Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Eve2928
    • By Eve2928 6th Aug 17, 5:34 PM
    • 10Posts
    • 28Thanks
    Eve2928
    Can boyfriends ex take money from my wage as child matinence?
    • #1
    • 6th Aug 17, 5:34 PM
    Can boyfriends ex take money from my wage as child matinence? 6th Aug 17 at 5:34 PM
    Hello.

    I'm really confused at the moment. Boyfriend currently works, but is getting made redundant.

    He will be able to claim contributions based job seekers for 6 months, by then our baby will have been born and he is becoming a stay at home dad.

    I work in a school as a teaching assistant, very low wage, don't even come out with £1000 a month. He is going to look for part time work, but finding one around my hours is going to prove difficult when we have stepson every weekend and his ex won't change that! So if he worked weekends, we wouldn't see stepson. That's another issue altogether.

    Anyways, stepsons mum has said I will have to pay child matience out of my wage. I said no way! I have no legal duty towards stepson. And if the government say boyfriend is only entitled to 6 months benefits, he's going to have no wage.

    I only get 6 weeks at 90% pay, we struggle enough so I can't take anymore maternity and I will be retuning to work after these 6 weeks. Boyfriend will be looking after baby. He can't claim income support because I work too many hours.

    Anyways, legally, can the child matience count my wage and will I be made to pay for stepson out of my wage??

    i have no legal duty towards stepson, how could they possibly take my wage?

    Apparently stepsons mum has looked into this and it's possible. Not sure if she's just saying that to make me pay, but it doesn't seem right to me..

    Thanks
Page 2
    • zagfles
    • By zagfles 6th Aug 17, 8:26 PM
    • 12,495 Posts
    • 10,496 Thanks
    zagfles
    [/B]
    Good luck avoiding your responsibilities! Really?
    Originally posted by swingaloo
    Has this forum entered a time warp? Are we in the 1950's?

    Why it is his responsibility to pay for his child and not the child's mother? Eh? You said it's irrelevant whether his ex works or not. So she doesn't have to support her child financially but he does? What a load of sexist drivel. They're both equally responsible.

    Like I said if he becomes a SAHP he could offer shared care or even full time care of his older child. Then his ex could get a job. Or they could both get part time jobs. Why should it be him who provides the financial support and her the care?
    • swingaloo
    • By swingaloo 6th Aug 17, 8:41 PM
    • 1,744 Posts
    • 3,086 Thanks
    swingaloo
    Has this forum entered a time warp? Are we in the 1950's?

    Why it is his responsibility to pay for his child and not the child's mother? Eh? You said it's irrelevant whether his ex works or not. So she doesn't have to support her child financially but he does? What a load of sexist drivel. They're both equally responsible.

    Like I said if he becomes a SAHP he could offer shared care or even full time care of his older child. Then his ex could get a job. Or they could both get part time jobs. Why should it be him who provides the financial support and her the care?
    Originally posted by zagfles

    I don't think you have read my posts properly. I have never said it is only his responsibility, in fact I have said it is the responsibility of both parents. Both parents are responsible, but the OP has implied that as he has contact and has the child at weekend it eliminates the need for him to pay maintenance.

    I did say it was irrelevant whether or not the ex works, but if you read my post correctly I said it in the context of whether or not the ex works has no bearing on maintenance being paid.

    Ive said repeatedly that a child is the responsibility of both parents so not sure where your 'sexist drivel' comes from.
    • zagfles
    • By zagfles 6th Aug 17, 9:01 PM
    • 12,495 Posts
    • 10,496 Thanks
    zagfles
    I don't think you have read my posts properly. I have never said it is only his responsibility, in fact I have said it is the responsibility of both parents. Both parents are responsible, but the OP has implied that as he has contact and has the child at weekend it eliminates the need for him to pay maintenance.

    I did say it was irrelevant whether or not the ex works, but if you read my post correctly I said it in the context of whether or not the ex works has no bearing on maintenance being paid.
    Originally posted by swingaloo
    No you didn't. You said wrote it in a moralising context about what people "should" do. I quote the paragraph:
    If his ex works or not is irrelevant. It takes 2 people to make a child so 2 should provide for it. In our case we worked as a couple and many times I contributed to his payments.
    Ive said repeatedly that a child is the responsibility of both parents so not sure where your 'sexist drivel' comes from.
    Yeah right, so it's equally up to the mother to support the child financially, yet you and most others only moralise about him getting a job, not the ex.

    He should offer help in other ways. Like looking after his child more, say 50/50. They're equally responsible, right? So they should share care equally. Why isn't that being moralised about? No, only the finances. Nothing to do with sexist stereotyping at all there, oh no.
    • swingaloo
    • By swingaloo 6th Aug 17, 9:05 PM
    • 1,744 Posts
    • 3,086 Thanks
    swingaloo
    What rubbish.

    I repeat again as you don't seem to understand. - It does not matter if the ex works or not, it is irrelevant, the other parent is still responsible for maintenance payments. That applies whatever sex the other parent is.

    Understand now?
    • zagfles
    • By zagfles 6th Aug 17, 9:11 PM
    • 12,495 Posts
    • 10,496 Thanks
    zagfles
    What rubbish.

    I repeat again as you don't seem to understand. - It does not matter if the ex works or not, it is irrelevant, the other parent is still responsible for maintenance payments. That applies whatever sex the other parent is.

    Understand now?
    Originally posted by swingaloo
    If he chooses to be a SAHP, he'll likely be responsible for paying a fiver a week.

    If his ex chooses to be a SAHP as well, then anyone who moralises about one but not the other is a hypocrite.

    Agreed?
    • swingaloo
    • By swingaloo 6th Aug 17, 9:26 PM
    • 1,744 Posts
    • 3,086 Thanks
    swingaloo
    What part of 'both parents are responsible' which I have said repeatedly are you struggling to understand. You are trying to turn it into something else to provoke argument.

    You are happy to wish someone luck in making a choice of lifestyle to avoid paying maintenance, that's your choice. Personally I think its extremely selfish and don't think either parent should make that choice but you seem to condone it.

    At the centre of this 'I'm not working' 'I'm not paying' is a child who does not deserve that from either parent.
    • zagfles
    • By zagfles 6th Aug 17, 9:42 PM
    • 12,495 Posts
    • 10,496 Thanks
    zagfles
    What part of 'both parents are responsible' which I have said repeatedly are you struggling to understand. You are trying to turn it into something else to provoke argument.
    Originally posted by swingaloo
    Oh stop digging. One minute you say 'both parents are responsible' and then you say it's irrelavent if his ex works.
    You are happy to wish someone luck in making a choice of lifestyle to avoid paying maintenance, that's your choice. Personally I think its extremely selfish and don't think either parent should make that choice but you seem to condone it.
    Yes. I think he should offer shared care. That's equal responsibility. Not just handing over cash because that what a good bloke is supposed to do.

    If they had shared care, there wouldn't be any need for maintenance, would there, as they'd both be paying directly for the child. Why aren't you moralising about that?
    At the centre of this 'I'm not working' 'I'm not paying' is a child who does not deserve that from either parent.
    I bet you wouldn't be moralising if the OP decided to give up work when her child is born and not financially support her own child, would you?

    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.
    • Geoff1963
    • By Geoff1963 6th Aug 17, 9:47 PM
    • 1,056 Posts
    • 678 Thanks
    Geoff1963
    Apparently stepson's mum has looked into this and it's possible.
    To quote Wikipedia : "Citation required".
    If the statement is knowingly false in order to obtain money, that's quite serious. CAB might know, or give you some pointers.

    My understanding is that "maintenance" is to make up for any difference in the amount of time a child spend between their separated parents ; so 50:50 joint custody would mean no maintenance. Another poster was trying to reduce their maintenance, because they did more "looking after" than the other parent said they were.

    Perhaps if the BF is at home, the court would review the custody arrangement, but that is a different issue.

    As to the OP having to pay maintenance for a child that is someone else's, I'm not quite sure how that is based on any logic. Is it because :
    a) She lives in the same house ?
    b) She is the father's new Significant Other ?
    Why not demand maintenance off the child's grandparents ? Why not demand it off me, I'm also not having any custody.
    • swingaloo
    • By swingaloo 6th Aug 17, 9:54 PM
    • 1,744 Posts
    • 3,086 Thanks
    swingaloo
    Not the same situation at all as the one with your wife. This thread was started by the OP saying that she was afraid she may have to have money taken from her wage as her boyfriend was making a conscious decision to stop paying for his first child.

    All this talk about 'shared 50/50 care' is just hypothetical.


    And for the last time - although I think you are deliberately misunderstanding.

    I will try to make it as non-sexist and as clear as I can-

    It is irrelevant whether the ex partner with care (be it male or female), in this or any other relationship, goes out to work. It does not give the other parent the right to stop paying. If the ex partner with care is sitting on their behind or working on 40 hours a week and earning 50 grand a year the other parent (male or female) should still contribute.

    Hope that is clear enough.

    I'm out!
    • zagfles
    • By zagfles 6th Aug 17, 10:03 PM
    • 12,495 Posts
    • 10,496 Thanks
    zagfles
    Not the same situation at all as the one with your wife. This thread was started by the OP saying that she was afraid she may have to have money taken from her wage as her boyfriend was making a conscious decision to stop paying for his first child.
    Originally posted by swingaloo
    And his new child.
    All this talk about 'shared 50/50 care' is just hypothetical.
    I thought you said they're equally responsible? It might not be something the ex wants, but it could be something offered. If she doesn't want it, that's her choice. But he could offer genuine equal responsibility. Not just a bit of cash.
    And for the last time - although I think you are deliberately misunderstanding.

    I will try to make it as non-sexist and as clear as I can-

    It is irrelevant whether the ex partner with care (be it male or female), in this or any other relationship, goes out to work. It does not give the other parent the right to stop paying. If the ex partner with care is sitting on their behind or working on 40 hours a week and earning 50 grand a year the other parent (male or female) should still contribute.
    Oh, so it's OK for a SAHP with care to contribute nothing financially towards their child, but not a SAHP NRP? Right...
    Hope that is clear enough.
    Absolutely!
    I'm out!
    Ta ta.

    And good luck again to the OP!
    • Eve2928
    • By Eve2928 6th Aug 17, 10:03 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 28 Thanks
    Eve2928
    All of you saying that boyfriend should be the one work still haven't got a clue. Boyfriend earns £200 a month more than me, and he works nightshift. While I'm on a low income job, that's only because I loose pay when it's school holidays. So, in the grand scheme of things I earn okay for what I work. boyfriend would be coming off night shift regardless of him getting another job, or staying where he was so that'd be the £200 ish for his nightshift premium. Meaning, my wage isn't that far off what a person working full time would earn even without the holidays! So yeah, it does make sense for me to work! Again, not that it's anyone's business to why I am returning to work.

    It makes me laugh, all you lot saying boyfriend should work, just so he can pay child matentience. He WILL be paying child matitence, it just will be the flat rate. If the Gov set the rules, that's the rules. Take it up with them.

    And for the poster who said I'm irresponsible, I and boyfriend don't live our lives to please his ex. She remarried, had more kids and didn't work. But that's okay for you people I guess. So does she not provide for her children??

    And yes, boyfriend was going to keep his job, it meant working every other weekend. Stepsons mum said no. She doesn't work, she has no reason to not let us have stepson on a school night overnight but she said no. So he had to take redundancy because she wouldn't allow every other weekend to be changed!

    Yes, boyfriend could get a job for when I get it from work at 4.30/5pm but for what he'd earn on those 3 days, considering we have stepson 2 nights for tea and stepsons mum wouldn't change that either, it wouldn't be worth it! I'd probably get more in tax credits.

    Boyfriend has always paid his matitence, even when stepsons mum stopped contact for no reason, went to court and was given access.
    • clearingout
    • By clearingout 7th Aug 17, 12:45 AM
    • 3,148 Posts
    • 6,375 Thanks
    clearingout
    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.
    Originally posted by zagfles
    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?
    • zagfles
    • By zagfles 7th Aug 17, 7:50 AM
    • 12,495 Posts
    • 10,496 Thanks
    zagfles
    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.
    Originally posted by clearingout
    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.
    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.
    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 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.
    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 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?
    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.
    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?
    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.
    • Eve2928
    • By Eve2928 7th Aug 17, 10:28 AM
    • 10 Posts
    • 28 Thanks
    Eve2928
    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.
    • Tammykitty
    • By Tammykitty 7th Aug 17, 10:48 AM
    • 545 Posts
    • 1,167 Thanks
    Tammykitty
    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 payable
    Weight Loss Challenge
    Start: 10th September 2016 - 49lbs to lose.
    Progress - 22/49 (3/12/16)

    Restarted 8/05/17 - 41lbs to lose (Managed to put 1 stone on in 4 months!) Progress 6/41 (13/05/17)
    • nannytone
    • By nannytone 9th Aug 17, 5:40 PM
    • 12,228 Posts
    • 18,161 Thanks
    nannytone
    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.
    Originally posted by zagfles
    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 problem
    • zagfles
    • By zagfles 9th Aug 17, 6:06 PM
    • 12,495 Posts
    • 10,496 Thanks
    zagfles

    the gender of a parent is irrelevant, but actually contributing to the chords support isn't.
    Originally posted by nannytone
    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.
    • nannytone
    • By nannytone 9th Aug 17, 6:16 PM
    • 12,228 Posts
    • 18,161 Thanks
    nannytone
    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.
    Originally posted by zagfles
    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_
    • zagfles
    • By zagfles 9th Aug 17, 6:32 PM
    • 12,495 Posts
    • 10,496 Thanks
    zagfles
    it doesn't matter in the slightest what the other parent does!
    Originally posted by nannytone
    Oh so one parent can choose not to financially support their child but the other can't?
    hw has a personal responsibility towards his first child. end of story.
    Yes. Not to dump that child on someone else when he has contact. That would be immoral. He should offer care not cash.

    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.
    • Red-Squirrel
    • By Red-Squirrel 9th Aug 17, 6:33 PM
    • 2,000 Posts
    • 5,518 Thanks
    Red-Squirrel
    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?
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

192Posts Today

1,428Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • I realised I forgot in my links earlier. 1. Help to Buy ISAs, how they work and best buys...? https://t.co/BSCNPeqiVF

  • RT @whatdawndid: Thanks to uncle @MartinSLewis I just received £200 back, just like that from the student loan company! Turns out that the?

  • RT @LaraLewington: Shocked and saddened by Cheggers news. Working with him on It?s A Knockout was my 1st job in telly when I was just 19. H?

  • Follow Martin