To refuse to work full time even though DH wants me to?

Then he needs to earn more money to support his family and help raise his children by being physically present.

He's money driven but not in a job that pays well! Sounds like a loser. Tell him to retrain or shut tfu.

Well clearly retraining and not working isn’t an option as obviously no parent can just stop supporting their children. As a decent parent he’d be devastated to be unable to even offer the bare minimum that is government mandated child support.

You can’t really have expensive tastes and four or five children. Something has to give. He needs to relook at his options to earn more.

Always someone jealous of the ex 😂

Given that OP earns more, would it not make more sense for him to drop to four days and look after the kids while she works full time?

Seems like a system that just encourages feckless men to keep having kids tbh

My point isn’t directed at the OP.

It's the ex wife that just works weekends.

Read the thread OP doesn't just work weekends she works 4 full days a week. Her DH wants her to work 5 full days so.he can have new cars and take dsc on holiday. No idea how much ex works because OP has not said.

DC have 2 parents to provide resources for them. It's not all down to Dad.

CMS child maintenance payments does not reflect the cost of bringing up a child, no. It simply states all DC should get a share of the absent parents resources. The likes of footballers, e.g. Kyle Walker pays thousands every month for each of their DC which we all know DC don't cost that much. Other parents who maybe don't work at all, don't pay enough to feed their DC. CMS takes a percentage of whatever they do have and awards all DC an equally percentage. That is how it works. I have a relative who works for CMS and she gets all kinds of abuse when she explains this to the parent who provides most care for DC. For example a Dad might have 2 DC with his partner. They split up and he remarries and has another DC with new spouse. Mum remarries and has another DC with new partner. Let's say the original Dad is a high earner and pays £800 per DC each month and has DC to stay with him 2-3 days each week. Then after h has a new baby with new spouse he might be told by CMS to pay £533 per DC so ex gets £1066 pcm for 2 DC. Ex has a baby with new partner he is unemployed. First 2 DC are well provided for by their Dad but her new baby won't be because it's Dad is unemployed. Dad and new partner both provide well for their new baby so that baby is well provided for. Each of Dads 3 DC get £533 of his resources each month. Life is not always straight forward and can be complicated. But that's how it works.

She has a husband who provides as well. I think that's why she only works weekends so he doesn't have to provide much money for his SC.

But it's morally right for OP to indirectly subsidize a bone idle ex wife?

Are you sure that after tax, travel, nursery and student loan you'd actually make "enough" to really make more than the pay increment. I'm on an 0.8 contract at a uni over 5 days and the maths for me going to full time would be very marginal as we'd need wrap around childcare, and tax, NI and student loan would all take a good chunk of the difference... If you might creep into higher rate tax the margin gets even worse.

Other plus of not being full time is once you reach school age you can go to working 0.8 over 5 days and make pick ups from wraparound easier or drop a day or 2 of wraparound

No the point doesn’t seem to apply to the OP

@Arabella3

DH and SC’s living standards went up when we got together,

It sounds like he's got used to you being the bigger earner & wants you to subsidise his more extravagant tastes.

I personally traded in working less to have more time with mine when they were tiny. We had Eurocamp as a big treat (glamping tent) and camping or hostelling or a Travelodge as our holiday. He just wants flash holidays & a nice car & doesn't see the bigger picture.

Also his ex never even worked when SC were tiny. I wonder if he is jealous you earn more in 4 days than he does FT?

I don't recall OP saying anything about not being able to afford to feed any of the DC. Just her DH wants to spend money on new cars and wants OP to work more so she can pay for him to take his DC on holiday every year. The ex can also take the first DC on holiday. OP shouldn't have to give up time with her own DC when still a baby to pay for holidays for dsc.

But if their household income drops of course they could be going without essentials?

If a woman and 3 kids have X income and suddenly they have X minus whatever it isn’t a given that the shortfall was somehow spent on stuff that isn’t strictly necessary.

No one is saying earlier DC are going without essentials. OP and her DH have decided they would like 2 DC. Both earn so DH provides equally for all his DC. OP provides for her DC and his ex provides for her DC. It shouldn't all be down to one parent to provide the resources. If DC live with ex she will be receiving the child support payments too.

So it doesn’t reflect need i.e. the actual cost of raising a child.

Yes, the needs of ALL the DC not just the earlier ones. And child support is worked out as a percentage of absent parents earnings shared between all DC. Nothing to do with their needs or wants just a straight forward percent shared between ALL DC. That is what CMS do.

No all dc should get 10% if that’s the minimum is my point. Even the one living with. None of this daddy only supports those he doesn’t live with leaving mum to pick it all up either.

This 100%

I imagine some child support payments are even that high and don’t reflect the actual cost, and then daddy dearest knocks out a few more kids and gives even less to the first ones. That’s v v wrong.

@UndermyShoeJoe if there are 3 DC getting 30 percent of Dads resources between them then another DC is born each DC should get 7.5 percent of Dads resources each or do you really believe 3 DC should get 30 percent and one DC none? That would equate to no birthday gifts, no Xmas gifts etc because all Dad's resources must go to first 3 DC? Can't you see that would be fundamentally wrong.

But is the child support payment not supposed to reflect their needs?