To think he’s not doing anything wrong by stopping maintenance?

Not sure why you don’t believe what people are telling you but this might help. Of course depends if your brother is a high earner by this definition or just above average.

They can be in instances where the NRP earns amounts outside the remit of the CMS, but these are judged on a case by case basis. OP hasn’t said that he earns enough to put him in this particular bracket, incidentally, but if he is, that he has primary residency of the children would be particularly pertinent.

No they aren't.

No, it doesn't.

If she's claiming any benefits he can still claim cms from her if he wishes. It wouldn't be much obviously.

This is completely inaccurate. Income disparities absolutely is taken into consideration when determining child maintenance payments.

If she remains out of work this would indeed be the case. If she returns to work he would be fully within his rights to apply for maintenance. Him being in a better position financially does not negate her responsibility towards her children.

Yes. How I worked it out as fairly easy. See my comments on income disparity. The maintenance system takes that into consideration when determining contribution to the children’s rearing.

Yes he could. His income has no bearing on the CMS. You seem to lack understanding in this area.

You could be a multi billionaire, have your kids ft and claim maintenance off your ex who earns minimum wage.

No he couldn’t. Not given the financial disparity in their earnings.

You didn't read it did you. She's the sister.

You're also wrong on all counts.

Also to be clear there seems to be confusion in thinking having primary resident care means the other parent needs to pay the bulk of maintenance.

While that is part of it the overwhelming part is consideration of parents income. If I earn a £1m a year and my ex £35k then even if I have them more days I will expect to incur the greater portion of costs in raising them.

But somebody quitting their job to chill and thus ensuring their kids lose the full degree of support they got before just strikes me as a bum move. And the fact he was making voluntary payments is really neither here nor there. Court ordered minimums rarely reflect an equitable contribution to the rearing of a child.

And you also need to learn to mind your business. This is between his ex and him. You are just the new girlfriend.

Really? Even though he has them the majority of the time?

How'd ya work that one out?

I think both you and he are being unreasonable. Sounds like he is putting his comfort above that of his children.

He isn't in the wrong at all, in fact he's been more than generous in continuing the payments to subsidise her children with her new partner! For her to ask to have her older children less because of a new baby with her current partner is a bit shit in my eyes. Don't have more kids if you haven't got enough time for all of them. Sounds like they're better off with your brother OP.

I think you are best getting legal advice or speaking with child maintenance directly. My partner pays Child Maintenance to an ex we have to deal with this wrangle all the time.

He was recently declared disabled until he has a surgical procedure and then will have a period off work to recover. This is going to take roughly a year. He's been put into a desk job in the meantime and our monthly income is down by £400 a month. CMS have stated that when they do the annual review it will get lowered and not until then because technically he still has a job and they base it on the previous 12 months of his earnings reported to HMRC.

Right or Wrong in the eyes of public opinion this money grabbing woman could still have a claim even if they children are not with her full time.

I personally think he's right to stop. She's having kids with other people and expecting Jack to pay for her lifestyle.

Did I say otherwise? Of course OPs can be challenged, but so can the opinions of other posters.

Sometimes conflict is necessary, and not to be shied from lest you aspire to be an absolute doormat.

Ah my bad, I thought it was to help people get different perspectives and help them understand and work through things, not just to get validation that their view was right and keep them stuck in conflict.

That's exactly what's happening here. The dad is RP. The mum should be paying maintenance. She isn't. She shouldn't be expecting maintenance

No, it doesn’t automatically change anything in the eyes of the law. Such cases are decided individually, and that the high earning parent is the one that has majority residency of the children would factor heavily into any decision making. As would the responsibility of their mother to step up and provide for her children, a responsibility she was aware of when she decided to have two more.

If the mother cannot afford her first two children then perhaps their father can assume full residency.

And no shit, that’s how message boards work.

I don’t think that’s what’s happening here? Maintenance is for the existing kids. I happen to think it’s not appropriate for new partners to be expected to pay for previous partners children at all, in any way.

So.you would be ok if a NRP was the dad and he expected the RP mum to pay him maintenance?

All I’m saying is 1. Residency split doesn’t apply in high income situations when there is a huge disparity between both parents earnings. This is implied but no detail given and changes things drastically in the eyes of the law 2. Financial needs of the first 2 kids is the same regardless of any new kids 3. The story expressed here will be inherently biased. If the poster is upset, their understanding of the situation is upsetting them, and their understanding of the story is what they are sharing

She doesn’t have majority residence of their children - he does. He could, by rights, ask for child maintenance from her.

She decided to have two more children without factoring in the financial impact of this. It isn’t up to her ex to ameliorate this.

Confused why people think she’s asking him to fund her life/household rather than kids. Of course if she suddenly has significantly less funds towards her kids from her ex it will mean she will need to divert what she has budgeted towards her kids with an impact elsewhere.

Forums like this aren’t very helpful as only one side of the story ever presented