Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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:
aSofaNearYou · 24/02/2021 10:09

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.

Yes, although these decisions are not always as black and white as they appear on paper. We currently live about 50 miles away from my DSS, but we have lived further away in the past. The reason being that my DP left his marriage with nothing and had to scramble to rebuild. There is next to no work in his industry where DSS lives, it would have been near on impossible for him to be self sufficient and able to provide maintenance there. We live where we need to live.

In terms of giving up work, it's not clear in OPs post, but quite likely that they had envisioned both continuing to work before they knew they were having twins. If the plan was for him to be a SAHP all along, then yes that is morally lacking, but it may not have been.

Magda72 · 24/02/2021 10:20

The point here is that not only is he not contributing financially but he also moved 70 miles away! He KNOWS that 50:50 under those circumstances is not feasible. AND the op is doing the vast majority of the access/contact transport!

Furthermore - his first two dc are very young and 50:50 even during the holidays may not be feasible given the distance and their ages.
He's entitled to move & entitled to move on and have more dc. But, knowing that he could not take his older dc 50:50 he should never have given up work & as HE was the one with previous dc HE should have made this perfectly clear to his dw who could then either choose to cut back on work herself or as a couple they source childcare.
Yes twins are expensive & maybe unexpected but hey, my dd being born with a congenital condition was also expensive & unexpected but neither I nor my h at the time had the option to give up work as we had other dc to feed and clothe.

EnoughnowIthink · 24/02/2021 10:40

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

Even if her ex had the children for the full school holidays, that is only 13 weeks out of 52. Hardly 50/50, is it?

This is why it's OK not to pay maintenance. Women telling women they should just 'suck it up'.

aSofaNearYou · 24/02/2021 10:43

@Magda72 Yes, agreed. Though I can't say I blame his wife particularly for not jumping to move to an area she doesn't want to live in to be close to his kids and give up her career to facilitate him having his. One or both of those things should have been HIS conditions going into their relationship, and he should be the one desperately looking for any kind of solution that allows him to provide for his kids.

SleepingStandingUp · 24/02/2021 10:48

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
The problem is his decision for his situation and his family is I'll do full time childcare for the babies so you can work and provide for turn financially and I'll look after the older kids for 25% of the time and you can cover their food costs whilst they're here. I've moved away, I'm not really responsible for their needs any more

Chewingle · 24/02/2021 10:52

Really pointless thread insofar literally nothing can be done in law.

And the NRP has no desire to change arrangements
And the breadwinner in their relationship has no desire to change the arrangements.

End of!

ineedaholidaynow · 24/02/2021 10:55

When children get older and realise that their deadbeat fathers haven't helped financially, and have prioritised their second family, how do they feel? Obviously the children in this situation are too young to know at the moment.

Magda72 · 24/02/2021 10:59

@aSofaNearYou I fully agree.
And when I said his dw should contribute maintenance I was coming from a point of putting myself in her shoes - ie if my dh & I made the decision for him to move to me & to give up work to 'assist' me maintaining my job/career but I knew it was going to impact on his ability to 'pay' for his other dc then I would feel it appropriate for me to contribute some maintenance. I certainly don't think it should fall on the sm but if she & her dh made those decisions fairly & jointly & as a 'team', then there is an onus to protect his contribution to his other dc.

LaceyBetty · 24/02/2021 11:05

@EnoughnowIthink

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.

100% agree with all of this.
LaceyBetty · 24/02/2021 11:07

Really pointless thread insofar literally nothing can be done in law.

The law needs to change. May result in fewer single mums needing to access social assistance. Win win (except for the deadbeat dad).

Chewingle · 24/02/2021 11:09

@LaceyBetty

Really pointless thread insofar literally nothing can be done in law.

The law needs to change. May result in fewer single mums needing to access social assistance. Win win (except for the deadbeat dad).

The will never and should never change to take into account the earnings of a third party.

I am a single parent. RP.

The idea of taking money from the partner of my ex makes me feel queasy.

MrsHuntGeneNotJeremyObviously · 24/02/2021 11:15

I've said it before but deliberate non payment of CS should lead to prison. This would stop men from giving up work on purpose so they can dodge their responsibility. New wife would have a choice - she says his CS or he gets a job and pays it himself!
Agree with a pp who said that non payment should be as socially unacceptable as drink driving

LaceyBetty · 24/02/2021 11:17

@Chewingle sorry, should have been clearer, I'm not advocating for the step mum to pay, just suggesting that the father shouldn't be let off the hook - at least morally.

AIMD · 24/02/2021 11:24

Yes I think he should pay.
It sounds like he made the decision to be a SAHD based solely on the needs of his younger children without consideration for the needs of his older children with you.

If you lived closer to each other clearly 50/50 would be a more viable option. Given that it isn’t due to the distance he has been selfish.

I don’t think it’s his wife’s responsibility to pay for the older children, but it was his responsibility to have considered how he would provide for his older children when he decided to be a SAHD.

If he would pay around £250 a month he could get a one shift a week job to continue to contribute to their care.

funinthesun19 · 24/02/2021 11:33

The idea of taking money from the partner of my ex makes me feel queasy

I’m the same. I would never take money from another woman for my children, no matter what my ex is up to. Chances are I would be taking money away from another woman’s children in order to feed mine, so it doesn’t sit right with me. It’s on ex to provide for all of them, nobody else.

lunar1 · 24/02/2021 11:36

Even if he could have then 50:50 where is he finding the money for clothes, activities, petrol, uniform and every other resource needed. It wouldn't be the mums responsibility to provide any of these things.

In this specific circumstances the household income should be taken into account in the calculation.

There is more grounds for it to be considered here than there is when calculating university finding.

PurpleBiro21 · 24/02/2021 12:02

@funinthesun19

The idea of taking money from the partner of my ex makes me feel queasy

I’m the same. I would never take money from another woman for my children, no matter what my ex is up to. Chances are I would be taking money away from another woman’s children in order to feed mine, so it doesn’t sit right with me. It’s on ex to provide for all of them, nobody else.

Thing is, with the SAHD arrangement, isn’t he taking food from one set of children’s mouth at the benefit of the two new children?

New family benefits to the detriment of the first.

I understand the challenges and it making sense for him to be at home but he really need to get a PT job to pay maintenance.

Userwoman1990 · 24/02/2021 12:07

I agree this is pointless thread. Simply because child care isn't a wage. There is no financial gain because if the Dad was to work whose to say his wages wouldn't just go on child care for the twins. So the step family are no better off. The Dad isn't contributing to any children with money. That's not to say he isn't a Dad. Very sad that to be a great dad its about how much money you can give. Like I have said before if life was ideal. There would be no step families. Not all dads can live with the kids and have perfect homes. Some meet other people and have children both families are important but you cannot dictate to someone their set up. That's their business. Your Ex could quit work .... get promoted .... get a pay cut ....lose their job... go volunteering. When you split and move on you can't control their actions or their decisions. Nor do you have the right to. You have separate lives connected with the children and thats it. I will re-iterate no children are disadvantaged financially. They have one earning parent each. What each family they have their own finances which is their own business. They have a totally different parent who has different circumstances. Thats the way it is. It cannot be all the same ans in this circumstances the dad isn't able to work and cannot contribute to ANY child .

noeffingwayyyy · 24/02/2021 12:09

It seems to me that the new wife is simply doing what she has to to maintain her own household financially, because otherwise they wouldn't manage - the roof over her children's heads is always going to be more important to her than funding CM. Unless she earns a really good salary, there may just not be anything left at the end of the month. I'm not saying what they have done is morally right, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if that's the situation - to go from 2 salaries with no children to 1 salary with the cost of twins is hell of a hit, and £250 is a not insignificant amount of money to find each month if you don't have it.

The NRP here has decided he's happy to be a SAHP (or maybe not, perhaps he hates it but they have no choice financially given costs (my friend has twins and is paying almost £2k a month in childcare), it's really down to him to find a way to pay CM, if he chooses not to he's obviously comfortable with that within himself, as wrong as that may be. As others have pointed out, he could get a part time job around his wife's hours, he could sell stuff on eBay etc. If he chooses not to, that's on him, not on his new wife.

If, for example my DH decided he wanted to go back to education to improve his career prospects, I would support our household financially (assuming I could!), but I wouldn't pay his CM, and he would know that - that's then down to him to make his decisions based on that info / work out how to pay it himself, he's an adult and as @aSofaNearYou said above, it isn't for me to police his moral decisions.

aSofaNearYou · 24/02/2021 12:09

[quote Magda72]@aSofaNearYou I fully agree.
And when I said his dw should contribute maintenance I was coming from a point of putting myself in her shoes - ie if my dh & I made the decision for him to move to me & to give up work to 'assist' me maintaining my job/career but I knew it was going to impact on his ability to 'pay' for his other dc then I would feel it appropriate for me to contribute some maintenance. I certainly don't think it should fall on the sm but if she & her dh made those decisions fairly & jointly & as a 'team', then there is an onus to protect his contribution to his other dc.
[/quote]
There is of course a scenario where it was joint decision for him to stay at home, perhaps even actively taking into consideration the "saving" in maintenance. I'm not going to say that isn't the situation because it could well be. But, on the flip side, it could have been less of a choice and more a case of "oh, we're expecting twins, that throws all our plans out of the water. He doesn't earn enough to support us all single handedly but I do, just, so I'm going to HAVE to keep working." To then call that woman morally bankrupt if she can't or won't spend a load extra to pay her husband's maintenance doesn't seem right to me.

I think the motivations behind the decisions are relevant and make a big difference to the SMs culpability. The father, of course, should still be moving heaven and Earth to be able to provide something for his kids regardless, even if it's selling things as I mentioned before.

EnoughnowIthink · 24/02/2021 12:09

I don’t think it’s his wife’s responsibility to pay for the older children, but it was his responsibility to have considered how he would provide for his older children when he decided to be a SAHD

It is his wife's responsibility to think 'what a shit, won't pay for his children' and reconsider her options with him. That's my point. Women stand by men who do this and shrug their shoulders and pretend it has nothing at all to do with them. And whilst absolutely, I agree, not the new partner's responsibility, she really needs to take a bit of a longer view and consider what it means. She is part of the problem if she is happy being with someone prepared to dump their first children financially.

ineedaholidaynow · 24/02/2021 12:20

@funinthesun19 so what happens in the position where a mum remarries and has more children with her new partner. Whilst these children are little she becomes SAHM/works PT. The maintenance from her ex isn't going to cover all the costs of the first children. Surely she is taking some money from her new partner to pay for the older children too. But that would be a discussion to be had with her partner when making the decision to have more children/become SAHM. Surely the same discussion should be had when NRP does the same.

AIMD · 24/02/2021 12:22

@EnoughnowIthink

Oh I agree that ideally a person should consider the needs of all the children impacted by their choices. I certainly wouldn’t be impressed with a partner who was happy to pay nothing towards his other children’s needs.

However when push comes to shove the children are the father’s responsibility and it was the fathers responsibility to make sure the set up was suitable for all his children.

Youseethethingis · 24/02/2021 12:25

You can only piss with the cock you’ve got.
If the dads earning power is less than the mums and they would have x2 lots of simultaneous childcare to pay for leaving them running a deficit potentially then the solution is obvious.
Their household, of which the DSC are a part, still needs to be paid for, and there’s no sense in upending their finances unnecessarily on a point of principle. All the children could potentially pay dearly for that for years to come.
However, if “the family” have X income then the children of that family should all be seeing a slice of it.

It can’t be “family money” when the man earns it and “her money” when the woman earns it.
The family should be paying child maintenance.
If personally wouldn’t see my DSD go without if I could help it.
It’s totally different to other threads where dads have been made redundant and ex’s are banging at the door looking for the SM to pay up. In that situation both mothers are suddenly without the dads financial contribution and both just need to deal with it as best they can.
This involves actually planning it out and weighing it up. To deliberately take a decision to just not provide for 50% of your children is wrong.

lunar1 · 24/02/2021 12:26

@Userwoman1990, what response do you think you would get if you posted 'AIBU to think a SAHP contributes nothing of financial value to a family?'

Swipe left for the next trending thread