Can boyfriends ex take money from my wage as child matinence?

12357

Comments

  • nannytone_2
    nannytone_2 Posts: 12,949 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post Combo Breaker
    if you consider he is letting his ex say when and if he can see th first child ( when he should be going t court for a fairer arrangement) its probably safe to say he wouldn't be fighting for the second child either.

    what would have happened if he hadn't been made redundant?

    was he just going to leave work anyway to look after the new baby?

    the issue isn't him being a stay at home parent.
    the issue is choosing not to support his first child financially.

    yes giving care and time is important. but it doesn't put a roof over the childs head, food on his table or close on his back. it seems the fact that the mother houses the child, feeds him and clothes him means she is financially supporting him, regardless if its from benefits, another partner or working.

    the father is choosing to be a SAHP with no ability to financially support the first child
  • Red-Squirrel_2
    Red-Squirrel_2 Posts: 4,341 Forumite
    zagfles wrote: »
    He's going to a SAHP. I know men offering direct care rather than cash is beyond the comprehension of some...

    Only to one of his children though, the eldest won't be getting either.
  • Tammykitty
    Tammykitty Posts: 1,005 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post Combo Breaker
    Red-Squirrel wrote: »
    Only to one of his children though, the eldest won't be getting either.


    He has offered it to the eldest too but the PWC won't allow it.
  • Red-Squirrel_2
    Red-Squirrel_2 Posts: 4,341 Forumite
    Tammykitty wrote: »
    He has offered it to the eldest too but the PWC won't allow it.

    Oh, he's offered to go and provide childcare in the child's own home to suit the mother's work schedule has he? Brilliant!
  • clearingout
    clearingout Posts: 3,290 Forumite
    First Anniversary First Post Combo Breaker
    zagfles wrote: »
    He's going to a SAHP. I know men offering direct care rather than cash is beyond the comprehension of some

    Yawn. A very, very tired line. Very easy to say when it's not you juggling the cash to bring up your children. And the ex in this case is bringing up the children.
  • zagfles
    zagfles Posts: 20,323 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post Chutzpah Haggler
    Red-Squirrel wrote: »
    Oh, he's offered to go and provide childcare in the child's own home to suit the mother's work schedule has he? Brilliant!
    Not sure about the OP, but exactly what my friend in a similar situation did. He was a SAHP parent anyway, so having another child to look after wasn't a problem.
  • zagfles
    zagfles Posts: 20,323 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post Chutzpah Haggler
    clearingout wrote: »
    Yawn. A very, very tired line. Very easy to say when it's not you juggling the cash to bring up your children. And the ex in this case is bringing up the children.
    So an offer to share care should be very welcome then, shouldn't it? Then they can share everything 50/50. Care and expenses.
  • Red-Squirrel_2
    Red-Squirrel_2 Posts: 4,341 Forumite
    zagfles wrote: »
    Not sure about the OP, but exactly what my friend in a similar situation did. He was a SAHP parent anyway, so having another child to look after wasn't a problem.

    I'm pretty sure the OP's partner isn't offering that at all.
  • zagfles
    zagfles Posts: 20,323 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post Chutzpah Haggler
    Red-Squirrel wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure the OP's partner isn't offering that at all.
    It was a suggestion.
  • Sambella
    Sambella Posts: 417 Forumite
    I've helped Parliament
    As regards CMS and the benefit system it is all messed up. A moral issue you could say.

    Benefits are paid based on what the law says the person or family needs to live on.

    It makes zero sense for people on benefits to pay anything especially where there are children involved on both sides in my opinion.

    The Joseph Rowntree Foundatin published their Minimum Income Standard report just recently and in it it revealed that the families on benefits who struggle the most when inflation is taken into account is those with just the father working not the lone parent family. The Study was based on the lone parent in one family and the father in the other family both working full time on the minimum wage both with two children aged 3 and 7.

    Both families with one adult working got exact same wage and exact same benefits. Yet one was a family of four and one was a family of 3.

    The family of four on the exact same wage and benefits as the family of 3 also has school trips, uniforms etc to pay.

    Now if the father of the family of four was the ex partner of the family of 3 he would have to pay the family of 3 child maintenance based on income (tax credits not counted). So one gets less than the law says they need to live on whilst other gets a bit more whereas in reality both sides should get what the law says they need to live on.

    If the father becomes a stay at home parent and his wife works full time on minimum wage then both families get what they law says they need to live on and zero maintenance is paid.

    Which is fairer to both sets of children?

    It’s all messed up!!
This discussion has been closed.
★ ★ ★ Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.7K Spending & Discounts
  • 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 173.1K Life & Family
  • 247.9K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards