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 ?

That's exactly what the thread is about! I've got that from OP.

@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.

Where was it said that CM would continue to be paid if the child was with OP 50% of the time?

@TwinsAndTrifle

That's exactly what the thread is about! I've got that from OP.

You need to re-read it. The op said it's 50/50 care or nothing.

@TwinsAndTrifle

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.

I think the issue is that the 50/50 is not coming from a place of 'won't it be great to spend more time with him', its coming from '50/50 will be cheaper than me paying £250 a month'. It's most likely going to cost a lot more than that and if his SM is resenting every penny being spent on him its going to make for a really toxic environment for the child.

It's not at all the OP's fault either, the father should not be putting himself and his child in this position knowing the OP's feelings about supporting his child.

I think it's OP and her husbands joint choice for him to be a SAHD, OP said she thought it would be good for their baby and that's what is important, so I'm not convinced it's totally up to her husband to sort this out

I would suggest the following solution in your situation.

Your DH becomes a SAHD, your earnings cover the finances needed for you, DH and your child.

DH gets a part time job when you are not working. Evenings or weekends assuming your job is weekdays and uses the money from this to pay the £250 to his other child.

@ALevelhelp

I think it's OP and her husbands joint choice for him to be a SAHD, OP said she thought it would be good for their baby and that's what is important, so I'm not convinced it's totally up to her husband to sort this out

Sorry my thick fingers, I meant to say its not all OP's fault.

I don't feel comfortable working and supporting the family and handing over £250 to a woman who I barely see or know.

OP is thinking she has to continue the £250 to the mother out of her own pay packet when DH becomes SAHD.

She doesn't. In fact, they could stop there and just say, "meh, suits us, she gets nothing, and she can keep the child the majority of the time without us lifting a finger.". But she doesn't. She says, ok, we're having to change the work dynamic in our family. We have to give up a whole wage. The lower earners, obviously. This means the money the other mother receives ends, and I can't afford to voluntarily give it to her. We can offer and are entitled to 50:50 custody and have proposed this. We don't have too, but we want too. The mother doesn't want too. That doesn't mean the mother gets to simply keep the money going forward from OPs wage packet now! OPs not going to make her own circumstances difficult to suit the preferences of a mother who played god with the child.

@TwinsAndTrifle did you miss the op's post where she stated that the ex can accept 50/50 or get nothing?

@TwinsAndTrifle

@TwinsAndTrifle
If op can’t afford to give the boy’s mum £250 a month, she’s going to struggle financially with 50/50. She’s already said she will prioritise her child. Additionally not once has she said she’s financially able to finance the entire reality of 50/50. Teens are very very expensive. This is a boy. His food bill alone will soon be through the roof. Shoes alone £100 and upwards. My dd’s school shoes, which she wears out of school as well as in despite having other shoes cost £125. To be wearing them with this frequency, she needs at least about 3 pairs of these a year.

The conclusion that many of us, who have teens and adult children (rather than little kids / babies), are coming to is that op’s dh cannot afford to completely give up work.

And please stop with the hyperbolic comments ("playing god with the child")

You really really don't know what went on. Neither does the op really. She's just given some vague second hand information that may or may not be wholly accurate.

No, I didn't miss that.

They are giving this woman the option. And a woman that did that to her own child deserves no grace.

OP says, it's 50:50, or nothing.

In fact, the woman is legally entitled to the nothing. The fact OP is trying to help and accommodate by offering 50:50 shared custody seems to be missed here.

They could very simply, carry on with their change in work dynamics, whereby the mother is legally entitled to £0, and not offer any extra shared custody at all.

So it's not 50:50 or no money.

It's no money. And 50:50 custody being offered, which they didn't have too.

a woman that did that to her own child deserves no grace.

It's about what's best for the child. Not getting one over the mother.

And if 50/50 isn't a viable option your OK with this child's dad absolving himself of financial responsibility to his child?

So if the dss says yes I'd like to spend a bit more time with dad, but no, not 50/50, because I'd find that disruptive/I want to see my friends/I want to stay with my mum more/I might miss out on after school clubs etc (we don't know if any of these scenarios are fact, I'm just hypothesising here), you still believe that the dh should ditch his job and not pay maintenance?

Of course if dss is happy with 50/50, then there's no issue is there? Problem solved.

Surely that's what's most important rather than the suggestion in your rather fire and brimstone posts which are determined to portray the ex as this evil witch who deserves nothing. She may be. She also might not be, so I'd err on the side of neutrality and concentrate on what the dss actually wants rather than any desire for punishment and retribution.

OP, may I just ask your opinion about something in general.

If a woman is receiving child maintenance payments then does that mean she is not allowed to buy alcohol, go out with friends, donate to charity, treat herself to a nice hair cut. Is she meant to live her life only paying bills, buying basic food items and buying things for the children?

I used to get child maintenance and I work full time. Every month, I'd put money in my pension, pay life insurance, put money into savings, put money into the kids bank accounts, pay all bills, pay for food (including things like wine and treats), pay for kids activities, pay my own gym membership and whatever else the kids needed or I needed. Maintenance went into my account, along with all the other money I earned and the money was disrupted and spent as needed.

In that circumstance, do you believe I should have given up all my luxuries and all things for me personally because I was being given money by my ex? So technically he could argue that his money gave me an extra £180 a month, allowing me to spend £180 more than I would without, but since I was buying luxuries, he was just paying me to buy gin?

Is that what you think? That women left with the kids shouldnt be allowed to claim maintenance if they spend anything on themselves? Are we not allowed to live like normal people?

And just FYI, my ex no longer pays anything because he is saving to get a house. He currently owes me £4800 due to under paying (he wasnt in 9 our lives for those years so I couldnt actually speak to him) for years and CMS being useless, and now he is paying nothing so he can save a deposit. I've said that's ok because maybe if he gets a stable living situation rather than flat sharing, he will see the kids for more tha 6 hours a week. He legally needs to pay, but I've given up. I've said he can have 2 years off so he'll end up getting away with over £8000. So dont bother calling me a gold digger or whatever else it is you think of single mums.

*distributed

@themalamander

OP, may I just ask your opinion about something in general.

If a woman is receiving child maintenance payments then does that mean she is not allowed to buy alcohol, go out with friends, donate to charity, treat herself to a nice hair cut. Is she meant to live her life only paying bills, buying basic food items and buying things for the children?

I used to get child maintenance and I work full time. Every month, I'd put money in my pension, pay life insurance, put money into savings, put money into the kids bank accounts, pay all bills, pay for food (including things like wine and treats), pay for kids activities, pay my own gym membership and whatever else the kids needed or I needed. Maintenance went into my account, along with all the other money I earned and the money was disrupted and spent as needed.

In that circumstance, do you believe I should have given up all my luxuries and all things for me personally because I was being given money by my ex? So technically he could argue that his money gave me an extra £180 a month, allowing me to spend £180 more than I would without, but since I was buying luxuries, he was just paying me to buy gin?

Is that what you think? That women left with the kids shouldnt be allowed to claim maintenance if they spend anything on themselves? Are we not allowed to live like normal people?

And just FYI, my ex no longer pays anything because he is saving to get a house. He currently owes me £4800 due to under paying (he wasnt in 9 our lives for those years so I couldnt actually speak to him) for years and CMS being useless, and now he is paying nothing so he can save a deposit. I've said that's ok because maybe if he gets a stable living situation rather than flat sharing, he will see the kids for more tha 6 hours a week. He legally needs to pay, but I've given up. I've said he can have 2 years off so he'll end up getting away with over £8000. So dont bother calling me a gold digger or whatever else it is you think of single mums.

This! Spot on

We can offer and are entitled to 50:50 custody

There is absolutely no entitlement to shared care. It is increasingly popular and courts are certainly taking it more and more seriously but that doesn’t make dad and step mum legally entitled to it. What matters is what the child wants and what works for him regarding activities, friendships, school, homework etc.

@Iyland

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.

There are many saying 50/50 should mean half of the costs of bringing up a child, which is much much more than food and the extra electricity. I have a feeling the op means 50 /50 as a bed to sleep in and dinner on the table, not football club fees and school textbooks.

Having the kid 50/50 will cost more than £250 a month unless they're planning on not really treating him like he deserves.

50/50 isn't something that's "offered" to suit finances, it's depends where the child is best off, what they're used to, what's best for them.

We have this with dd. Dad and SM would rather have her 50/50 than pay maintenance but she doesn't want to be there that much

the way you talk seems like if he was at yours half the time, you'd be fairly stingy with him and ex would have to battle for money

The more I think about it this man just can't afford to be a stay at home dad