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.

I also think nobody is forced to be a SAHM. And if you become one then know the risks! I cant see that any court would take the family home etc from a SAHM.

People choose to be sahp in the expectation that they won't get divorced. And it isn't a decision they make by themselves or one which is without benefit to the wohp. It isn't fair that the risk is all theirs. And that's before you get into the reality that some are forced into it because childcare is more than they earn

We did 50/50 on everything. Childcare and related osts etc . Neither of us paid maintenance or anything like that. Worked very well.

*related costs

And that's before you get into the reality that some are forced into it because childcare is more than they earn

Do you think men have to think about whether their salary covers childcare?

And why is it always only the woman’s salary that pays childcare. Surely whether childcare is affordable or not depends on joint salary?

Many women who give up work because “their salary doesn’t cover it” would be better staying in work as long term they will be far worse off in terms of earning potential, pension etc. Especially of they split. And divorce is so common these days it’s pretty much a 50:50 chance that you will.

People need to start looking beyond “my salary won’t cover nursery” and thinking long term.

My salary didn’t cover nursery. Our joint income did. I stayed in work and am now the higher earner, continues pension means there is a chance i’ll get to retire before I die. If anything happens to dh or we split we will both be able to support ourselves, rather than have one income support two homes.

“Because youre not a couple. Its not up to 1 parent to subsidise the other!”

Subsidising the other parent?... because it benefits the child.

I find it quite odd tbh to not want your children to benefit from your income, I don’t understand at all when the NRP has a better standard of living than their child and doesn’t feel that it’s an issue.

I’ve also never met an NRP who wants to be the RP - I’m sure they exist, but in every single case I can think of, the NRP has decided how much access they have to children, not the RP.

It should be means tested. So, X voluntarily leaves work for a year but obviously needs some sort of income to live. This should be proven to CMS with documention, like it is when repaying student loan, for example. If this income comes from a giant pile of savings, or a partner's income, or passive income from a side business etc then they should deduct maintenance payments accordingly.

It wouldn't be a perfect system but it would at least be fairer than what we have now.

People choose to be sahp in the expectation that they won't get divorced. And it isn't a decision they make by themselves or one which is without benefit to the wohp. It isn't fair that the risk is all theirs. And that's before you get into the reality that some are forced into it because childcare is more than they earn

im not saying its a decision they make on their own, but I really think you have to consider everything before you do something as drastic as giving up your job! nobody thinks they're going to get divorced, but in this day and age its something worth considering and to be honest, I would have never given up my job because of fear of dp being made redundant, dying, becoming too ill to work. Not everyone considers that, but for me it was an important part of going back to work.

I think like a pp has said you have to look past "my salary doesn't cover nursery" sometimes.

unless you have been literally forced not to work since having children, then I don't see why your ex husband should support you, even though he's already doing his fair share of support (obviously only if its true 50/50 care.

Both parents should be financially responsible to best of their means. No, a NRP shouldn't opt out.

But comments about patriarchy make me laugh. Try telling DS1 that, he pays maintenance as it is responsibility. He isalso being systematically alienated from his DC, since he took action and got court order he has seen DC twice. His ex just said 'no court tells me what to do with my children'...it went back to court...she ignored.. He either pays maintenance or pays goes back to court for her to ignore the orders, he cant afford both and cant afford to keep doing so for her to ignore it. There is no comeback for her without years of their childhood disappaearing. A patriarchy would make sure court orders had teeth. Parental alienation is child abuse. Child abuse that is ignored.
The latest is getting 5 year old to 'tell daddy you hate him' and 5 year old parroting it over the phone.
It is slowly ruining DS1s mental health.

but their child has the same standard of living when with them...

its not benefitting the child, the child has everything when with that parent, and anyone reasonable is not going to take away clothes / phones / whatever else when they go back to their other home for a week are they?

also, again just because you don't know any NRPs who've had contact dictated to them, doesn't mean they don't exist. Every single NRP who's ever gone to court will have had contact dictated to them.

DP had contact dictated to him, he didn't get a choice. He went through mediation to get it and likely it wouldn't have been much more through court. Its very ignorant to believe that NRPs hold all the cards, most of them do not. You get a lot of "well you left your children so tough shit"

its not about your children benefitting from your income, because as I say, if you had true 50/50 care, they would benefit anyway, without you then paying your ex husband/wifes bills on top of that.

It really saddens me sometimes to see how harsh women (I am assuming most of these posts are from women) can be to other women.
I am all for reality checks, and also open to listening to other POVs, but the utter lack of empathy, or ability to see the other side of the story really shocks me sometimes.

It is a really complicated situation, I agree. To respond to some points.

1.. RE this - "Just to add that if the OP's ex wants to do more childcare to justify lack of cs, the OP risks giving up valuable childcare spaces that she can't get back if he decides on a whim to go back to work!" - exactly!!! Someone who actually gets the practicalities of this situation.

1. @PlantPotParrot - where to start!? I'm assuming you're a man? If not, that you either have no experience of this or are so well off the issues don't affect you as you are massively missing the points and subtleties here...

RE this - "Disparity in income is irrelevant. Youre not a couple!" - the fact that I am there for our son ALL THE TIME is not irrelevant. My care for our son enables him to work abroad, work late, go out for work drinks, work early, stay over. All of this sort of thing - as many of us know from experience - is needed if you are going to progress your career. I am able to do none of these things because my x is never there to reciprocate. So I massively facilitate his career and massive earning. I suspect if he were in my position, he would not be able to earn FULL STOP. At least I am managing to earn something.

RE this - "I think a lot of women expect they will be the RP, become the RP and then whinge about how much kids cost, how little freedom they have and complain about the NRPs social life. But those same women wouldn't even consider 50/50 care, or even more than EOW a lot of the times." - I have never met a mother who doesn't want to love and care for her children, generally at a cost to their career, social life, freedom, etc. Meanwhile there seem to be plenty of fathers who may complain about not seeing their DCs but ultimately choose (it is a choice after all) to prioritise work, social life, hobbies, toys etc. May not be a popular view, but that is certainly my experience.

So why not go 50/50 on everything?

So why not go 50/50 on everything?

That’s simply not always possible when there’s a huge disparity in income.

My cousins ex earns ££££££ so wants the kids dressed in clothes from higher end shops and to go to several expensive activities (horse riding and 1:1 swimming lessons for example).

Their biggest row was childcare. She agreed they should go 50/50, but he expected them to go to an expensive all bells and whistles nursery centre full time, whereas her budget allowed for an excellent childminder for the minimum hours needed.

There’s also an issue with schooling when it’s truly 50/50 as one parent can end up with travel costs when the child is with them.

piper no im not a man, and I have experience of this on both sides, ive been both an RP and and NRP. We've had non payments of maintenance from ex, we've paid throughout. We've funded 100% of school uniform, clothes, holidays throughout. So I know how expensive it is, I know its a pain in the arse, and again I do think your ex is being unreasonable, yes.

you don't have to be there for your son all the time to enable your ex to do what he likes, insist on 50/50 and he will be just as tied down as you are, and you will have more freedom to earn more, holiday more, do what you like! call his bluff!

you do not HAVE to facilitate his career. He is your EX.

Dps ex continuously complained she had no social life when the kids lived with her initially, she gave dp Friday nights and all day sunday as contact to ensure that he had no social life. When DSS lived with us, she asked for Tuesday nights and a few hours on a Saturday for contact so she could carry on going out on a Friday.

There are some women who couldn't give a crap about their kids too.

I don't think men choose to prioritise work, but when you're expected to support a family on one income, and then (rightly) expected to continue to support that family, and any other children you may go on to have you don't actually have a choice do you. You've shown that here, he wants to give up work for a year and you're unhappy about it.

You cant have it both ways.

Fair enough. But most of those things can be talked through and negotiated. Not sure what you mean about travel costs.

“just because you don't know any NRPs who've had contact dictated to them, doesn't mean they don't exist.“

Of course they exist.

But given how infrequently I’ve come across an NRP who wants more contact, never mind actually goes to court... I assume it’s more common that it’s not dictated to them.

“its not benefitting the child, the child has everything when with that parent, and anyone reasonable is not going to take away clothes / phones / whatever else when they go back to their other home for a week are they?“

Not reasonable people no, but people do...

And it’s all very well benefiting while they’re there, but it doesn’t make it any better when they’re not and they want/need things that can’t be provided by the RP and the NRP won’t.

@PPP you are incredibly projecting here.

Tell me please how the hell this works in practice. Are you suggesting I just don't collect him from school & when school call say 'oh yes i"m 5 mins away but its x's night to collect, oh I don't care that he is in Glasgow 2 hours away, tough shit, son will have to wait. Sorry." - FFS!? Be practical. The only person that suffers here is our son:
"you don't have to be there for your son all the time to enable your ex to do what he likes, insist on 50/50 and he will be just as tied down as you are, and you will have more freedom to earn more, holiday more, do what you like! call his bluff!"

Why shouldn't she have one night a week where she chooses to go out!? If she is caring for the kids the majority of the time, why the hell shouldn't she have a night a week - god, even 2 or 3 - where she can meet friends etc: - "Dps ex continuously complained she had no social life when the kids lived with her initially, she gave dp Friday nights and all day sunday as contact to ensure that he had no social life. When DSS lived with us, she asked for Tuesday nights and a few hours on a Saturday for contact so she could carry on going out on a Friday."

Not met any myself. Think that's pretty much crap actually. Yes there are some women so stressed by lack of money and job and school and kids and housing that they break. That's not the same. - "There are some women who couldn't give a crap about their kids too."

I don't care if he give sup work, as long as he maintains his commitment to support our son. - "he wants to give up work for a year and you're unhappy about it."

When I say that childcare can cost more than a woman earns, I don't mean that it should come entirely from her salary. But whether a couple pool their money or not, if childcare leaves them with less money then it may be a choice between paying nursery or paying the mortgage. All very well to say it's short sighted to give up work because of the loss of pensions/career progression etc but some people really can't afford to stay in work. It's not a question of just bring a bit skint until the free hours or school kicks in, it's a question of not being able to work at a loss and still live.
I also think it is very divisive for children if one parent can afford to do all the nice things with a child, but the other is unable to. I think it's probably best for kids if their two homes are as equal as possible.

Wow! Can’t believe it is assessed on his earnings, not his income. So a rich lord who didn’t work but had a vast trust fund would pay less than a man on minimum wage? Really unfair Piperhello

Not sure what you mean about travel costs.

Unless you live in the same area, which is less likely with a large income disparity, then one parent is going to be further from the school so may have travel costs in their time to get the child to and from school

how am I projecting? i'm not in a situation where we do 50/50! all I have said is it works for some people, in one post I even said that i'm not saying you should do it!

However, in your last post you mentioned how you facilitate your EX's career, you sound unhappy about it so bloody well change it!

He is taking a year off. Call his bluff. Let him step up and do childcare. You seem unhappy with the situation but entirely unwilling to change anything. I don't think anyone (including myself!) has suggested springing childcare on him, why not actually talk to him, see what he wants to do, see what you're willing to compromise on?

If he is willing to agree to an extra night a week, or whatever, then take it. Have some time to yourself!

How is your son suffering if you mutually agree on your ex husband parenting more? I don't get it!

Why shouldn't she have a night out? im not saying she shouldn't, i'm saying she strategically planned contact, when the kids lived with her and when they didn't, so that she had a social life and DP didn't. Did DP not deserve a night out when he was RP then?

You've not met any what yourself? Women that don't give a shit about their kids? Well lucky you! just because you haven't met one doesn't mean they don't exist, there are plenty of shit mothers as well as shit fathers you know. DPs ex was not stressed by lack of money, or housing. She has a lovely house which was paid for by DP, plenty of maintenance even when DSS lived with us, she works, she goes out every weekend so I would guess she is not struggling.

I am sure some women do struggle - she is not one of them I can assure you. She is just more bothered about her social life.

You clearly do care!

So what happens when the OP tells her ex he's doing 50/50 in future and he says fuck off? You can't actually make someone do 50/50, even when they unilaterally decide to stop child support.
A lot of nrp who claim to want more access, want it on their terms, which isn't always much help to the rp.

Obviously there are also women who behave appallingly and deny their children access to their father, for no good reason and equally I believe the law should be stronger here too.

at what point have is said make him do anything? I suggested she talk to him. I am not sure what's wrong with that.

50/50 might not work for them, but maybe he could do an extra night a week or whatever, she wont know unless she bothers speaking to him about it.

Also why do you assume he will say fuck off in future? we know nothing about him!

yes, there should but there never will be because theres no way to enforce it.

You can't actually make someone do 50/50

Exactly this.

Even when they take you to court (for no reason!) and ‘win’ half holidays, every other weekend and an evening in the week (as they’ve always been offered/had available) there’s actually fuck all that can be done to compel them to actually see/take their children in that time.

Even when their contact time is detailed by a court they can’t be forced to take it so the RP can’t force the other parent to do 50/50 even if they tried

nobody has said to force him to have 50/50 ffs!