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 ?

when you think about the £250 is supposed to be 50% of the cost of the child......so that would assume that it costs £500 per month to feed and clothe the child...

It isn't just food and clothing though. A roof over their head, hot water, heating all cost money.

@ivfgottwins child maintenance isn't just for buying clothes?!? You know that right? It's to create an environment where a child can comfortably thrive. So suitable housing, heating, being able to afford quality food, etc etc. It adds up.

These threads are such a race to the bottom.

The thing that is depressing is that op is encouraging her dh to consider ways to reduce the financial support towards his eldest child.
No she's not he said they don't have to pay.

Op has already stated quite clearly that her baby comes first.
Yes, as do most people's children

His first that work if dss is there 50% of the time?

What?

If op wants her child to come first, then 50/50 care will bit make that possible. Because they will need to be treated equally. Or are you suggesting that dss must wait his turn until child number two'a needs have been met first as a priority?

Again,what?

The op's attitude is quite concerning IMO

And yet no mention of the child's actual parent. Weird.

@TrustTheGeneGenie

In fact what's depressing is thinking that step parents shouldn't put their own children first.

What's depressing is parents not putting all of their children first.

As for the OP, well, again, the best indication of future behaviour is past behaviour. A person who believes it's perfectly fine to abdicate financial responsibility for his/her child, ALL of it, not just the time the child is with them, is someone who will easily do the same to any mothers of his children.

@Iyland

when you think about the £250 is supposed to be 50% of the cost of the child......so that would assume that it costs £500 per month to feed and clothe the child...

It isn't just food and clothing though. A roof over their head, hot water, heating all cost money.

But why should the nrp pay 50% of housing costs for the ex, and then 100% of housing costs for their home where their child stays?

They're providing 75% there and the ex only 25% aren't they?

But why should the nrp pay 50% of housing costs for the ex, and then 100% of housing costs for their home where their child stays?

Pretty sure £250 isn't 50% of the ex's housing costs!

@Britsmums11

For some context my husband asked for 50:50 three years ago and was refused by the ex. So this suggestion isn't just to stop CMS payments. But seems the best option. I don't feel comfortable working and supporting the family and handing over £250 to a woman who I barely see or know. If DSS is with us I'm more than happy to pay and contribute as I know the money is going on him and for his benefit.

You’re not handing over money to a woman you barely know. CMS would be supporting your DSS.

Can your DH hand-on-heart say that 50/50 would be better for his son?

If he can’t then he shouldn’t be absolving himself of financial responsibility.

@TrustTheGeneGenie

It's hilarious that you think £250 is half of housing costs!!! 😂

@LaceyBetty

But why should the nrp pay 50% of housing costs for the ex, and then 100% of housing costs for their home where their child stays?

Pretty sure £250 isn't 50% of the ex's housing costs!

Well good! It shouldn't be should it.

[quote CandyLeBonBon]@TrustTheGeneGenie

It's hilarious that you think £250 is half of housing costs!!! 😂[/quote]
I don't think it is. I said why should they. It's hilarious you can't read.

Since when is £250 50% of housing costs?

@TrustTheGeneGenie

The thing that is depressing is that op is encouraging her dh to consider ways to reduce the financial support towards his eldest child. No she's not he said they don't have to pay.

Op has already stated quite clearly that her baby comes first.
Yes, as do most people's children

His first that work if dss is there 50% of the time?

What?

If op wants her child to come first, then 50/50 care will bit make that possible. Because they will need to be treated equally. Or are you suggesting that dss must wait his turn until child number two'a needs have been met first as a priority?

Again,what?

The op's attitude is quite concerning IMO

And yet no mention of the child's actual parent. Weird.

I wrote some typos and explained what I actually meant upthread.

But why should the nrp pay 50% of housing costs for the ex, and then 100% of housing costs for their home where their child stays?

They're providing 75% there and the ex only 25% aren't they?

They’re not paying 50% of the costs, they’re paying a contribution for the time that they are there (that might be 50% but not always). There is a reduction to take into account the time they are fully funding their child in their home.

@JustLyra

But why should the nrp pay 50% of housing costs for the ex, and then 100% of housing costs for their home where their child stays?

They're providing 75% there and the ex only 25% aren't they?

They’re not paying 50% of the costs, they’re paying a contribution for the time that they are there (that might be 50% but not always). There is a reduction to take into account the time they are fully funding their child in their home.

The reduction doesn't cover their housing costs though does it?

"I'm not bias towards step parents, I just don't jump to the conclusion that they're all bastards like you do. Why wouldn't she consider her own child first. Every other parent does. It's for her dp to equally consider both children."

I am a step parent, if my DH thought it was a good idea that I work and he would not pay child maintenance but think instead he could 'help' his ex with childcare I would think he was a shit and would regret ever marrying him.

You can tell alot from a man by the way they treat their ex and child/children.

You can't have a baby with someone and because you are finding it hard with your own costs of childcare think of ways to save money at the expense of the first child and ex, it's a shitty thing to do.
You can't expect all of the already existing child contact arrangements to change uprooting the kid just because you want to save some money.

It's not even like the OPs DP genuinely wants the child it's just a money saving technique, which in itself shows that it's unlikely to be the best for the child in question.

But why should the nrp pay 50% of housing costs for the ex, and then 100% of housing costs for their home where their child stays?

Yes we can read.

@TrustTheGeneGenie - your post appeared to suggest that 250 was half of housing costs. I'm not the only one who thought that so perhaps dial down the insults?

@Iyland

But why should the nrp pay 50% of housing costs for the ex, and then 100% of housing costs for their home where their child stays?

Yes we can read.

Yeah, where did I mention £250?

I said why should they? Not that op is.

The reduction doesn't cover their housing costs though does it?

Neither does CMS cover the full housing costs the other way so it’s no different.

Percentages are used and the reduction is given. Pretending that it’s all fair one way, but not the other is just whataboutery.

You’re viewing arrangements only through the light of what’s financially advantageous for yourself, not what’s best for your stepchild.

How your DH is treating his firstborn is how he might one day be treating your child OP.

[quote CandyLeBonBon]@TrustTheGeneGenie - your post appeared to suggest that 250 was half of housing costs. I'm not the only one who thought that so perhaps dial down the insults? [/quote]

@ivfgottwins

I have to agree with *@TrustTheGeneGenie*

My 5 year old - childcare cost aside - doesn't cost £250 per month when averaged over the year taking into account needing school uniform once a year and a couple of wardrobe top ups and that includes things like swimming lessons and days out - plus she'd be getting £80 a month in child benefit

My baby twins....yes probably cost that in formulae and nappies

Why are you putting childcare cost aside? She has the children significantly more of the time including more of the working week, so childcare will in fact be a major cost. Or if they're older, as DCs head out of primary childcare drops but everything else increases hugely.

£250 is likely to be a small fraction of her costs for raising a child, especially if her ex is cohabiting and she isn't, for example.

@JustLyra

The reduction doesn't cover their housing costs though does it?

Neither does CMS cover the full housing costs the other way so it’s no different.

Percentages are used and the reduction is given. Pretending that it’s all fair one way, but not the other is just whataboutery.

Nobody has suggested it does cover the full housing costs. I'm saying it shouldn't cover half should it.

It's not fair either way a lot of the time and I've said that the cms is shit on this site about one million times over the years.

Well we're discussing on this thread. I don't know of a single NRP paying what you are suggesting