Can boyfriends ex take money from my wage as child matinence?
Comments
-
My wife was a SAHP. She provided no financial support for her children at all for a few years. Nobody moralised about that. Not me, not anyone. Yet when a bloke decides to be a SAHP and not provide financial support to his children, all the sexist hypocritical moralisers come out of the woodwork.
One of the difficulties of separated parenting is recognising when 'moving on' your actions can have a major impact on another household (and a household where your children reside at least part of the time). We do not stop being a parent just because our children are not with us.
When you make a decision to not work - regardless of whether you're male or female - it is absolutely essential that you recognise your actions have impact outside of your immediate household. That hasn't happened here. Everything is the ex's fault.
The ex in this case ensures that the children have what they need by claiming benefits, presumably. She may have independent means. Or she has a partner willing to support her (which seems to be the case) and by default, a child that is not actually his responsibility.
The father can, of course, make the same decision. Except that leads to no financial contribution whatsoever. And the decision is one that has been made with his current partner and their child in mind only.
Your 'genuine equal responsibility' surely involves cash at some level? Clothing, toys, food, heat, shoes, haircuts...and there's dealing with appointments, homework, money at school, fancy dress, birthday parties etc. etc.
The OP is angry because the ex doesn't want to change contact. So why not solve the issue by having the child regardless of whether dad is working or not? Why not be the bigger person and work round it rather than stick two fingers up and put all the responsibility on the ex? What would be better for both the children, in the longer term? One parent who does their best and gets on with it, or two in constant conflict who fail to put the children at the centre of their actions?0 -
Yes it has. It sounds like he does actually want to work but has problems fitting a job round contact arrangements that the ex won't be flexible about.clearingout wrote: »One of the difficulties of separated parenting is recognising when 'moving on' your actions can have a major impact on another household (and a household where your children reside at least part of the time). We do not stop being a parent just because our children are not with us.
When you make a decision to not work - regardless of whether you're male or female - it is absolutely essential that you recognise your actions have impact outside of your immediate household. That hasn't happened here. Everything is the ex's fault.
So the child is being supported financially. Perhaps by the state. Perhaps not by the mother. But no-one is moralising about that, are they? Only when the father doesn't provide financial support is there the hypocritical moralising.The ex in this case ensures that the children have what they need by claiming benefits, presumably. She may have independent means. Or she has a partner willing to support her (which seems to be the case) and by default, a child that is not actually his responsibility.
Yes. Shared care. If he's a SAHP, why not? Shared benefits too obviously, would be ideal, but the benefits system can't cope. So obviously if one parent if getting the child benefits for that child then that parent has more money to spend on the child.The father can, of course, make the same decision. Except that leads to no financial contribution whatsoever. And the decision is one that has been made with his current partner and their child in mind only.
Your 'genuine equal responsibility' surely involves cash at some level? Clothing, toys, food, heat, shoes, haircuts...and there's dealing with appointments, homework, money at school, fancy dress, birthday parties etc. etc.
What, the dad has limited contact anyway and should be away at work while he supposedly has contact with his child? Seriously? That's your solution? Unbelievable.The OP is angry because the ex doesn't want to change contact. So why not solve the issue by having the child regardless of whether dad is working or not?
No. The solution is not to give in to pathetic vindictive ex's who try to use their child to get back at their ex. If the ex wants child support, then she has to be flexible and allow contact when he's not working. If she doesn't, then he has the right to see his child when he has contact. Instead of the child being told "you're going to your dad's this weekend but won't see him cos he's working". Is that supposed to be good for the child? Seriously?Why not be the bigger person and work round it rather than stick two fingers up and put all the responsibility on the ex? What would be better for both the children, in the longer term? One parent who does their best and gets on with it, or two in constant conflict who fail to put the children at the centre of their actions?
The friend I talked about earlier went down a similar path with a pathetic ex who couldn't get over the relationship failing. He became a SAHP to his new child. He offered 50/50 care, the ex wasn't having any of it. She was capable of getting a very well paid part time job that was flexible, he was willing to have their child when she worked, but she wouldn't.
Anyway to cut a long story short, she met a bloke, her irrational jealousy gradually melted away and she turned into a civilised human and they now get along just fine. Better than if he'd just rolled over and done what she wanted.0 -
Thank you zagles! Finally someone who understands.
As for the poster who suggested I should have stepson no matter if boyfriend is at work. This has been suggested in the past but stepsons mum refuses! She won't allow me to have stepson alone.
Boyfriend has the right, and so does his son to contact. What's the point in paying child matietence when you're getting no contact because you're working just to please his sons mother.
So you expect boyfriend to work, not see his son and for stepsons mum to gain money! Seeing his son is more important. Stepsons mum will not be flexiable at all regarding when we have stepson. Yet we're the problem because boyfriend declined a job as she wouldn't change the days and is unable to find one around my work. You realise how pathetic that sounds.
I agree, boyfriend has a responsibility to his child. He will still be paying the flat rate of matitence and has said since he won't be working he could have stepson more. Ontop of the time we already have him, but ex said no. So you go figure who is being the unreasonable one.
At the end of the day, like others have said it's okay for her not to work, yet boyfriend isn't allowed!
Well I'm over this, she can't get my wage and that's all I'm bothered about.0 -
The flat rate of £7 a week actually won't be payable in this case, as the OP's partner has the child more than 52 nights a year - so zero child maintenance is payable0
-
Yes it has. It sounds like he does actually want to work but has problems fitting a job round contact arrangements that the ex won't be flexible about. So the child is being supported financially. Perhaps by the state. Perhaps not by the mother. But no-one is moralising about that, are they? Only when the father doesn't provide financial support is there the hypocritical moralising. Yes. Shared care. If he's a SAHP, why not? Shared benefits too obviously, would be ideal, but the benefits system can't cope. So obviously if one parent if getting the child benefits for that child then that parent has more money to spend on the child. What, the dad has limited contact anyway and should be away at work while he supposedly has contact with his child? Seriously? That's your solution? Unbelievable. No. The solution is not to give in to pathetic vindictive ex's who try to use their child to get back at their ex. If the ex wants child support, then she has to be flexible and allow contact when he's not working. If she doesn't, then he has the right to see his child when he has contact. Instead of the child being told "you're going to your dad's this weekend but won't see him cos he's working". Is that supposed to be good for the child? Seriously?
The friend I talked about earlier went down a similar path with a pathetic ex who couldn't get over the relationship failing. He became a SAHP to his new child. He offered 50/50 care, the ex wasn't having any of it. She was capable of getting a very well paid part time job that was flexible, he was willing to have their child when she worked, but she wouldn't.
Anyway to cut a long story short, she met a bloke, her irrational jealousy gradually melted away and she turned into a civilised human and they now get along just fine. Better than if he'd just rolled over and done what she wanted.
my comments about the boyfriend working were nothing to do with gender, but to do with the fact that he has an existing responsibility towards his first chid as well as to the new baby.
the OP is up in arms that she might be required to pay towards her partners first child, yet is quite happy to allow its father to absolve himself.
the gender of a parent is irrelevant, but actually contributing to the chords support isn't.
if the OP was willing to pay on her boyfriends behalf the issue wouldn't arise.
it is the fact that she doesn't want to pay that is the problem0 -
Good. So he has just as much right to be a SAHP as his ex. He could offer shared care. He could offer to be the main carer while his ex gets a job and pays him child support. But no-one is suggesting that, are they? Oh no. Just cough up the readies.
the gender of a parent is irrelevant, but actually contributing to the chords support isn't.0 -
Good. So he has just as much right to be a SAHP as his ex. He could offer shared care. He could offer to be the main carer while his ex gets a job and pays him child support. But no-one is suggesting that, are they? Oh no. Just cough up the readies.
it doesn't matter in the slightest what the other parent does!
hw has a personal responsibility towards his first child. end of story.
what another individual does or does not do it not his concern.
he has every right to go through the court process to get shared care/custody of the first child if thats what he wants. but to do nothing and choose not to support the child is immoral, especially when his reason for not working is to look after another child * at the first childs expense_0 -
Oh so one parent can choose not to financially support their child but the other can't?it doesn't matter in the slightest what the other parent does!
Yes. Not to dump that child on someone else when he has contact. That would be immoral. He should offer care not cash.hw has a personal responsibility towards his first child. end of story.
Anyway who cares, the OP was asking a factual question, she wasn't after morality lectures, she's probably long gone. Tut and moralise all you want. I doubt anyone's listening. Ta ta.0 -
I just don't understand the attraction of having a child with a man who doesn't feel he has to pay for the children he already has.
Do you really think he'd do any different for you and your child if/when you split up?0 -
He's going to a SAHP. I know men offering direct care rather than cash is beyond the comprehension of some...Red-Squirrel wrote: »I just don't understand the attraction of having a child with a man who doesn't feel he has to pay for the children he already has.
What makes you assume it would be her, the working parent, who gets custody, rather than him, the SAHP? The SAHP usually gets custody don't they?Do you really think he'd do any different for you and your child if/when you split up?
Or are we back in the 1950's again?0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards