Would you tell a child that NRP does not pay for them?

Errata

lostinrates wrote: »

As a matter of interest while I doubt any resident parent would take it...it might be that in this sort of situation there is choice....the sahm in the 'new family' could have the first family kids during the working week too, leaving the first partner (current resident parent) freedom to earn and have the 'fun' weekend visits. But few parents with residence I think would choose to relinquish it.

Why would any woman in her right mind want her kids to spend time with a woman who doesn't care if they're sheltered, fed or shod?

FBaby

Heaven knows I struggle and am in debt and there's no way I'd be paying maintenance to DH's ex,

And thankfully for you, you can make that choice unlike pwcp who don't have that choice. If I decided I wanted to stop working tomorrow for whatever reason, my ex wouldn't be made to suddenly pay maintenance to make up for my not working, it's my husband who would be expected to make up the difference. Thankfully, most pwcp accept that responsibility. Why so many nrps have such an issue with it is something I don't understand.

Yea, I agree with the poster that said this is a moral issue as the kids seem to be well provided for by their mum anyway.

When it comes to family, parents and love, moral issues often have more weight than legal ones. In any case, OP did say that the mother had to go back to work full-time and the kids now have to go to a childcare provider, so it does have more than a moral impact.

pinkshoes

Brighton_belle wrote: »

I'm another one for who it is inconceivable that he can be considered a 'great dad' for deliberately choosing a lifestyle which means he does not contribute his children's welfare financially and for valuing his 2nd lot of children over his first.
It's not an accident he does not earn any money - it is a choice.

He's not valuing his second children over his first! He is a stay at home parent because his partner earns far more than him - it's LOGICAL.

Why does no one bat an eyelid when the woman is the lowest earner and thus stays at home???

Perhaps the mum can suggest that he does more of the childcare, as if he's already a SAHD? He could have them stay with him 50% of the time perhaps?

This simple debate has been blown way out of proportion.

lostinrates

Errata wrote: »

Why would any woman in her right mind want her kids to spend time with a woman who doesn't care if they're sheltered, fed or shod?

As I said, I doubt any resident parent would give up that right. But I also think it might in some cases me inaccurate to say ' no choice'.

While I naturally have sympathy for op and agree, I hope if I were a second wife in this situation I would be wanting to maintain maintainaince (if nothing else for the benefit of my child's sibling relationships later on) it could be argued that many second wives would feel why should that maintain a first family where they are not legally obliged to and where resentment is (often ) felt.

As i say, not my view, but an arguable one.

FBaby

He's not valuing his second children over his first! He is a stay at home parent because his partner earns far more than him - it's LOGICAL.

Indeed, it is, but in that case, his new partner should take on all his financial duties. If she had children from a first marriage, and she had given up work, HE would have had to take on supporting her children financially. What's the difference?

Why does no one bat an eyelid when the woman is the lowest earner and thus stays at home???

Because she doesn't tell her ex that due to her choice, he now has to be double maintenance? She wants to make a change to her circumstances, she sorts out a way to afford it herself or with her new partner.

Perhaps the mum can suggest that he does more of the childcare, as if he's already a SAHD? He could have them stay with him 50% of the time perhaps?

Why would she do that when it wasn't the arrangement in the first place? She doesn't owe her ex to accomodate him and make his life easier. Both are responsible for their children, not each other.

This simple debate has been blown way out of proportion.

That's I think only the view of those who just don't appreciate that every parent should be financially responsible for their children.

FBaby

it could be argued that many second wives would feel why should that maintain a first family where they are not legally obliged to and where resentment is (often ) felt.

I'm sure many nrps wonder why they have to support children who they have absolutely no legal rights over when their own father who have those legal rights pay nothing to support them. Again, it's about moral responsibility.

As it's been said before, I personally couldn't respect my husband if he didn't contribute towards his previous children if he had any and if for the benefit of our household, it made sense that he stopped working (so somehow, I would benefit myself), I would not consider for a second not taking on his financial responsibility towards his children.

paulineb_2

Logical maybe. But one set of kids are missing out on maintenance.

Again, he could work around his partners shifts, doesn't need to be all it nothing, plenty people do it.

clearingout

Dasa wrote: »

Yea, I agree with the poster that said this is a moral issue as the kids seem to be well provided for by their mum anyway.

so....I provide for my children perfectly well....therefore their father doesn't have to? How does that work?!

My children are well cared for and have all that they need. I, on the other hand, go without to ensure this is the case. I also go without being able to save for a rainy day and I sure as hell struggle to put anything significant into a pension. My house could do with completely re-decorating as it's old and tatty but I couldn't find the money to do one room, let alone the whole lot. I wear shoes till they literally get holes in - one pair at a time, no multiple pairs. I don't go out 'cos I can't afford it. But as far as you're concerned, it's a 'moral' issue that my children's father should have to contribute towards their upbringing because they're clean and well fed and warm their father not contributing clearly doesn't affect them?! :mad::mad::mad:

Dunroamin

FBaby wrote: »

I'm sure many nrps wonder why they have to support children who they have absolutely no legal rights over when their own father who have those legal rights pay nothing to support them. Again, it's about moral responsibility.

As it's been said before, I personally couldn't respect my husband if he didn't contribute towards his previous children if he had any and if for the benefit of our household, it made sense that he stopped working (so somehow, I would benefit myself), I would not consider for a second not taking on his financial responsibility towards his children.

But I thought (and I apologise if I'm wrong) that you posted recently about the fact that your husband has no financial responsibility towards your children from a previous marriage?

Rev

I've not read the whole thread so apologies if I'm repeating.

Personally. I'd be honest. My father was never around. No birthday or Christmas cards etc but he always paid maintenance until I turned 16.

My mother was always honest with me about the situation but never bad mouthed him. Just states facts.

People seem to assume thy being honest with a child means bad mouthing the other patent but that's not the case.

My friend has a son who's father plays the doting dad but does zero. Never sees him, no maintenance. Always an excuse as to why there's no Christmas present or birthday present. She's honest with him. But never bad mouths the father. Just a simple 'no mate, your dad hasn't sent anything'. If she is asked. Or 'no Hun, no money from your dad this month'.

Why lie to the child?