We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
I Don't Have Kids Why Pay For Someone Else's?
Comments
-
I know..i can understand his concerns and a bit of mirth mixed in with the real debate always helps but he cant change what is on offer. If his GF was aware of this discussion then i guess she would be pretty upset.tinktinktinkerbell wrote: »tbf i can totally see why he wont pay for the kids, they arnt his and they arnt his step kids either so why should he, the REAL DAD should pay for them
Truth is,with most women,the kids come first.
This chap is worried that he will move in,take on all that stuff,then the biological father will kick back and relax knowing that someone else is taking a load of him.
I'm afraid its all or nothing OP so if your not sure..dont.Feudal Britain needs land reform. 70% of the land is "owned" by 1 % of the population and at least 50% is unregistered (inherited by landed gentry). Thats why your slave box costs so much..0 -
tinktinktinkerbell wrote: »tbf i can totally see why he wont pay for the kids, they arnt his and they arnt his step kids either so why should he, the REAL DAD should pay for them
Because he will be their stepfather in all but name, if he is serious and they get married he will be.
If he wants to shack up with his MRS and play happy families he needs to be man enough to realise she has kids and it will all come as one big family package.
Dividing things up saying "No not my kids, not my responsibility", will only make the kids hate him even more, cause more issues with the mother and cause a devisive family unit.
If he can't cope with paying towards the kids, don't move in with his gf, It's that simple they are a package.
If he is not sure he needs to stay clear.0 -
-
tinktinktinkerbell wrote: »why should he have to pay because a selfish !!!!! cant take care of HIS kids?
Because he lives with those children. Would you see children that lived in your home go without, just because their biological dad is useless?Gone ... or have I?0 -
tinktinktinkerbell wrote: »why should he have to pay because a selfish !!!!! cant take care of HIS kids?
Because he wants to become part of the family unit, that should mean warts and all, he can't just cut the children off like that if he wants to move in as a family.0 -
Well don't you at least understand my worries? Anyway no matter what you lot think of me your wrong. It was just a bad choice with the thread title. im going to say to her tonight that i'll pay all her mortgage every month (so she will be mortgage free) and that should make up for the lost £135 when i move in (Oh and btw i don't want anything back from her, or to be on the mortgage).
But i refuse to pay for everything with her kids. The kids dad can do that.
Not JUST the dad though - it is also HER responsibility to provide her share for the kids - that includes, food, clothing, home, extras - it doesn't ALL fall down to the dad.0 -
Because he lives with those children. Would you see children that lived in your home go without, just because their biological dad is useless?
quite frankly yes i would if the wernt mine
that said i would never get with someone with bagage in the first placetinkerbell28 wrote: »Because he wants to become part of the family unit, that should mean warts and all, he can't just cut the children off like that if he wants to move in as a family.
why not? the missus could up and leave him years down the line, taking the kids with her and he would have no rights to them what so ever0 -
tinktinktinkerbell wrote: »why should he have to pay because a selfish !!!!! cant take care of HIS kids?
The Dad could be dead for you all know - selfish !!!!. Maybe not in this case but he could be. He could have become disabled too. You should not be qo quick to pass judgement in situations such as these.
You cannot choose to move into a FAMILY home so the mum loses her benefits and then refuse to help out with the kids in any way shape or form. I would last 5 minutes and would mean more upheaval for the kids.
I think the OP is on a wind up, should they split up he would only be back in the exact same place where he is now and he seems to neither be skint of homeless so this thread is all but pretty pointless.0 -
tinktinktinkerbell wrote: »quite frankly yes i would if the wernt mine
that said i would never get with someone with bagage in the first place
why not? the missus could up and leave him years down the line, taking the kids with her and he would have no rights to them what so ever
Actually that is not strictly true, as an active step father he could apply and get access, especially if there are further siblings.
The fact still remains, he wants to move in with "baggage" he has to man up an accept it, if he can't don't do it, it's not that hard.0 -
tinktinktinkerbell wrote: »quite frankly yes i would if the wernt mine
To watch a child in your care go without basic provisions would be classed as abuse. You would be investigated for this, not the non resident parent.Gone ... or have I?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards