Stay at home dad... who pays CMS??!?

[Britsmums11]

We are in a predicament. Childcare costs are out of control and we literally lose an entire wage on childcare and more . I am the higher earner and we can survive off my wages and at least DD aged 18months isn't passed from pillar to post and can have some stability . My husband thinks being a SAHD is the best option. But then do I have to pay for his son? If CMS do the calculation on my wages we'd be hand to mouth. Husband seems to think that's not the case .... but is it ?

@LaceyBetty
And he can't afford it if he's not going to pay at least CMS minimum.

That’s a very narrow view. The CMS payment is in lieu of support and it is well below the actual costs of the support it represents. Currently, they are at 85/15 with the ex covering 85%, and him 15%. (That what 1 night in 7 correlates to, an 85/15 split.)

Since he is offering to replace the CMS payment with maximum support, taking it to a 50/50 share, then yes he can afford it.

In fact it is to the ex’s advantage to accept that because guaranteed the £250/mo CMS payment doesn’t come close to covering the extra costs she currently incurs by doing extra 35% of support. Think of the total cost of one child...it is far more than £714/mo is it not? Especially with child care! (The £250 is currently in lieu of 35% of support....ergo, CMS thinks child only costs £714/mo).

Exactly TrustTheGeneGenie, the ex would be depriving SC of more contact with their father just to get the money.

And it probably costs more than she is getting in CM to look after them so ex would be financially better off.

I wouldn't take an offer of 50/50 with my children's father. Firstly because I'm yet to be convinced it's actually good for children and it's more about parents divvying them up like the Denby tea set. Secondly, because one of the reasons I left him was because he turned out to be a shit and irresponsible father which I hadn't predicted. EOW means I can be the positive influence and guide throughout their childhoods and dilute the 2 days a fortnight when it really isn't good enough. So if my ex became a SAHD (laughable in the upmost!) I wouldn't engage in his antics at all. Children ante not little chess pieces to be moved about at will. And yes I would judge him for having another child that he clearly can't afford taking into account the existing children. Smacks to me of crap dad territory. I bet we will see OP in a few years when she kicks him out and then moans that he isn't paying her much/any maintenance because he's been out the job market for so long he can't/won't work.

@ThatIsMyPotato

And it probably costs more than she is getting in CM to look after them so ex would be financially better off.

Exactly and that doesn’t even count the ex increased earning potential by having the extra free child care that 50/50 represents. With increased earnings comes better housing, better schools, a decent pension, security for her. It’s not financial abuse to offer 50/50. That’s the co-parenting ideal.

Wow so much judgment and sexism in this thread! Parents (of either gender) don't always contribute to their children upbringing by paying money. Some times caring for them is the best thing.

I completely understand that having a baby changes so much and you may need to change how you are as a family. Your past choices shouldn't create arbitrary barriers to doing the right thing for you, just because dads who are NRPs are seen as "wallets" and nothing else.

If he can look after his first child 50% of the time then that is all he can do for now and that may allow his ex to work more and earn more, which in the long term might be better for her family unit too (better pension, better career prospects). No one really knows what is best for everyone and to be honest, no one can rely on CM completely. Exes die, lose their jobs, become disabled and lose their ability to pay or have babies and are unable to work anymore! If the genders were reversed no one would see this as wrong.

He can offer to be more involved in his child's life and that is amazing. Your income wouldn't count for CM. His ex might not even need the money. It sounds like he's talking it through with her and that's the right approach.

Good luck with all the big life changes!

@dattenboroughiskingoftheworld
Well that is your situation. If the OPs DH were anything like your ex, she wouldn’t even be considering letting him be a SAHD. So I think we can safely assume that he is not a carbon copy of your ex.

So the nrp increasing support to 50/50, that’s a good thing. That’s not “financial abuse”

A good thing? Always? What if that doesn't work for the child (and there would be a million and reasons why it doesn't). What if it doesn't work for the mother? Why should the mother and child bend to the ex's demands because something else now suits him better?

And the dad in this scenario won't actually have access to his own money. So how is he going to pay half of all child related costs? The OP has made it clear that they can't afford maintenance so how will he pay half of uniform, shoes, haircuts, school trips, casual clothing, activities, transport costs to pick up/take to school/activities/playdates/parties..... In my experience 50/50 basically means one parent paying for all the essentials and the other providing bed and board and moaning about having to pick up any other costs. A genuine 50/50 isn't cost free.

And the non payment of maintenance, the deliberate rejigging of finances to avoid paying maintenance, putting things in your new partner's name, going self employed, job hopping, stopping working....all means by which to assert control over and abuse an ex partner who has no choice put to pick up the financial slack. That's exactly what the OP is proposing. So yeah, I agree, broadly it's financial abuse.

Absolutely, enough.

If the genders were reversed no one would see this as wrong

Rubbish. If I had additional children and refused to support existing children by giving up my job, there would be plenty said about it. Even more so if I expected my ex to pick up the financial slack of my choices.

[quote PlanDeRaccordement]@dattenboroughiskingoftheworld
Well that is your situation. If the OPs DH were anything like your ex, she wouldn’t even be considering letting him be a SAHD. So I think we can safely assume that he is not a carbon copy of your ex.[/quote]
I don't think we can safely assume anything. It's amazing how blind people can be to what's going on in their own homes. The focus from OP is not one of looking at the bigger picture. A father who is considering giving up work completely to look after one child at the expense of providing for the others is not a Prince amongst men. If OP said he will be SAHD during the day but will take a bar/supermarket/cleaning job evenings and weekends to provide for his other children is tip my hat to him. But he isn't. So I doubt he's tip top tbh

He is offering to be a SAHD for both his children.

I wouldn't take an offer of 50/50 with my children's father. Firstly because I'm yet to be convinced it's actually good for children and it's more about parents divvying them up like the Denby tea set.

But thats the reality of children and divorce. They are divided up like the tea set. Who's having them for Christmas, who's having them for Easter, who's having them at Summer hols. Are they all getting treated the same etc. How much access is dad being allowed, what happens if either finds a new partner, a new job.

Parents with children should avoid relationships until their current children are at uni/left home. Save all issues.

@EnoughnowIthink
The OP has made it clear that they can't afford maintenance so how will he pay half of...

I think you misread the OP. She says if maintenance were calculated using HER WAGES, they would be living hand to mouth. She did not say that they could not afford either £250/mo or 50/50 support on her wages.

I get that 50/50 might not work, but it’s sad to assume that it won’t work.

And no, I don’t for second think that the OPs DH is suggesting being a SAHD and doing 50/50 support of his first child to “assert control over and abuse” his ex. There is no evidence that this is his motive or that he is in any way an abusive person. In addition, he’s taking the bigger financial risk, not his ex by considering the SAHP route.

The focus from OP is not one of looking at the bigger picture. A father who is considering giving up work completely to look after one child at the expense of providing for the others is not a Prince amongst men

But he’s not considering that. He is considering being a SAHD for both his children. It’s not at the expense of first child, but to the benefit of the first child as well.

"In addition, he’s taking the bigger financial risk, not his ex by considering the SAHP"

Wow what a hero 😂
Amazes me how people support these feckless fathers and then raise them up as though they are so selfless in the process.
That comment actually made me laugh.😂

@PlanDeRaccordement

The focus from OP is not one of looking at the bigger picture. A father who is considering giving up work completely to look after one child at the expense of providing for the others is not a Prince amongst men

But he’s not considering that. He is considering being a SAHD for both his children. It’s not at the expense of first child, but to the benefit of the first child as well.

If he can't afford the £250 a month CMS he was paying how will he afford 50% of everything the child needs? Food, clothes, shoes, uniforms, swimming lessons, clubs, holidays, school trips, birthday parties etc.

@BigFatLiar

I wouldn't take an offer of 50/50 with my children's father. Firstly because I'm yet to be convinced it's actually good for children and it's more about parents divvying them up like the Denby tea set.

But thats the reality of children and divorce. They are divided up like the tea set. Who's having them for Christmas, who's having them for Easter, who's having them at Summer hols. Are they all getting treated the same etc. How much access is dad being allowed, what happens if either finds a new partner, a new job.

Parents with children should avoid relationships until their current children are at uni/left home. Save all issues.

Only the reality if both parents agree to it. Having worked with hundreds probably thousands of children and families over my career I have seen it work in a tiny % of cases. And then it's been with parents who genuinely co-parent, share all expenses, share parenting styles and outlook and have excellent communication in the best interests of the children.

"But he’s not considering that. He is considering being a SAHD for both his children. It’s not at the expense of first child, but to the benefit of the first child as well."

He's doing it to get out of paying maintenance OP has told you that, not because he actually wants to parent his child.
It's all about money.

Exactly. The ex now gets many more days free childcare so she can work and provide more for her child. The child gets to spend more time with it's father. The resident child and non resident child are both "benefiting" the same from their father. If OP works hard, then good for her. If the ex can't be arsed to do the same, it's HER letting her own child down. Not the father who's treating all of his children equally.

To keep the current situation, the non resident child is seeing it's father less, the resident child isn't seeing either of it's parent (they're both working to cover childcare fees)....but hey, ex gets a couple of hundred in her bank a month eh

You are doing nothing wrong OP, other than provide all the children the same opportunity with their father. You're not responsible for their mother not pulling her weight, or feeling any moral obligation to finance her because she prefers not to work, out of your own pocket!

@PlanDeRaccordement

The focus from OP is not one of looking at the bigger picture. A father who is considering giving up work completely to look after one child at the expense of providing for the others is not a Prince amongst men

But he’s not considering that. He is considering being a SAHD for both his children. It’s not at the expense of first child, but to the benefit of the first child as well.

That's not how I or others have read it. Sounds to me from the OP that all that matters is HER baby. If the other child spends more time with dad and it's a positive experience that the mother is happy with that's great but he will need to pay 50% of all expenses too and £250 is a steal in terms of how much children can cost. I've just spent over £100 on new shoes and trainers today and activities for my two plus school dinners are about £150 a month. Then there's clothes and kit for activities, school trips, ferrying them about everywhere without including childcare costs and probably a load of other things I've not thought of.

If someone thinks oh I'll not support my own children then that's on them not me

That's the lazy person's way of looking at it. The non payment of child maintenance in endemic in our society. It is supported by all of us when we assume that it's a private/behind closed doors/there must be more to it kind of thing. Few of us would drop a friendship or call out a work colleague who openly declares 'I'm not paying the bitch a penny 'cos she can afford to go out with her friends and drink vodka'. But we should. We absolutely should challenge the thousands of men (usually men) out there who make children women's business. Children are the business of both parents.

Slagging off the ex with comments about her vodka habit, openly declaring you don't pay maintenance or 'she got the house why would I give her anything' needs to become as socially unacceptable as smoking over a baby or drink driving. The non-payment of maintenance wouldn't happen as much as it does if we called men out on it. If we dropped them from our social circles or shunned them from events or told them it simply isn't good enough and behaved coldly towards them. In it's simplest terms, arbitarily and unilaterally deciding your ex can manage isn't good enough. Supporting a man who makes such decisions shouldn't be good enough for any woman either. Sadly for many children out there, there is no end to the number of women happy to be with men who shirk their responsibilities.

Of course the complexity of adding in new children, blending families makes things very difficult. What I can't personally stand is the assumption that because things have changed for you, they also have to change for the ex. I have lost count of the times i have ordered my life around my ex's contact only to have him decide that contact no longer suits his life and it must change. I have never had the opportunity to say no because the long and short is he will simply not pick up the children when he should. So my life is constantly on hold whilst he makes the most of his. The ex in the OP's situation, may well welcome 50/50 for a whole host of reasons and things will work out great for all concerned. Or she may not. But I suspect she'll have to suck it up and she'll have to fill in the financial gap (because there will be one) and the OP and her husband will justify it because 'she gets all the benefits' and because, ultimately, it works for them.

The biggest thing that needs to change for children of separated families is adults accepting that children are a lifelong responsibility and that children should be a parent's first concern when moving into anything new. Unfortunately, we are selfish beings and kid ourselves that if we are happy, so are our children.

@TwinsAndTrifle can you explain how the child's dad will be able to pay for things for his child like shoes, swimming lessons etc if he isn't working?

He is offering to be a SAHD for both his children

Lovely. How is he going to pay for half of his first child's costs? .

@dattenboroughiskingoftheworld

Yes others have read it that way but I think it purely because OP just wanted the answer to how CMS is calculated in such a situation. That doesn’t mean money is her primary focus. It simply means that was one piece of the puzzle that she didn’t have the answer to.
Why should she have to post a huge backstory and justification listing all the reasons why they are considering a SAHD set up? That’s private. So I don’t see the lack of a backstory = that all she cares about is money. I see it as, she had a specific question on CMS and that’s all she wants. She doesn’t want advice or judgement on SAHDs.