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.

@aSofaNearYou

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?

If it could not be covered, then he cannot afford to not work and he needs to generate sufficient income. It is not like cancelling Netflix.

It is not like cancelling Netflix

That really resonates with me. Children are absolutely not cancellable yet so many seem to think they are.

This thread is depressing in there are so many, many women happy to right off first children with a shrug of 'not my problem' yet maintain the relationship. Very sad for us as a society

My ex does this he had two more kids, after abandoning mine and hasn't paid a penny for years not that he did before either, he just gets to do this legally now and I get my yearly letter saying how he doesn't have to pay a penny.

I think it's absolute madness and I think any woman thinking that it is ok to do that is deluded.

I am so fortunate to be able to give my kids a comfortable life but there are many kids going without because of this awful loophole.

When one person is a sahp for the financial benefit of the unit as a whole, then the woh partner's wage is family money, to be spent on family expenses. Child support is a family expense and should be a priority bill. If this couple are literally on the bones of their arse and the dad has tried really hard to pick up an evening or weekend job and they aren't paying out for sky TV or new iPhones or holidays, then fair enough for the state to step in and cover his child support. I'd be really surprised if that's the case though.
The state shouldn't have to pick up his slack (and neither should the OP) so he can sit at home with the younger DC and still have family time when his wife finishes work. He had 4 kids and he should be paying half of what it costs to keep them, or at the very least making a contribution.
It's the principle of it as well as the money.

@excelledyourself thanks for the clarification .
I am normally a great supporter of sms & blended families on here - my own dc are a blended family at their dad's - & I'm also a great believer in separated/divorced mother's also financially contributing to their dc except when dc may have special needs or are preschool age. I don't believe all financial support should be left to dads.
However, there seems to be a lot of moral ambiguity in this situation. Even if the op isn't working it would seem that she was left with two very young dc & possibly didn't have a chance to get back on her feet work wise before her ex left. By my calculations her youngest must have been only 2 at the very most when he left. Now, the combination of leaving such a young family to start another one so soon, the moving 70 miles away & the stopping work & refusing to pay maintenance really does not add up to this man being a particularly nice or interested father. He seems to have done things to suit only him & his new set up with very little thought for the dc he has left behind. Whether or not he's legally at fault is neither here nor there - it's a pretty reprehensible way to behave.

Sorry the reality is he should take an evening job to earn money to support he children, hes being irresponsible not to provide maintenance

@minniemoocher

Sorry the reality is he should take an evening job to earn money to support he children, hes being irresponsible not to provide maintenance

Nice to be in your world where it’s just a case of ‘taking a job’!

My husband has been a SAHD for 8 years since he was made redundant. I was also made redundant at the same time btw, but I walked into a new job and he didn’t.

Our twins were at pre-school by then. They’d been in full time nursery and we took the financial hit to keep in at our jobs.

I paid his maintenance for his eldest son until this year when he turned 20, because it was the right thing to do. I still think that. I couldn’t have lived with myself to not do that.

DH has tried hard to get a job with no luck at all. We live in a city centre of a university town and I can only assume that it’s his age working against him as he can do any shift pattern going, but has never even been granted an interview.

Anyway, that’s off on a tangent, but I do think the step parent should pay maintenance under these circumstances.

If it could not be covered, then he cannot afford to not work and he needs to generate sufficient income. It is not like cancelling Netflix.

Agreed.

I agree with posters asking where the OP said she didn't work?

@MustardMitt there is no suggestion that the ExH can't find a job. As far as we have been told, the new family made a conscious decision that the deadbeat father would be a SAHD thus depriving his other children any financial benefit of his existence. That is very different.

I wonder how the Ex H would feel if the DC were told (when they're older) that dad stopped financially contributing to their upbringing when he had more children with his second partner.

It comes down to morals and values really. I understand the childcare costs for twins is high, but just pulling out of contributing financially to your existing children isn't good enough.

It's this kind of behaviour that makes people say men are the optional parent, but him moving 70 miles away gives an indication of his priorities.

When my DB remarried, his DW wanted to stay where she lived, but DB said no as he needed to be near his kids who were all in primary school at the time.

@SleepingStandingUp

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?

In this case I say its mooching as he is actively not paying for his eldest children. He is also now not paying for his youngest it shows a pattern of behaviour for me. To me it looks like he has made this decision to duck out of his responsibility which he has done successfully. No decent parent chooses not to pay for their kids, he has so that why I see him as a lazy moocher.

This thread throws up a whole load of ethical issues and it is going to depend where you sit on all of that.

Legally he isn’t doing anything wrong. Morally a whole other thing.

But there are lots of questions, should his new partner not be allowed children in case this reduces his maintainence? Should she have endured only one egg was fertilised?

CMS calculates that maintanence is reduced when the NRP has more children, that makes sense, their obligations have changed. The income NRP had was previous allocated for himself and only his 2 children. That responsibility has now doubled. I am sure they didn’t plan twins but it has happened. As other people have said childcare would likely be at least £300-£400 a week for fill time for twins, so unless he earns a lot most if not all of his wages would cover this. so no one would be any better off in the long run, well technically he would still have to pay some
Maintanence so likely his current household may not be able to function/afford to live.

I imagine they have weighed up what they can/can’t afford and this has been the way it works. It’s not ideal, in an ideal world he would contribute. But maybe he can contribute with more time with the DC and then in things he can afford if he can buy things for them when they need it; but potentially not contribute weekly financially.

If his earnings are 0 he legally can’t be made to pay anything.

Both households have 1 income. This would be no different if RP decided to have another child and then her costs would have to split between that child and the others; maternity leave factored in etc, would they be penalised for not contributing what they previously used to and be expected to find the extra, take less maternity leave etc to do so? Probably not.

It’s just the way life works, people’s circumstances change, and this can happen overnight in some cases. Ideally all parent should contribute equally 50/50 in both money and time IMO but it rarely if ever works like that, because everyone is balancing things. It’s no different to being in a relationship, I imagine his new partner has taken a hit too, they have gone from having 2 incomes and 25% of 2 kids costs to cover (when they visit) to 1 income and 2 full time kids costs to cover.

If we are always expecting NRP to maintain the exact amount of maintanence, never to have more children unless they are earning an extra appropriate amount to fund that. It’s not realistic: both parents and entitled to move on and have further children if they wish to; and whether NRP or RP does this the current children will be impacted by sharing further with others, in some cases this impact will be bigger than other cases, it wholly depends.

It’s difficult yes, but legally not doing anything wrong and I do think some people have unrealistic expectations around NRP and how they should live their life when they no longer live with DC and these expectations don’t often join up with the expectations of the RP.

@LaceyBetty I know that, I was just recounting my own personal experience.

If the NRP cannot pay the bare minimum maintenance then the step parent should. He can’t/won’t so his wife should.

I understand the childcare costs for twins is high, but just pulling out of contributing financially to your existing children isn't good enough
All of the children exist, not just the eldest ones.

I won't change Dad to single mum this isn't about being a single mum

But it is about the expectation of this forum that mum works to support her children (because anything less is scoffed at - you yourself said mum should get a job without actually knowing if she has one) and then you saying that dad shouldn't have to work several jobs at the expense of his family time. The point I made was that there are thousands out there, like myself, working very hard including some of us doing more than one job to do our best to give our children what they need whilst an ex partner contributes nothing at all, all to the detriment of family time, because there is no choice. We're also doing that with no support. However, you think that the OP's ex should have a choice because working more than one job would be too much., despite the fact that he is not on his own and plenty of families manage to work two jobs around childcare. How do you justify that? The expectation that mum should work but it's OK for dad not to?

@EnoughnowIthink
Totally agree.

I don't think people are entitled to have more children if it means they cannot afford their existing ones. Tax payers shouldn't have to support other people's children because their parent considers it a right to procreate with a new partner.
State support is to help people out in times of need, not to support lifestyle choices.
Fair enough, he couldn't predict that there would be twins, but I think he has a responsibility to try and pick up some work around his wife's hours, so he can contribute. Or to cut unnecessary spending at home do there is some money for his older DC.

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

My post was referring to NRPs not their partners. My use of “they” didn’t mean the partner.

But yes I can also see your point too! It’s so difficult to know what to do in these circumstances. My frustration is at nrps who use the SAHD thing as an excuse to diss about (like my ex at one point) and not pay maintenance and so the expectation ends up falling on to the partner (like me for a short while and it was actually really depressing missing out on my baby while working to fund his ex wife and his eldest child. This is what frustrates me. He didn’t actually want to be a SAHD and all that comes with it, he just wanted a break. Leaving me to fund his first family at the expense of my child.

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

Oh god no! No woman should ever have to abort her much wanted child to suit the first family. Fuck that a million times over!

@funinthesun19

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

Oh god no! No woman should ever have to abort her much wanted child to suit the first family. Fuck that a million times over!

I've been told this when discussing the inconvenience of suddenly realising there's two in there. "Oh well you chose to have two". "No, we tried for 18 months then the egg got excited and I got twins" "well you could have chosen to abort and try again, so you chose it"

But there is no state support expectation, it’ll be the RP’s wages as normal but minus maintanence. Or if the RP is claiming state support for the majority of that maintanence isn’t taken into account anyway. So he isn’t expecting the state to support them. But yes he is going expecting in this case, both ‘other parent’ to support them.

In reality all he can potentially offer to sway the situation is either 50/50 childcare completely. Or if this isn’t feasible he could have all children live with him full time and the current RP could become NRP and have contact times in the equivalent he has. Obviously this would mean a house and school move for his older DCs which also may not be ideal but potentially not the end of the world if the house and care he provides is good.

I am not saying that’s what should happen, but currently that’s all that can be offered. He would then be providing for those DCs exactly as he is for the ‘new’ DCs. But would that be acceptable? I doubt it, and would it be what RP currently wants? I doubt it. But it is an option that may or may not have been explored.

People are always going to be faced with choices to make. And situations will also change. I do see this family having twins which was unexpected one of those situations, which is in line with being made redundant etc.

I think a lot of assumptions are being made and put into the SM here too. Why should she have to be the one to give up work so he can work as he has other DC to fund, what if she has a good career or is working her way up the career ladder?

She may not have enough money to fund anything other than her household expenses. They may not have any extra outgoings they can feasibly cut right now.

This father has stopped working, and as a result all of his children will be impacted, all 4 of them. Can’t expect the status quo to be maintained for 2 whilst it is suggested all other expenses are cut for the 2 living with him to accommodate. So an alternative solution needs to be found somehow, and if that alternative isn’t feasible (e.g. he has the DC full time) then it is just an adjustment that will have to be made for the time being. And it isn’t the SM responsibility to pay either, she has her own 2 children to fund, which she is, and the RP has 2 to fund too. Dad is finding neither, the asset he has currently is time, so that’s what can be negotiated with to get as much as possible.

@MustardMitt I beg your pardon?! No. I married my husband because I love him. I also love my DSS dearly. That being said, it was his parents' decision to have and raise a child. I had nothing to do with it. The idea that the step parent should be financially responsible is ridiculous.

If the SP choses to offer financial assistance that's very kind, and is also completely their choice.

How entitled are you?!

If we are always expecting NRP to maintain the exact amount of maintanence, never to have more children unless they are earning an extra appropriate amount to fund that. It’s not realistic: both parents and entitled to move on and have further children if they wish to; and whether NRP or RP does this the current children will be impacted by sharing further with others, in some cases this impact will be bigger than other cases, it wholly depends.

I can't agree with this, sure the motherless woman should be entitled to have children, but maybe best to not have children with a man who then needs to put his CM payments down in order to fund the new children.
More children shouldn't be bought into the equation if they can't be paid for, without reducing the existing children's CM payments.

Op on 1 hand I don't believe the SM should be paying your ex's CM it's his responsibility, but if they made a decision together to benefit themselves knowing that the payments would stop then she has played her part in this scenario and should be held accountable.
It's a pretty reprehensible decision from both of them, and if they genuinely can't afford to pay the CM fees, then he should be getting some kind of shift work a few times a week when his wife is at home. He shouldn't absolve himself of all financial responsibility because it suits his new family for him not to work. He has an obligation to his existing children, and he should find a way to make that work.

[quote hulahoopqueen]**@MustardMitt* I beg your pardon?! No. I married my husband because I love him. I also love my DSS dearly. That being said, it was his parents' decision to have and raise a child. I had nothing to do with it. The idea that the step parent should* be financially responsible is ridiculous.

If the SP choses to offer financial assistance that's very kind, and is also completely their choice.

How entitled are you?![/quote]
I’m sorry? What?!

I’m a step mum. My husband is a NRP. I paid the child maintenance when my husband was out of work as on a moral level I couldn’t allow his first son to be disadvantaged because he couldn’t find work.

Not sure how that makes me ‘entitled’ to anything other than my own opinion but whatever.

Can you come back and give me a pat on the back now for being kind and making a good choice?