Page 14 | Stay at home dad... who pays CMS??!?

Britsmums11 · 2021-04-30T19:04:51+00:00

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 ?

Are your children’s vaccines up to date?

Set a reminder

NerrSnerr · 01/05/2021 16:30

@TwinsAndTrifle if the scenario you've made up is true and the older child is in childcare that costs £1000 a month why is he only paying a quarter of that and nothing else? Makes no sense.

Pinkpaisley · 01/05/2021 16:33

When you are looking at permutations for child care options and budgeting, he needs to include his child maintenance in the budget. Even if legally he might be absolved of payments, morally this is absolutely wrong and you both know that.

In non-blended households when one parent stays home we say that parent should share in the working parents earnings because the working parent can only earn because childcare is provided. The earner doesn’t explicitly pay the sahp as a nanny because the income is shared. If you really want to go down this path and keep the income separate, perhaps you should pay him a real nanny wage. Then he could pay his cms out of that.

AerisAsh · 01/05/2021 16:35

@PlanDeRaccordement

I am not stuck in the last century at all. Is paying for your child an old fashioned thing then?

I just think he is being lazy and going for the easier option

If he wanted to work he would.

Is his partner prepared to buy everything he needs. He should work to provide for the first child still.

Why should the women do everything because he is happy to have no money and be at home?

EnoughnowIthink · 01/05/2021 16:35

Is everyone missing he will be covering 100% of the childcare and it's associated cost?

What childcare? There has been no mention whatsoever of childcare by the OP. What if the ex doesn’t have any childcare costs because she is supported by parents or the child is in senior school? Won’t be saving her anything then, will he?

And what activities? He can’t pay for any activities because he has no money coming in.

ForThePurposeOfTheTape · 01/05/2021 16:36

@TwinsAndTrifle Ex pays childcare on her days. OP's h looks after his ds on his days. She still needs childcare on her days which might be covered by her partner or extended family anyway so isn't necessarily saving anything.

ForThePurposeOfTheTape · 01/05/2021 16:38

Is everyone missing he will be covering 100% of the childcare and it's associated cost?

He's covering the childcare cost of the baby which is 100s a month but that child is with OP not ex.

Chewbecca · 01/05/2021 16:41

I think you should think of the childcare costs as part taken from each parents salary.

Also bear in mind they will reduce as DC gets older.

The issue with him giving up work altogether is bigger than right now, his pension contributions stop, his workplace experience stops, he will likely earn less when he returns to the workplace.

You need to think long term, not just right now.

PlanDeRaccordement · 01/05/2021 16:42

@AerisAsh

Listen to yourself! You are only saying those things because we are talking about a SAHD, instead of a SAHM.

I’ve cut and paste what you wrote as if it were about a SAHM..:

I am not stuck in the last century at all. Is paying for your child an old fashioned thing then?

I just think she is being lazy and going for the easier option

If she wanted to work she would.

Is her partner prepared to buy everything she needs. She should work to provide for the first child still.

Why should the men do everything because she is happy to have no money and be at home?

I mean come on....either you believe this about all SAHPs, or you definitely are a sexist. Neither is good.

TwinsAndTrifle · 01/05/2021 16:45

he doesn't just get to entertain the child while the ex pays for everything

And there we have it

The ex doesn't get to sit at home with no excuse to work and skills rightfully pay for her own child because he's covering all childcare that runs into hundreds each month.

But he's merely "entertaining" the child. Why should the poor ex have to pay for her own child's shoes. Ohhhhhhhhhh the first wives club

I'll tell you why. Because he's covering (say) £750 of childcare fees, so she can cover £750 of other expenses! And if he has the child 50:50 which is exactly the "entertaining" he's entitled too, she gets nothing anyway and quite rightly so! God forbid the mother pulls her own weight like OP is.

"Entertaining"

SleepingStandingUp · 01/05/2021 16:45

[quote AerisAsh]@PlanDeRaccordement

I am not stuck in the last century at all. Is paying for your child an old fashioned thing then?

I just think he is being lazy and going for the easier option

If he wanted to work he would.

Is his partner prepared to buy everything he needs. He should work to provide for the first child still.

Why should the women do everything because he is happy to have no money and be at home?

[/quote]
Works for plenty of women.

If child are covers more than the salary of one person in the relationship and the other person can't essentially cover the excess childcare and all other bills on their own salary, this is what happens. One of you quits. It's not novel. It's why so many women who had low paid work before kids don't work. Not every SAHM if lunching in Pret after a session with their PT. Lots of us cannot afford to work. He cannot afford to work. The only way they can afford to pay equally is by having equal custody.

AerisAsh · 01/05/2021 16:47

@PlanDeRaccordement

That's not really relevant. A lot of parents will have a part time job or an income around the full time worker.

NerrSnerr · 01/05/2021 16:48

@TwinsAndTrifle please can you give us the backstory to this situation as you clearly know it- or at least what is in your head.

How old is the child?
Are they in nursery?
The mum- you seem to think she's not working?

Either you're making things up to fit your own narrative or you're actually the OP and actually a sock puppet?

ThatIsMyPotato · 01/05/2021 16:48

[quote AerisAsh]@PlanDeRaccordement

I am not stuck in the last century at all. Is paying for your child an old fashioned thing then?

I just think he is being lazy and going for the easier option

If he wanted to work he would.

Is his partner prepared to buy everything he needs. He should work to provide for the first child still.

Why should the women do everything because he is happy to have no money and be at home?

[/quote]
Would you still say this if it was a SAHM?

ThisIsSimplyBeyond · 01/05/2021 16:51

False equivalence - how many women are sahm's for their second child, while supposed to be paying maintenance to their first child, which they were until they gave up work without any consideration for their first child?

Find me one and I'll gladly call her lazy and financially abusive

TwinsAndTrifle · 01/05/2021 16:52

It's exactly relevant.

The poor ex (woman, with the all important first born, who shouldn't have to lift a finger) and the lazy sahp (man who's dared to leave her and have a family with OP, why isn't he doing 100% childcare and working another job?)

EnoughnowIthink · 01/05/2021 16:55

Because he's covering (say) £750 of childcare fees

Let’s say that’s true. He previously paid £250 a mo th and wiped his hands of any other responsibility. His ex was left to cover two thirds of the childcare, all household stuff (food, heat etc) bar the few days a month he was with his dad, all school related costs and activities. What a prince, eh!

TwinsAndTrifle · 01/05/2021 16:58

@NerrSnerr

No, I'm not the OP, that has made me chuckle though. These threads come up several times a week. And it always, and I mean ALWAYS transpires that the ex doesn't work, has no valid reason not too, likes all her benefits, cash from the dad, and her coffee mornings while the child goes to free nursery/nanny's.... And is outraged that she might have to do something to actually earn the money she spends on herself and her child each month. Everyone sees the "wanker father" who offers both children the same time with him. The difference in the scenarios is a strong mother, and a lazy entitled one. The former has no obligation, morally or otherwise to fund the latter. The father funds neither child, so the first is not disadvantaged, it's equal. He's offering them both the same.

ThatIsMyPotato · 01/05/2021 16:58

EnoughnowIthink Well yeah, if all that is true then you'd think ex would be grateful he is offering to take them 50/50 he can't afford to pay more than he is but he can take them more and OP will pay for the costs when they are with them out of the household pot.

NerrSnerr · 01/05/2021 16:59

@TwinsAndTrifle if the mum doesn't work why are they paying £1000 a month in childcare like you're so sure she is?

ThatIsMyPotato · 01/05/2021 16:59

Grateful is probably the wrong word. Pleased. Happy. Not annoyed that he wants to step up.

ForThePurposeOfTheTape · 01/05/2021 17:01

I'll tell you why. Because he's covering (say) £750 of childcare fees, so she can cover £750 of other expenses! And if he has the child 50:50 which is exactly the "entertaining" he's entitled too, she gets nothing anyway and quite rightly so! God forbid the mother pulls her own weight like OP is.

That's not how it works. Say child needs £750 of childcare. Ex pays £375 and OP's h pays £0. If OP's h was covering £750 worth of childcare then the mother and father would be swapping who who had EOW and obviously that's not the case.

If OP goes through with this plan maintenance =0 but OP and ex would be going halves on other expenses eg school shoes.

EnoughnowIthink · 01/05/2021 17:04

you'd think ex would be grateful he is offering to take them 50/50 he can't afford to pay more than he is but he can take them more and OP will pay for the costs

Yeah, of course. The ex should be grateful to have to make who knows what changes to her and her child’s lives, established routines, etc. She should be grateful for spending less time with her child in particular.

TwinsAndTrifle · 01/05/2021 17:09

@NerrSnerr

That's what the situation would be. Not what it is/has been.

I have no doubt the ex hasn't required any childcare. Because I have no doubt she's got any desire to work so doesn't need it.

The point is, she'll be free, to work full time now. The father will provide all childcare, which would otherwise cost her £xyz a month. But that's no good to someone who can't be arsed to work. Why pull your own weight when two other people can work full time and never see the child they have together, so they can give you £250 a month to not work. Outrageous disadvantage for the child they have. First wives only see the cash they might lose, the audacity they get off their backsides and earn money rather than just receive it . Appalling.

ThisIsSimplyBeyond · 01/05/2021 17:11

Twins, you really should address your issue with first wives in some sort of counselling. You sound almost ill.

ALevelhelp · 01/05/2021 17:12

@EnoughnowIthink

you'd think ex would be grateful he is offering to take them 50/50 he can't afford to pay more than he is but he can take them more and OP will pay for the costs

Yeah, of course. The ex should be grateful to have to make who knows what changes to her and her child’s lives, established routines, etc. She should be grateful for spending less time with her child in particular.

I don't know if this has already been asked, but if you can't afford the CM, then will you be able to afford to have the child for half of the week? Food, school trips, clothes etc, I doubt it'll be much less than CM