To think he should still pay maintenance if he takes a 'career break'

[PIPERHELLO]

Just that really. He's very well paid (six figs) and planning a career break. I am struggling to find a definitive answer online as to whether he can be forced (by court / Child Maintenance service) to continue paying maintenance if he voluntarily leaves his job.

Thanks.

But Jacques is sometimes things happen? We have no idea when the op's ex has taken a career break, yet pps are piling into him like vultures.
The default setting on threads such as these is ALWAYS to portray the nrp as as merely a cash machine, with no issues, problems or feelings of their own. Surely you can see that?
In general, women who are the lower earners or SAHPs are so because they want to be.The children stay with them after a split bacause it's what they want. Yet they morph into victims of misogyny when it suits them

We have no idea when the op's ex has taken a career break, yet pps are piling into him like vultures

No. We don’t. But he still has children he should be supporting financially. Whatever the reason he wants a break, that fact is irrefutable.

No axe to grind here, since this situation doesn't apply to me, but it seems that since two people choose to have DC, both should be responsible for them. It should be illegal to deliberately put yourself in a position where you can't support your children.

It's interesting that this was compared to sahp. A sahp is physically doing most of the childcare, which frees up the wohp to concentrate on bringing in the money. A couple who choose to divvy up the necessary tasks of childcare and earning money are both supporting their children.
Wrt divorced couples, the rp is still facilitating the nrp's ability to work without any childcare considerations but the benefits are not always being put back into the family. That is very unfair. Rp is fulfilling their side of the obligation to care for their DC but nrp is opting out.

I disagree with the idea that the contribution of the nrp isn't measurable. It is - either they are contributing money to financially support their kids, or they are contributing time,in the form of childcare, so rp has greater freedom to work. If they are doing neither of these things they are failing to meet their obligations to support their DC. Personally I'd prosecute them for child neglect!
Now it isn't always possible for a nrp to provide childcare, so they bloody well ought to be covering the financial element of their children's needs.

It's interesting that this was compared to sahp

The comparison doesn’t stack up for me because when one party decides to be a SAHP it’s usually a mutual decision. Any drop in income is taken into consideration and factored in.

It’s a terrifying prospect that a NRP can make wholesale changes to their lifestyle that can STILL affect the RP and of course is totally without their input or choice.

What annoys me about this is HE gets to decide to change his life. But although it affects his kids, THEY don't get a say. He might like a career break, but his kids still have to eat.

Has he re-married? If so, it might be the case that his wife's income can be taken into account when it comes to paying maintence

No. And nor should it. It's a shit situation for OP but it is not any new partners responsibility to support existing children. That is OP and her exes responsibility solely.

Whilst I couldn't personally be with a man who refused to, I don't believe responsibility should fall on to any new partner/wife. If they choose to, great but being forced to, no.

Depending on the situation, his wealth, what he plans to do during his 'career break' and your own financial situation, perhaps speak to a solicitor about making a Schedule 1 application.

I agree it's not a fair comparison. It's outrageous that nrp can still do this. Child support shouldn't be a bonus that you cannot rely on - it ought to be an absolute expectation that parents pay this and don't treat it as optional.
It far too simplistic to say that since a sahp isn't directly bringing in money, their contribution is the same as a nrp who cuts off child support. It completely ignores all the work involved in looking after kids full time, how taking responsibility for most of the childcare is a benefit to many wohp or the cost in terms of pensions/career progression and earning potential for sahp. The nrp gets all the benefits of a sahp partner but none of the drawbacks.
And that's before we get into the fact that sah might save a family a lot of childcare costs.

But he still has children he should be supporting financially. Whatever the reason he wants a break, that fact is irrefutable.

I'd love to know what his 6 figure job is.

I don't want some neuro surgeon on a burn out poking about in the deep black vortex of my brain, thanks.

Context is everything - and we never ever get it from the OP - they always do massively one sided woe-is-me thread.

Twenty gazillion posts here daily with the 'you deserve you time hun' but only if you are the RP, and a SAHP RP at that, with hours upon hours of spare time.

Absolutely fine for him to take a career break, so long as he’s sorted provision for the children. They don’t stop having needs because he’s not working.

The resident parent doesn’t get to opt out of providing for their kids. Neither should the i resident parent.

“it is not any new partners responsibility to support existing children”

New partners or RPs have to...

*of

So can’t he take rp while on his career break? He isn’t working, he can parent his own kids while you work

Fucking seriously?

What is so wildly contraversial about that idea?
Oh, the RP doesn't want that (or more likely will state the children don't want it) so is permitted to have choices about how they live their own life.
Shame the nrp isn't afforded the same luxury.

I would seriously judge a woman who would happily financially support her husband in giving up work but felt no obligation to ensure his kids were also supported. Fair enough to think they are his responsibility and not hers, but she should tell him to get his arse back to work and pay for his kids.

New partners or RPs have to

Do they? I didn't realise they had to?

I understand a lot do and that's admirable but no, CMS should not be taken from a new partners earnings. Partners of RP likewise do not have parental responsibility for their partners children. They may be more involved of course because they live with them full time.

I would seriously judge a woman who would happily financially support her husband in giving up work but felt no obligation to ensure his kids were also supported. Fair enough to think they are his responsibility and not hers, but she should tell him to get his arse back to work and pay for his kids

I totally agree and said in my post I could never be with someone that didn't support their children myself.

What's controversial is that this takes no account of uprooting the kids from their lives, on the whim of the nrp. And why should the rp lose their kids just because they expect the child's other parent to pay their share. You do, realise that not all divorced couples live in the same town and can share childcare.

I'd also hazard a guess that a fuckwit who makes himself unemployed and thinks child support is optional, is unlikely to be the sort of dad who will do ft childcare anyway!

Twenty gazillion posts here daily with the 'you deserve you time hun' but only if you are the RP, and a SAHP RP at that, with hours upon hours of spare time

It’s almost like MN is a massive forum with countless different views..

I don't want some neuro surgeon on a burn out poking about in the deep black vortex of my brain, thanks.

I think it might be too late!

It's interesting that this was compared to sahp. A sahp is physically doing most of the childcare, which frees up the wohp to concentrate on bringing in the money. A couple who choose to divvy up the necessary tasks of childcare and earning money are both supporting their children.

Indeed. It was a nonsensical comparison. The partner here is not proposing to move nearby and take on SAHP duties.

1. Mother doesn't have to declare maintenance as part of household income for benefit purposes but father cannot claim any deduction before working out if he's entitled to anything

That’s because there is no will in the government (successive ones) to actually deal with non paying nrp’s.

It’s to prevent situations like my grandparents were in whereby they were ‘awarded’ £64 a week from my father by the CSA. Housing benefit, income support and various other benefits (they were unexpectedly landed with 4 kids when the level of abuse in our house became clear) then counted that £64 a week as income when calculating benefits.

The CSA never collected a penny. In fact the only time they were interested was a few years ago when he died and that was only because part of the money was due to them because at one point that was a thing.

Plus the number of people who get thousands in maintenance whilst on benefits is absolutely tiny so hardly representative.

Just wait until he becomes 'self employed'; you'll never see a penny from him again.

"The fucking patriarchy."

Ok. I'll bite.

What does the "patriarchy" have to do with this? DH's ex did exactly the same thing.

I remember a similar post on here a while back. But in that post, the high earning ExDH had a mental breakdown, caused by the stress of his high powered job. His new wife was worried his mental health was so fragile that he would try and kill himself, I think. The OP, who was the ExWife, was outraged that his unpaid career break meant she wouldn't get maintenance, and was pretty much unilaterally told to shut up. That his mental health and well-being was more important than money, and she'd have to find ways to make ends meet somehow, because kids need their dad alive.

So I suppose it depends on the reason for his career break, really?

I must admit I don't understand this. Why wouldn't this be an ongoing liability? He can rack it up as a debt but it would still be owed. If the RP chose to take a career break she could stop paying the gas bill but it would still be owed. Why is money owed for children different?

Just to say dss' mother has played the system and doesn't pay maintenance for DSS.

She earns £72k a year and just doesn't pay the CMS amount due.

DH happily paid maintenance for 10 years.

It has nothing to do with gender.