/2021 09:58

The SAHD isn't contributing financially to any child. He just happens to live with the twins and isn't working

He is contributing financially if he is providing childcare. If the children were in childcare then I would agree with you but this is not the same situation for all the children.

excelledyourself · 24/02/2021 09:59

And he's probably happy to say he'll have them more, safe in the knowledge it's never going to happen.

Blendiful · 24/02/2021 09:59

I personally think whilst it feels a bit shitty that what should be happening here is that he has the kids 50% of the time, or as close to that as possible if distance/school etc is an issue.

There’s lots of options here, but most probably wouldn’t be considered so guess it’s just something that has to be sucked up.

I think if he and his new partner are making a decision that is best for their situation, this isn’t wrong, she may have earn more/have more flexibility/have a career etc. Childcare is expensive so if they have to make a decision to best suit their family and this is it, then that’s just the way it is. He isn’t supporting his new family financially either if he isn’t working. Only with time so technically his nee partner is in the same position as you, except she has his time instead. That is why I would suggest he does 50/50 childcare in which case no maintainence would be due anyway.

However 50/50 if there is a distance may mean him having them the entirety of school holidays and weekends if it needs to fit around school etc. And I would guess RP doesn’t want this? (Could be wrong) in which case as I said it’s just something to suck up.

I would guess it’s unlikely he will remain a sahp forever once his other children start school/get older and etc so at some point he will have to pay something out.

It’s not ideal, but it happens and I actually don’t think he’s doing anything wrong. I’m sure there are plenty of situations on the flip side where the RP is a sahp claiming benefits to support the children and some dads may be earning loads and contributing way more than 50% and potentially even having them 50% too.

My DP provides all things for his DC such as uniform, school shoes, hobby attire (expensive hobby) and clothes, food etc when they are with us. DSCs mum provides only for the stuff when they are with them but nothing extra and we have DSC at least it not more than 50% of the time. Whereas my ex contributes the minimal maintainence and begrudges that! He has them probably 10% of the time usually.

Everyone’s situation is different and I think In this case ether a trade off of more time is needed to compensate or you just have to ride it out until he is working again

MrsHuntGeneNotJeremyObviously · 24/02/2021 10:02

Blendiful time is a really valuable asset. If he's looking after his twins full time, he's saving his family unit a hell of a lot of money in childcare costs.
And again, he moved 70 miles away - it's impossible for him to have his older DC 50/50