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

Lieja

itsanne wrote: »

That's quite an assumption in my opinion.

He does what is best for his new children, contributes no maintenance to the first ones and moves 100 miles away. If he supports his first children in non-financial ways it's certainly not equal to the way he supports the new ones. His first children are getting decidedly short shrift.

That's actually a much bigger assumption than what I posted.

itsanne

Lieja wrote: »

No of course not but it doesn't sound like they're starving or going to school in rags! That's no thanks to him.

I'm another that thinks a new partner's income shouldn't necessarily be taken into account, although I do think that if a resident parent is struggling to look after the kids financially then the NRP should be doing something themselves to help out more, whether this means going back to work themselves or coming to an agreement with new partner about a contribution.

If my OH lost his job then I'd expect him to sort out an income so he could continue to support his child, and if we had a child together and he became a SAHD I'd be happy to contribute from my income as I would then consider it 'our' income.

Please explain to me why, when it takes two people to have children, one of them can abdicate all responsibility and the other have to be responsible for everything.

The father should have taken account of his original children's needs before taking any decision purely for the benefit of his new children.


For what it's worth, I have no vested interest in any direction on this topic.

itsanne

Lieja wrote: »

That's actually a much bigger assumption than what I posted.

In what way? He doesn't contribute and he moved away.

silvercar

GobbledyGook wrote: »

I'd imagine if he pointed out the other side someone would quickly ask why it's unfair for his new partner to be asked to work all day and then look after the children all night when his ex-wife is expected to work full-time, overtime and then look after the children.

Whilst I wouldn't be massively keen on using my income to fund someone else's child I'd be less keen on a relationship with a man who was happy to abandon any financial responsibility to his first children to SAHD to ours. I think it's sad when step-families are so split that all of the children are not given the same consideration.

Then again I'm odd. I don't think people should have more children they cannot afford. Even if that means waiting/not having children in a new relationship. If you have to withdraw all finances to children you already have then you can't afford another child. He wouldn't be having another child if it meant he didn't have a penny to spend on the one already living with him - I don't see the difference. According to someone I know (in a similar situation to the one in the OP) that makes me selfish, harsh and unrealistic so what do I know!

So you are really saying to single women with no children, "be careful of dating men who have had children as you shouldn't have any children of your own, unless you first make sure that your partner will be able to support the older children first".

shop-to-drop

silvercar wrote: »

So you are really saying to single women with no children, "be careful of dating men who have had children as you shouldn't have any children of your own, unless you first make sure that your partner will be able to support the older children first".

Do you think that's unreasonable? Sounds perfectly logical and fair to me.

Lieja

itsanne wrote: »

Please explain to me why, when it takes two people to have children, one of them can abdicate all responsibility and the other have to be responsible for everything.

The father should have taken account of his original children's needs before taking any decision purely for the benefit of his new children.


For what it's worth, I have no vested interest in any direction on this topic.

I know this is controversial on a money saving forum, but money is not the most important thing in the world. A dad might stay at home and look after his kids while mum goes to work, advances in her career and therefore earns a good wage. Relationship then breaks down and dad moves away - he's entitled to carry on with his life after all and he still sees his children regularly. When they see him he is happy and fulfilled in his life, and they really get a lot out of the positive time they spend with him. Dad then has new child, and again becomes a stay at home dad. No maintenance to ex, but her income is greater because of the work he put in while their kids were young. Kids have new siblings, and lovely relationship with dad continues. They are not suffering financially because mum is a high earner, nor emotionally because dad and new family are a positive part of their lives.

Are they losing out because dad doesn't have a job? Older kids live off one person's income, as do younger kids. Yes one set has dad around a lot more, but it's not a competition.

I'm not saying that that's the situation in the OP, but in my opinion a child has a lot more to gain from their parents than money.

GobbledyGook

silvercar wrote: »

So you are really saying to single women with no children, "be careful of dating men who have had children as you shouldn't have any children of your own, unless you first make sure that your partner will be able to support the older children first".

Yes. I don't think the rights of a person to have a child with a new partner are more important than the rights of a child to be financially supported by their parent.

I don't see the decision to have a child as any different when it's a new partner. You sit down, work out what you can afford with all your current commitments - which should include any children either party already has - and see if you can afford it. If you can't then you can't.

People rant and rave about mothers on benefits who pop out children without any regard to their ability to afford them, yet it's unfair to expect a couple thinking of children to consider the fact that one of them already has children? I don't understand that.


Also as a woman why would you want to have a child/children by someone who is happy to completely abdicate their financial responsibility to their older children? That baffles me.

duchy

I do think if you choose to marry a man or a woman with children then it isn't unreasonable to expect to take on the whole package -If the children lived with him you wouldn't expect him to stop supporting them just because you had married him you'd be moving into an existing family dynamic.....financially -why shouldn't the same apply when he's the NRP- -he contributed equally to creating those children in either scenario.

Most women choose a partner based on certain criteria-surely one of those is good father material-a man who'll move away from his already existing kids and then find a loophole to avoid supporting them wouldn't be the sort of man I'd want to father my kids-as if he did it once...he'll do it again and no man is going to consider MY kids as disposable. Most people like to treat their kids equally as much as they can ..... Equal only so long as I'm sleeping with your mother isn't good enough IMO.

silvercar

shop-to-drop wrote: »

Do you think that's unreasonable? Sounds perfectly logical and fair to me.

It is reasonable but (equality speaking) turn it round and say that men should be wary of women who already have kids and I'm sure some would object.

Also as a woman why would you want to have a child/children by someone who is happy to completely abdicate their financial responsibility to their older children? That baffles me.

As a woman, there may have been a time when you are in a strong relationship and realise you are getting older and feel that it is a now or never time to have children of your own, especially if you believe that the time to have children is when you are in a strong relationship.

silvercar

Most women choose a partner based on certain criteria-surely one of those is good father material-a man who'll move away from his already existing kids and then find a loophole to avoid supporting them wouldn't be the sort of man I'd want to father my kids-as if he did it once...he'll do it again and no man is going to consider MY kids as disposable. Most people like to treat their kids equally as much as they can ..... Equal only so long as I'm sleeping with your mother isn't good enough IMO.

But this "new" woman isn't choosing the Dad for financial support, she is lining him up as a SAHD. She is going to provide all the money for the family unit, and so in her eyes it is reasonable that he doesn't supply any maintenance to the previous children as again those children's mother can provide the money. So this woman is looking at things equally. She is a strong independent career woman, lets say. So she is in a relationship and its a good time to have children and she is happy to provide for them. Partner can stay at home and do the childcare (bit of a bonus that). So there is no way she wants her money going out of her home that she is working to support.

Just offering a different view,