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 3
    • zagfles
    • By zagfles 9th Aug 17, 6:54 PM
    • 12,495 Posts
    • 10,496 Thanks
    zagfles
    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.
    Originally posted by Red-Squirrel
    He's going to a SAHP. I know men offering direct care rather than cash is beyond the comprehension of some...
    Do you really think he'd do any different for you and your child if/when you split up?
    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?

    Or are we back in the 1950's again?
    • nannytone
    • By nannytone 9th Aug 17, 7:10 PM
    • 12,228 Posts
    • 18,161 Thanks
    nannytone
    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
    • By Red-Squirrel 10th Aug 17, 11:13 AM
    • 2,000 Posts
    • 5,518 Thanks
    Red-Squirrel
    He's going to a SAHP. I know men offering direct care rather than cash is beyond the comprehension of some...
    Originally posted by zagfles
    Only to one of his children though, the eldest won't be getting either.
    • Tammykitty
    • By Tammykitty 10th Aug 17, 5:39 PM
    • 545 Posts
    • 1,167 Thanks
    Tammykitty
    Only to one of his children though, the eldest won't be getting either.
    Originally posted by Red-Squirrel

    He has offered it to the eldest too but the PWC won't allow it.
    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)
    • Red-Squirrel
    • By Red-Squirrel 10th Aug 17, 8:00 PM
    • 2,000 Posts
    • 5,518 Thanks
    Red-Squirrel
    He has offered it to the eldest too but the PWC won't allow it.
    Originally posted by Tammykitty
    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
    • By clearingout 11th Aug 17, 5:04 PM
    • 3,148 Posts
    • 6,375 Thanks
    clearingout
    He's going to a SAHP. I know men offering direct care rather than cash is beyond the comprehension of some
    Originally posted by zagfles
    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
    • By zagfles 11th Aug 17, 8:46 PM
    • 12,495 Posts
    • 10,496 Thanks
    zagfles
    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!
    Originally posted by Red-Squirrel
    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
    • By zagfles 11th Aug 17, 8:48 PM
    • 12,495 Posts
    • 10,496 Thanks
    zagfles
    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.
    Originally posted by clearingout
    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
    • By Red-Squirrel 12th Aug 17, 1:21 PM
    • 2,000 Posts
    • 5,518 Thanks
    Red-Squirrel
    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.
    Originally posted by zagfles
    I'm pretty sure the OP's partner isn't offering that at all.
    • zagfles
    • By zagfles 12th Aug 17, 3:42 PM
    • 12,495 Posts
    • 10,496 Thanks
    zagfles
    I'm pretty sure the OP's partner isn't offering that at all.
    Originally posted by Red-Squirrel
    It was a suggestion.
    • Sambella
    • By Sambella 12th Aug 17, 5:21 PM
    • 348 Posts
    • 325 Thanks
    Sambella
    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!!
    • 13Kent
    • By 13Kent 14th Aug 17, 8:28 AM
    • 1,016 Posts
    • 3,983 Thanks
    13Kent
    In the old CSA system, the household income of the absent parent was taken into account - if the absent parent's partner was working then it was considered that they could contribute to the household bills therefore the absent parent had more disposable income and therefore their maintenance liability was more. This may be why they think your income will have a bearing on the maintenance needed.

    However I believe that the new CMS system is based purely on the income of the absent parent, taking into account how many nights that parent cares for the child in question, and also how many children from a new relationship that parent also needs to support.

    • Top Girl
    • By Top Girl 16th Sep 17, 1:15 PM
    • 1,106 Posts
    • 7,749 Thanks
    Top Girl
    I think the issue here is that you and your partner are the ones instigating the change, purely on what suits the two of you and your new baby and completely disregarding the arrangement he has in place with his ex and son.

    I'm not sure why you think you and he now have the right to dictate to her how things should be and unsettle the situation by changing an arrangement that worked before, because you are now having a baby and your wants/needs have changed.

    I'm also always wary of parents who don't want to pay for their children. As has been pointed out, your partner could work three evenings/nights per week easily enough whilst maintaining the situation you two have decided is best, but is choosing not to.

    I certainly wouldn't be happy about it in her shoes. Your childcare arrangements aren't her concern.
    • zagfles
    • By zagfles 16th Sep 17, 1:43 PM
    • 12,495 Posts
    • 10,496 Thanks
    zagfles
    I think the issue here is that you and your partner are the ones instigating the change, purely on what suits the two of you and your new baby and completely disregarding the arrangement he has in place with his ex and son.
    Originally posted by Top Girl
    Diddums. Sometimes things change.
    I'm not sure why you think you and he now have the right to dictate to her how things should be and unsettle the situation by changing an arrangement that worked before, because you are now having a baby and your wants/needs have changed.
    I'm not sure why you think you have the right to dictate who should work and who shouldn't. They've banned slavery you know.
    I'm also always wary of parents who don't want to pay for their children.
    So that's all parents who don't work them.
    As has been pointed out, your partner could work three evenings/nights per week easily enough whilst maintaining the situation you two have decided is best, but is choosing not to.

    I certainly wouldn't be happy about it in her shoes. Your childcare arrangements aren't her concern.
    They are if she wants him to work.

    This thread is over a month old. The OP wanted a factual answer, and has got it. Stir up the morality debate if you want, the OP is probably long gone and her and her ex have probably already decided what to do, based on factual information not the opinions of a load of hypocritical moralisers
    • decbel
    • By decbel 16th Sep 17, 1:58 PM
    • 1,494 Posts
    • 1,616 Thanks
    decbel
    OP

    The straight answer to whether your partners ex can dip into your wage is this-absolutely not.
    • Top Girl
    • By Top Girl 18th Sep 17, 2:00 PM
    • 1,106 Posts
    • 7,749 Thanks
    Top Girl
    Spot the bitter ex
    • MataNui
    • By MataNui 18th Sep 17, 4:08 PM
    • 873 Posts
    • 448 Thanks
    MataNui
    In the old CSA system, the household income of the absent parent was taken into account - if the absent parent's partner was working then it was considered that they could contribute to the household bills therefore the absent parent had more disposable income and therefore their maintenance liability was more. This may be why they think your income will have a bearing on the maintenance needed.
    Originally posted by 13Kent
    They asked the questions on the form but its never been a legal obligation to provide that information. CSA would tell you otherwise at the time but they would also say its only ever to your advantage ( for example that it would reduce your liability if your partner was on a low income) which was another CSA lie.

    CSA have always been a bunch of lying cocks. I simply wrote 'none of your !!!!ing business' on that part of the form. The absolute worst they can do if you didnt provide the information as assume a 50/50 split for the bills.
    • Sambella
    • By Sambella 21st Sep 17, 12:35 AM
    • 348 Posts
    • 325 Thanks
    Sambella
    Not entirely unrelated to the original post but interesting nonetheless

    http://www.marilynstowe.co.uk/2017/07/19/israeli-supreme-court-mothers-must-share-child-support/
    • HoneyNutLoop
    • By HoneyNutLoop 22nd Sep 17, 4:35 PM
    • 477 Posts
    • 376 Thanks
    HoneyNutLoop
    Only if you live in Israel. The Israeli Supreme Court has no jurisdiction in the UK.
    I often use a tablet to post, so sometimes my posts will have random letters inserted, or entirely the wrong word if autocorrect is trying to wind me up. Hopefully you'll still know what I mean.
    • unforeseen
    • By unforeseen 22nd Sep 17, 5:36 PM
    • 1,971 Posts
    • 2,483 Thanks
    unforeseen
    Not entirely unrelated to the original post but interesting nonetheless

    http://www.marilynstowe.co.uk/2017/07/19/israeli-supreme-court-mothers-must-share-child-support/
    Originally posted by Sambella
    Don't forget, this was a country whose ruler was going to cut a baby in half
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