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

GobbledyGook

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.

It's not the 'childless woman' (in this case) who has abdicated responsibility for their children. The child/ren is not the responsibility of the new partner, but of the parent and if they are not able to stand up to the whims of the new partner then they are probably not responsible enough to have more children.

And rather than 'childless women' I'd suggest the issue is to do with the throw-away and selfish 'I want' nature of society.

julie2710

I think the OPs friend should explain to her daughter that there is no maintenance to give an allowance out of. Why should she protect the image her daughter has of her father whilst she works hard and from what has been said is risking resentment from her children because she doesn't get so much quality time with them? Should she bare the brunt of this? However, she should do it in a way that isn't forcing judgements of the child's dad on to her but she should tell the truth.

Is he a great dad? Not really. It's been said that he sees them regularly but not how often that is. With a distance of 100 miles between them I'm guessing he doesn't see them after school in the week. Buying birthday presents and Christmas presents is something any parent should do for their children. It doesn't make them a great parent. A great parent takes responsibility for the welfare if their child. That includes financial support.

In this instance I think honesty is the best policy as anything else is unfortunately likely to come back and bite the poor mother who is doing her best to provide for her children.

itsanne

Lieja wrote: »

I know this is controversial on a money saving forum, but money is not the most important thing in the world. I completely agree. 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. Still in agreement so far. 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. Perfectly possible, although not necessarily the case. Dad then has new child, and again becomes a stay at home dad. No maintenance to ex, Maintenance is for his children, not his ex. This is where you lose me. but her income is greater because of the work he put in while their kids were young. So from here on it's all up to her? His contribution in being a SADH was perfectly valid. Her contribution at that time was the financial one -equally valid. Why should she be the only one to have a continuing responsibility. Kids have new siblings, and lovely relationship with dad continues. New siblings inevitably impact on the first children. That's fine, so long as they are treated equally. They are not suffering financially because mum is a high earner, Not the situation in the case this thread is about. Also, ignores the point that the father has an ongoing responsibility. He cannot just opt out to suit his new circumstances.nor emotionally because dad and new family are a positive part of their lives. If the father moves a considerable distance away, his relationship will hopefully remain positive. However, it means that he will have less time with the children. Of course that impacts on them!

Are they losing out because dad doesn't have a job? Yes. The father's SADH role does not benefit them in any way and prevents him contributing financially. Older kids live off one person's income, as do younger kids. Younger children live off one parent's income and the other parent's different contribution (which could also be seen as including the cost of childcare). First children live off one parent's income full stop. Yes one set has dad around a lot more, but it's not a competition. It's not a competition, but the first children have the right to be treated equally.

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. Of course they do. That doesn't mean the financial side should be ignored.

I'm sorry, Lieja, but I think you are minimising a father's responsibilities to his first children.

In this thread's case the mother is clearly not a high earner. She is having to work at times which are not good for the children in order to support them financially - and she is the only one doing so. Therefore not only do the children have less of their father's attention as he has moved away, they also have less of their mother's because she cannot support them otherwise. So the first children have limited attention from either parent while the new children have their father as SAHD.

You are right in saying that money is not everything, but that is only the case where lack of it is not a problem.

clearingout

itsanne wrote: »

You are right in saying that money is not everything, but that is only the case where lack of it is not a problem.

Children's outcomes at 16 are directly related to income. The less money coming into the household, the less likely they are to leave school with 5 GCSEs at C or above. I accept that there will always, always be exceptions to the rule but surely based on that information alone, the most important contribution an NRP can make is a financial one alongside being available for their children emotionally? I get sooooooo frustrated with the 'there's more to life than money' brigade. Yes, there is. I don't disagree. But it's soooo easy to say it when you're not the one cobbling together hundreds a month in childcare so you can work to support your children when your ex turns up once a week with an expensive toy and empty pockets.

MidLifeCrisis_3

Yes, she should be told the truth "We don't get child maintenance" should cover it.

Unfortunately it's the further questions that may follow "Why?" or "X's mum does" so maybe something simply along the lines of "All family situations are different". No point in mud slinging or saying "Because we don't". If it's pushed further then maybe "Well you'd need to ask your Dad"

I always find it's best to answer kids questions as truthfully and simply as possible and at a level they can understand. If they need to know more they will ask. After all when they ask about the birds and the bees we don't go getting the Karma Sutra out!

As it stands she will see it that mum isn't permitting an allowance from money that she thinks she has rights to and this will breed resentment. Maybe having the knowledge that there is no child maintenance she'll know and hopefully respect that mum already works hard to provide what she does for them. Perhaps they could compromise and take some special M&D time to go clothes shopping together to choose suitable affordable items when time and money permits instead or maybe be allocated pocket money from child benefit by helping with chores.

MLC

FBaby

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?

He doesn't now because I am continuing to work full-time to support my children. If I decided to cut down my hours (which I would love to do), I couldn't go to my ex and say 'sorry but from tomorrow, I expect you to contribute twice as much to make up for the fact that my income is going down'. Instead, my husband would be expected to make up the difference. Yet that is exactly what happens when it is the nrp who cuts down his hours or stop working all together. If I did stop work because for whatever reason, it suited my husband and I best, HE would be 100% for making up the difference, not my ex.

It may not be the case that the OP's ex who wants to deprive his older kids of anything. It may be that his new partner doesn't want her income swiped to support his kids, especially as she has two of her own.

So do you also agree that it shouldn't be for pwc's partners to support his step-children either? That he doesn't want his income swiped to support his partner's children, so if she were to lose her job, the system should allow for the nrp to make up the difference, regardless of how it affects his household?

Mojisola

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.'

Very well put.

This is the heart of it - the Dad has chosen a way of life that means he's not legally required to pay money to his children.

His partner is happy to work and pay for all the family expenses.

So she's happy to pay for him to eat, keep warm, buy new clothes, go on holiday, etc, but neither of them think it's important that he continues to send money to his first two children. Before he stopped work, that was a household expense - why shouldn't it be continued?

Errata

Before he stopped work, that was a household expense - why shouldn't it be continued

Because the self indulgent adults see the children as a disposable inconvenience.

fabforty

A big thank you to everyone who has replied. My friend has been following the thread with interest, and has decided what she will do - and even though it goes against my original advice, I do actually agree with her. She tried to register so that she could respond personally, but for some reason it's not happening, so she has asked me to do it on her behalf (i.e. the following are her words not mine).


I appreciate you all taking time to share your views and experiences, regardless of which side of the fence you are on. For those of you say that my ex is a good father - I have to beg to differ. He is not a bad man (and I am not going to sit her saying that he is), but he is a selfish one.
Just to clear up something which has been suggested a few times, he didn't leave me for another woman. We separated long before he met his new partner. He didn't stay at home with the children so that I could become a high earner as suggested in Leija's frankly fantastical account of our lives. We both worked hard to support our family, alternating our shifts and using childcare when we had to. He sees the girls once a week, on a Wednesday afternoon as that is what works for him.

He chose to become a SAHD now because he wants to be at home for a change (his exact words), not because of childcare costs or other factors. Her salary exceeds £60k and he was earning £40k before he stopped work.

He pays nothing now because neither he or his partner feel that it is her responsibility to pay for his children - again, these were his exact words. I suggested that as his partner works regular 9-5 hours, he could work a few evenings or at the weekend just to be able to provide something for our girls, even just a small amount. He won't because it would 'cut into his family time'. The only reason that the girls are not 'starving or dressed in rags' is because I work O/T and unsociable hours (which incidentally, wasn't guaranteed when he dropped the no CM bombshell). He did suggest that I could get a p/t job to supplement my main job - how ironic. I have no idea if/when the O/T will dry up, and to be honest, if it does we are screwed - therefore I take it whenever it is offered, even though it has meant missing out on really special days such as birthdays, bank holidays etc. My ex plans to stay at home until their children start school, so five more years at least.

Sharing childcare or custody is not an option because he moved over 100 miles away, to be nearer to her family.

I haven't said anything about this to the girls in the past because a) the subject had never really come up before and b) I was stupidly concerned about the impact it might have on their relationship with him and possibly with their siblings. However I have decided that if my daughter asks again, I will tell her the simple truth - 'there is no child support, discuss the reasons with your father'.
I do not expect him to put his life on hold, or not to move on, but the fact is that he could work and provide for all of his children if he wanted to, he chooses not to. Once again, thank you all for reading and responding.

Callie22

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.

I thinks that's harsh. My partner has a son from his first marriage, who now lives abroad with his ex-wife. If anything, because I grew up in a situation where my dad didn't pay, and where I had no family on my dad's side, I think I'm possibly a lot more sensitive to the needs of his son in terms of the divorce than a 'normal' parent would be. I'm often the one pushing OH to call, send stuff etc etc. His son will be coming over next year to stay with us and there's a strong possibility that in a couple of years he will come and live with us full-time for a good while. This doesn't bother me one bit and in fact I'm pleased that OH will get the chance to spend some time with his son whilst he's still young. I want his son to feel that wherever he is in the world, he's got a 'family' if he needs it.

My feeling is that my partner never hid the fact that he had a son from me and I had ample chance to walk away from the relationship if I didn't like it. As I stayed in the relationship then I have absolutely no right to put my own needs and wants before those of his child. I don't want kids and I can see how a mother might get 'territorial' over her 'own' kids, but I really struggle with those people who define family strictly in terms of biology. I'm not naive and I know how hard it can be to bring more than one family together, but my experience has been that more often than not it's the adults that handle things badly. I think it's a bit harsh to make a sweeping assertion that 'single women' are selfish when you look at how selfish many parents can be when there's a divorce.