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

GobbledyGook

silvercar wrote: »

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.

I think it's an equal point. Anyone getting involved in a relationship with someone who has children surely should or needs to think about the fact that the person has a responsibility to their child. A responsibility that shouldn't just disappear because Daddy or Mummy wants a new life.

silvercar wrote: »

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.

So a woman having children of her own is an acceptable reason to abandon responsibility to children already born?

I just don't buy that. Women who want children don't always get them. Some have to accept that they cannot afford them. If the only way you can afford them with that partner is to ditch any financial help towards the children (who now have a poorer quality of life if they have less despite their mother working more - which also means less quality time with her) that one of them already has then you cannot afford them.

duchy

silvercar wrote: »

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.



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.

That#s fine -exactly like everyone else....have the children you can afford to have. If you're heading towards forty and still unattached and childless odds are you'll have financial stability and savings so unless you've picked a total loser you'll be no worse off and probably better off than most couples in their teens having a baby. Of course there is always the risk that if a man has left one family he's statistically more likely to do it again but that should be a part of your decision of is your relationship strong enough or not to support yet another child between the two of you.

duchy

silvercar wrote: »

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,

So she thinks any children her partner had previously should be ignored financially and unsupported by their father? I wonder if when the time comes he moves on and gets another lass pregnant if she might not find her opinion changes a bit ?

duchy

silvercar wrote: »

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,

Read my post again -I didn't mention money -Parental responsibility is about a lot more than cash. Not supporting children financially is a symptom of poor parenting not a cause.

Actually I think a big part of this is the single mindedness of childless women - they have never had to put someone first consistently the way a normal parent does with their child so the concept of thinking about the existing children doesn't even occur to them as it is only about their needs and wants for a child and a relationship.

mountainofdebt

Lieja wrote: »

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

But it also sounds as if the mum is having to work shifts when she'd rather be with the children because he isn't paying maintenance.

So dad gets to play the hero because he buys birthday and christmas presents whilst mum has to miss the important events such as school concerts etc because she is covering dad's backside....nice.

GobbledyGook

Plus even if it is reasonable in the eyes of the new partner that he becomes a SAHD and she funds their family unit why is it reasonable to him?

What makes a parent sit down and think 'Yes, I will just stop paying towards the children I already have. That's ok.'

It's not down to the new partner to say 'Don't you think we should be paying towards the children you have?' it should be the parent saying 'I'd love to be a SAHD, but obviously I have my responsibility to Janet and John so we need to work something out. Either we'll have to class something as a household expense or I'll have to work at least part time to send something.'

silvercar

GobbledyGook wrote: »

Plus even if it is reasonable in the eyes of the new partner that he becomes a SAHD and she funds their family unit why is it reasonable to him?

What makes a parent sit down and think 'Yes, I will just stop paying towards the children I already have. That's ok.'

It's not down to the new partner to say 'Don't you think we should be paying towards the children you have?' it should be the parent saying 'I'd love to be a SAHD, but obviously I have my responsibility to Janet and John so we need to work something out. Either we'll have to class something as a household expense or I'll have to work at least part time to send something.'

I like that thought.

duchy wrote:

So she thinks any children her partner had previously should be ignored financially and unsupported by their father? I wonder if when the time comes he moves on and gets another lass pregnant if she might not find her opinion changes a bit ?

Him moving on must be a possibility to start with, history repeating. Maybe that is what features in her desire to keep her career going and to work, that at some point she could well be on her own, so wants to be financially independent. But if and when he does move on, she isn't going to be paying any maintenance to his previous family, or do people think she should?

Person_one

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".

Um, yeah.

Don't forget, if you marry/commit to an NRP with children, you also have to accept the possibility of them moving in full time should something happen to the PWC.

It's not something to take lightly!

clearingout

duchy wrote: »

Actually I think a big part of this is the single mindedness of childless women - they have never had to put someone first consistently the way a normal parent does with their child so the concept of thinking about the existing children doesn't even occur to them as it is only about their needs and wants for a child and a relationship.

Not sure it's a childless woman issue. My ex has had a number of girlfriends, all of whom appear to have been more than happy to stand by him whilst he doesn't support his children. The worst one was the three children by three fathers woman he left me for - her motive seems to have been 'stable family with decent guy who is doing very well for himself and has children in private school'. She took him (well, us in the first year of our separation anyway) for thousands. She owns half of my ex's home now - and he just signed it over to her after they had split up/got back together/split up/got back together more times than I care to mention. I mean seriously, what kind of fool gives away half his mortgage-free home to a woman he can't commit to?!

Person_one

duchy wrote: »

Actually I think a big part of this is the single mindedness of childless women - they have never had to put someone first consistently the way a normal parent does with their child so the concept of thinking about the existing children doesn't even occur to them as it is only about their needs and wants for a child and a relationship.

What a ridiculous and frankly insulting assertion.