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 ?

Legally, no he wouldn't have to pay anything if he gave up his job. Morally, it would make him a scumbag.

He could look at getting a part time job to cover the £250 a month, evenings or weekends when your home to look after baby. Rather than just telling his ex to like it or lump it.

Any father that is willing to see his other child go without, is scum!

I think this thread is absurd. There is a mother who had a fling and concealed the resulting child's existence for 4 years, and OP is being bashed about her morals????

The mother then comes looking for the father, who doesn't even know he's a father, has never had a chance to bond with the child, and he steps up, starts paying, starts contact. God knows what that must have done to him.

Now the father and OP who have wanted their own family, have had twins and want to have the other child more, which has been refused by the mother (who merrily hid the child's existence for 4 years), and she's being bashed because this "entitled" woman doesn't get £250 a month anymore???? When you choose to play god and hide a child from it's parent like that, the "moral" card goes out the window. No, she doesn't get £250 any more. The child gets more time with it's father. So the child benefits, not someone who thinks it's ok to hide their existence from the other parent.

That's quite the extrapolation you created there @TwinsAndTrifle

Well....it's not at all. It's what happened, no?

The tit for tat on this thread is awful, there is a child stuck in the middle of all of this. It's irrelevant who did this, who did that. He deserves supporting.

All bloody childish.

this "entitled" woman doesn't get £250 a month anymore

The money is for the child. The mother may have done a terrible thing in concealing the existence of this boy from his father for 4 years, but she certainly isn't being "entitled" to expect the father to support his own child.

Resident parents are "entitled" to at least 50% of what it costs to give their child a reasonable standard of living (and more actually to reflect the fact they're providing most of the day-to-day care). The truth is that very few RPs receive what they're "entitled" to and very few NRPs pay their fair share. A surprising number of NRPs are happy to leave their children from previous relationships to be supported by the mother and/or the taxpayer.

Yes, 50/50 may be an option but only if that's what is best for the child and if the OP and her husband are willing to actually do 50% of the parenting (lifts to and from activities, parties, parents' evenings, doctor, dentist, sick days...) and pay 50% of all the costs relating to the child, not just food when the child is with them.

@TwinsAndTrifle

Well....it's not at all. It's what happened, no?

No. It's your interpretation of what happened based on 3rd hand found bytes and a lot of frothing by other posters.

You have drawn your own conclusions based on very very limited and one-sided information.

I don't think it is irrelevant.

Because OP and her husband are trying to involve the child more into their lives, and are being bashed for prioritising that, instead of giving a woman who felt entitled to hide the child's existence for four years, £250.

The mother who can behave like that is morally owed nothing. They are not letting the child down, it will be with them 50% of its life. A darn sight better than the 0% for the first four years, that they can never get back.

The child is a 'he' not an 'it'

And no, it's not my interpretation. At all. That's direct from OP posts.

The mother who can behave like that is morally owed nothing.

The money is for the child.

Well....it's not at all. It's what happened, no?

No, firstly they didn't have twins.

Secondly the mother allegedly did tell him and he claims to have not received the message. Who knows what the truth is there.

Thirdly the child may not get more time with the father because 50/50 may not be viable for a multitude of reasons.

The problem isn't the offer the problem is the take it or leave it we're doing it anyway attitude. If 50/50 is not a workable arrangement for the child he is going to absolve himself of financial responsibility regardless.

Now the father and OP who have wanted their own family

This man already had a family. He has a son, the OP's stepson. But let's not focus on whether thay arrangement is actually going to work for him because it suits the adults. That's one poor kiddo.

What happens when the new baby goes to school nursery in 18 months? What happens to the 50/50 then? Is OP going to support her husband staying at home then to do school runs and drop offs? Or support childcare costs for a 12/13 year old 50% of the time? By her attitude posting I'd hazard a guess at doubtful.

@TwinsAndTrifle

I don't think it is irrelevant.

Because OP and her husband are trying to involve the child more into their lives, and are being bashed for prioritising that, instead of giving a woman who felt entitled to hide the child's existence for four years, £250.

The mother who can behave like that is morally owed nothing. They are not letting the child down, it will be with them 50% of its life. A darn sight better than the 0% for the first four years, that they can never get back.

OP admits earlier in the thread that her priority is her own child (understandable), so it is worrying whether she'll be happy to have another child 50% of the time to finance and give time to. The child is about to become a teenager. As the mum to two teenage boys, they don't come cheap!

Being legal and being moral are two totally different things but at the end of the day there is a child involved and they have to come first no matter what

@ArrrMeHearties

Being legal and being moral are two totally different things but at the end of the day there is a child involved and they have to come first no matter what

Exactly

@TwinsAndTrifle

And no, it's not my interpretation. At all. That's direct from OP posts.

Nope. Still wrong.

What's best for your baby is not to have a big brother that resents him when older as his birth is the reason he grew up in harder circumstances.

'your' money (which is in effect family money if your partner stays at home) won't be going on funding gin. It will be going on funding half your stepsons expenses. If the ex decides to spend her own money on gin, it's absolutely none of your business.

Great financial role model you're setting for your son, that it's okay to have sex with no protection and that financially will have no consequences of he knows to play the system. If it's actually a daughter you have, let's hope the same doesn't happen to her, eh?

@TwinsAndTrifle just to clarify, op has stated some vague information relating to the situation surrounding her stepsons conception. It's not fact because the only people privy to the ACTUAL facts relating to that, along with whether or not the ex texted or not, are the op's DH snd his ex.

Everything else is supposition.

Do you know what baffled me most.

When I was a single mum, if I'd moved in with my now husband and he had refused to pay a penny towards DD or treat her as his own I'd have been told to run for the hills. He is in every sense of the word her Dad other than biology and I wouldn't be with him if he wasn't.

But it's OK for men to frequently hook up with and impregnate women who have zero respect for the child who came first, the child who needs to be prioritised as much as their own subsequent children.

I bloody hope this poor kids Mum is a good Mum who provides a loving stable home and would crawl over hot coals to ensure her child's not forced into a 50/50 situation with a woman who has openly said he comes beneath her child.

Makes me feel a bit sick actually.

Ah yes, apologies, OP has one child, not twins, I've got that stuck in my head from another thread. The rest is right though.

No. The money is not for the child going forwards. It is right now, because the child isn't there very much. But when the child is there 50:50 in the future, that stops, rightly so. Continuing to pay money when the child is equally living with them, is not only wrong but purely for the mother who doesn't want to let the child spend more time with it's father in order to keep that money. She's not entitled to it if the split is 50:50. And her opinion of expecting anything other than what she is entitled to from OP and her family, when she withheld the child deliberately for so many years? Not a chance.

@TwinsAndTrifle

Ah yes, apologies, OP has one child, not twins, I've got that stuck in my head from another thread. The rest is right though.

No. The money is not for the child going forwards. It is right now, because the child isn't there very much. But when the child is there 50:50 in the future, that stops, rightly so. Continuing to pay money when the child is equally living with them, is not only wrong but purely for the mother who doesn't want to let the child spend more time with it's father in order to keep that money. She's not entitled to it if the split is 50:50. And her opinion of expecting anything other than what she is entitled to from OP and her family, when she withheld the child deliberately for so many years? Not a chance.

No one is suggesting that as an option though? Where have you got that from?

There is nobody saying they should pay if its 50/50 that I've seen though. What I've seen and said is if 50/50 is not possible cutting his child off financially intentionally is beyond reprehensible.

And we DO NOT KNOW THAT THE EX 'withheld the child deliberately'. That is the interpretation that you have given the limited information we have been offered.

It sounds like you are adding extra layers of drama which you cannot possibly know are true.