Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Step-parenting

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

Original poster

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:
AIMD · 24/02/2021 12:28

@Userwoman1990

But he is contributing to the financial security of one set of children. His childcare makes the financial situation for his younger children more stable. He just hasn’t bothered to think about how it impacts his older children and/or is relying on the older children’s mum picking up his slack.

Of course no one should/could control their ex partners future actions. However parents should continue to take responsibly for their children’s care and financial needs and one parent should t have to pick up the slack because the other has changed their life in a way that means they can no longer provide adequately for their children.

aSofaNearYou · 24/02/2021 12:34

@Youseethethingis Whilst I agree this isn't quite the same as situations where the NRP has been made redundant, what if the SM simply cannot afford to pay maintenance on top of being the sole provider for her own household?

funinthesun19 · 24/02/2021 12:38

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 do see what you’re saying and I don’t think an NRP should be a SAHD to his youngest children if he has other children he needs to pay maintenance for. I do find that very irresponsible of him and it also puts far too much on to the partner’s shoulders in terms of supporting another household financially as well as her own. It’s actually quite selfish of him and it’s frustrating to think they think it’s acceptable.
I still couldn’t bring myself to accept money from anyone else but my ex though. Like another poster said, I’d feel a bit queasy accepting it because ultimately it’s not her responsibility to pay it.

Courtney555 · 24/02/2021 12:46

Interestingly, both OP and the EXh don't work to financially pay for (any of) their children. However, because OP receives government funding, and EXh is funded by his wife, EXh should just go and get a job to give OP money?

EXh has 4 children. He financially contributes to zero of them. Two of them stay home with him, two of them stay home with their mother in her house. Their children are in the same situation from both of their parents, except they live with OP, because they have to live with one of them! OP is trying to compare with children that aren't hers, who are in a completely different situation. Yes they are. Because their mother goes out to work. They spend the day with their father and the mother sacrifices that time with them to provide financially for them all. That's none of OPs business and she is not entitled to gain from it. OP could always get a job...yet no one seems to think she should.

excelledyourself · 24/02/2021 12:52

@Courtney555

Interestingly, both OP and the EXh don't work to financially pay for (any of) their children. However, because OP receives government funding, and EXh is funded by his wife, EXh should just go and get a job to give OP money?

EXh has 4 children. He financially contributes to zero of them. Two of them stay home with him, two of them stay home with their mother in her house. Their children are in the same situation from both of their parents, except they live with OP, because they have to live with one of them! OP is trying to compare with children that aren't hers, who are in a completely different situation. Yes they are. Because their mother goes out to work. They spend the day with their father and the mother sacrifices that time with them to provide financially for them all. That's none of OPs business and she is not entitled to gain from it. OP could always get a job...yet no one seems to think she should.

Where have you read that OP doesn't work?

Have I missed this?

SleepingStandingUp · 24/02/2021 12:53

It’s actually quite selfish of him and it’s frustrating to think they think it’s acceptable
Or, they don't have any other options. They may have planned to have one child knowing they could afford fulltime childcare and for DH to keep up mas maintenance payments. Then it's twins and suddenly everything is so much more expensive. They might have to dip into savings to cover their basics and realised they can't afford childcare. So the lower earner quits.

Yes the higher Warner could quit so the lower earner could pay maintenance but if they can't cover all the bills on his sole wage they're not going to pit their own housing on jeopardy.

And you I know she could have chosen to abort twins and try for a singleton as I've been told before on MN but on reality that doesn't happen except in the most extreme cases of ever

Userwoman1990 · 24/02/2021 13:01

Its maths here, SAHP is providing childcare yes and it has immense value. I would argue that you cannot put that into financial terms as you have a parent there all the time and that gives a child fantastic benefits . But a SAHP is not bringing in a wage. That's a fact. Doesn't mean there is no value. The dad has no wage to give any of his kids. Thats a fact. The SP is the only one with a wage. As in money and the DP is the other one with a wage. The truth is you find when two parents work one wage goes entirely on child care and on twins that would most likey to the case. Both households have one income. Irrespective of how many adults are in the household. The DP may have free child care in grandparents Etc you don't know her set up and thats her business or she may not . Both mothers here are not getting money from the dad thats a fact!! The dad may not of had a choice here as there may not have been enough money to go around to pay full time child care for twins and maintenance so what do you want the guy to do ? Kill himself working 2/3 jobs to provide and never see all 4 of his kids and impact a family home ? . The kids are here so no point in shoulda woulda coulda. Its the set up and the DP can't do anything. Maybe if we had affordable child care that didn't force people into these positions thats would help.

EnoughnowIthink · 24/02/2021 13:07

Whilst I agree this isn't quite the same as situations where the NRP has been made redundant, what if the SM simply cannot afford to pay maintenance on top of being the sole provider for her own household?

The partner needs to get a part time job. Plenty of families manage to care for their children and work around each other. Does having two children make you special in that regard? Presumably you expect the OP to work and manage her children herself? In which case, why can't her ex and his partner do the same - they have the advantage of being two people after all?

Youseethethingis · 24/02/2021 13:09

what if the SM simply cannot afford to pay maintenance on top of being the sole provider for her own household?
It would be a case of cutting your cloth in every possible way and see what you can do. I’d not be paying the same level of maintainable as when the father was working if it wasn’t affordable.
I can’t get my head around just cancelling paying for my husbands children as if they were an unused Sky Sports subscription.
That’s not to say I’d be making my own child suffer or working myself into the ground either to pay either.
There’s balance to be found somewhere.

Userwoman1990 · 24/02/2021 13:11

@Courtney555- absolutely 💯!!!!!
Totally agree here thank you !!

EXh has 4 children. He financially contributes to zero of them. Two of them stay home with him, two of them stay home with their mother in her house. Their children are in the same situation from both of their parents, except they live with OP, because they have to live with one of them! OP is trying to compare with children that aren't hers, who are in a completely different situation. Yes they are. Because their mother goes out to work. They spend the day with their father and the mother sacrifices that time with them to provide financially for them all. That's none of OPs business and she is not entitled to gain from it. OP could always get a job...yet no one seems to think she should.
All children are not getting money from the Dad.

Exactly right!!!!

aSofaNearYou · 24/02/2021 13:12

The partner needs to get a part time job. Plenty of families manage to care for their children and work around each other. Does having two children make you special in that regard? Presumably you expect the OP to work and manage her children herself? In which case, why can't her ex and his partner do the same - they have the advantage of being two people after all?

I'm not sure what your angle is here. I've said all along that the dad should get a job/some other income. But the SM is already working full time and providing for her children. My question was, if that wage isn't enough to also pay the maintenance her husband owes, what is SHE supposed to do about it?

EnoughnowIthink · 24/02/2021 13:14

The dad may not of had a choice here as there may not have been enough money to go around to pay full time child care for twins and maintenance so what do you want the guy to do ? Kill himself working 2/3 jobs to provide and never see all 4 of his kids and impact a family home

Change 'dad' to 'single mum'. The expectation of this forum is that the ex partner works and provides for her children. Many, many of us do that without any support (financial or otherwise) from our ex partners. That includes (in my case anyway) killng myself working 3 jobs to provide. And if we dare to ask to drop something to make our lives a little bit easier, we are called benefit scum and why do we expect the tax payers to help out when we could be working? Don't you think my family life is impacted by doing what I have to do to keep the roof over our heads? Why on earth does being a couple and having twins make you so special you get family time and don't have to do whatever necessary to support yoru family? This is a man who has chosen to have additional children. He needs to go the extra mile to make sure they are all supported.

EnoughnowIthink · 24/02/2021 13:15

My question was, if that wage isn't enough to also pay the maintenance her husband owes, what is SHE supposed to do about it?

Be disgusted that the person she loves is happy to sack off the financial support of some of his children? Actually make it an issue in their lives? Not accept it? Why would you love someone who could do that?

EnoughnowIthink · 24/02/2021 13:18

All children are not getting money from the Dad

yeah. But dad is supporting two of those children with childcare costs - that's money in his household that isn't in his ex's household. So his new partner gets her full wage, no childcare costs. Ex partner gets full wage minus childcare costs minus the ability to get entirely flexible at work thus reducing her reliability when children are sick and her ability to climb a career ladder.

MrsTophamHat · 24/02/2021 13:23

I think that maintenance payments to his children should have been factored in as a fundamental outgoing when they made the decision. Presumably his wife pays for the rest of his personal expenses; phone contract, any car insurance, clothes etc? Only if he is also doing without any other completely personal, not family expenses, is this acceptable.

Magda72 · 24/02/2021 13:23

@Courtney555 - not being goady but where did op say she doesn't work? I must have missed that.

excelledyourself · 24/02/2021 13:26

[quote Magda72]@Courtney555 - not being goady but where did op say she doesn't work? I must have missed that.[/quote]
You've missed nothing. Posters have come up with that themselves and others are running with it!

aSofaNearYou · 24/02/2021 13:26

Be disgusted that the person she loves is happy to sack off the financial support of some of his children? Actually make it an issue in their lives? Not accept it? Why would you love someone who could do that?

That's an entirely different argument to whether she should pay it for him knowing that would not leave enough to cover her own household, though, isn't it?

EnoughnowIthink · 24/02/2021 13:30

You've missed nothing. Posters have come up with that themselves and others are running with it!

Yep. My point exactly. Single mum = must work yourself into the ground or you're scum. Dad in a couple = doesn't have to work too hard or his family will suffer.

Simple fact of the matter is even if the OP doesn't work, her ex still has a moral obligation to support his children even if his legal obligation is conveniently removed by not working.

Oswin · 24/02/2021 13:31

[quote Userwoman1990]@Courtney555- absolutely 💯!!!!!
Totally agree here thank you !!

EXh has 4 children. He financially contributes to zero of them. Two of them stay home with him, two of them stay home with their mother in her house. Their children are in the same situation from both of their parents, except they live with OP, because they have to live with one of them! OP is trying to compare with children that aren't hers, who are in a completely different situation. Yes they are. Because their mother goes out to work. They spend the day with their father and the mother sacrifices that time with them to provide financially for them all. That's none of OPs business and she is not entitled to gain from it. OP could always get a job...yet no one seems to think she should.
All children are not getting money from the Dad.

Exactly right!!!![/quote]
Why have you and Courtney both decided the OP doesnt work?

Userwoman1990 · 24/02/2021 13:31

@EnoughnowIthink I won't change Dad to single mum this isn't about being a single mum. This is about a families decision

Childcare is not 24/7 it is also extortionate.
I'm sure this family sat down did the maths and worked out that they cannot afford it. All kids suffer if they couldn't see their dad due to him just working. He isn't contributing to any child financially. The money for his household comes from his wife, who is supporting her family. He has older children, who he is equally not paying for. But has time to see them. Everything he is doing is legal. You can't pay something from nothing and his new wife's life choices and wages are not something that should come into it. Much like if the OP got into a relationship.

MixedUpFiles · 24/02/2021 13:31

When I was a sahp, my spouses earnings were also my earnings. Without my childcare, he could not have earned. We were a team in effort and profit. So I really don’t see why we would t have shared financial obligations as well.

Starlightstarbright1 · 24/02/2021 13:35

@FoffeeCoffee

What % of time does he have them? And what is the maintenance shortfall based on what he was earning?

Can't he offer to have them more to make it up to 50%?

these kind of comments really annoy me..

Why should a man ( or woman for that matter) who is so disinterested in supporting his child get more care. it doesn't scream I care to me.

PerfectPenquins · 24/02/2021 13:36

It should never have got to this point. When he chose to move 70 miles away he made it clear he had no intention of seeing his kids regularly. At that point he was shouting about his lack of responsibility and dedication to his kids. Now he's managed to mooch off this new woman who has standards so low she sees nothing wrong in him not financially contributing towards his first kids. If they split he will be made lol he will be main carer and probably have the twins most of the time and not pay for any of them lol what a catch. Op I'd write him off. It's shit but he dosnt care and you can't force it. Don't put yourself out with travel anymore with zero contributions from dad that's unacceptable to expect you to pay for him to see his kids.

SleepingStandingUp · 24/02/2021 13:39

Whilst I agree they should be contributing as a family unit @PerfectPenquins do you consider ALL SAHPs to be mooching off their partner even if they children are v young and you can't as a household afford childcare? Or just men?