Ex left his job to retrain as a doctor - no maintenance

[Childmaintenancechaser]

My ex had a well paid corporate job (between £120K - £150K at various times). Arranging child maintenance was a struggle, for a long time the level was set at £51 / week for two children for reasons I cannot fully understand (he has limited contact, by choice). Childcare fees were not accepted by the CMS as something he has a duty to contribute to either. I had to return to full time work with two under two, and am still deeply in debt accrued at that time.
Now he finally has a job where he is employed in the UK and his full earnings are under PAYE and thus visible to the HMRC. And... I have just received an official letter from him that he is quitting his current job in order to retrain as a medical doctor and not planning to be in paid employment at least for the next six years. He's in early 50s, and both our children are still under 5.
I don't even know what my AIBU is. AIBU to think that if one has enough funds to get through the medical school, it has to be taken into account for the child support calculation? AIBU to be very jealous at him for having this freedom to do as he wishes?

YANBU
He's quite happy not to provide for his children. What a lovely man.

You do know that age discrimination is the only type of direct discrimination that is capable of objective justification, @phr47bridge? I think there could be an argument for medical schools not to accept applicants that age.

OP, but have you thought about writing to your MP at some point? I would think you'd be an excellent example of why the laws around child maintenance need to be rewritten.

You do know that age discrimination is the only type of direct discrimination that is capable of objective justification

No, it is not the only type that is capable of justification. The rules are the same as for all other forms of direct and indirect discrimination. It is allowed if you can show that it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. It is hard to see what legitimate aim would be served by refusing to admit older applicants to medical school. And UK-based medical schools do admit older applicants, contrary to many statements on this thread.

That's abhorrent, and he's clearly only doing it to avoid paying you

Oh come on, yes it's abhorrent he's not paying for his children's upkeep - but taking on a 6 year slog of studying cannot be the driver to avoid paying the OP. (Plus she's referred to it as previously being a dream of ex-DH)

And let's quit the ageism here! OP's ex is appalling enough - no need to bring ageism into it!

He's a gigantic cunt. Unfortunately there's a lot of it about. CMS are hopeless. They don't have any powers to deal with a situation like this and even the powers they do have, they don't want to use. The patriarchy is alive and kicking. And before someone comes along and says 'It's not just men', the vast majority of them are men. Sickening.

but taking on a 6 year slog of studying cannot be the driver to avoid paying the OP hahaha - oh to be this naive!

Really? There are a lot of far easier courses he could have chosen for a start if getting out of CMS payments was his main driver.

That last for 6 or 7 years? I don't think so.

@Foxmuffin

That's the case for maintenance, yes. Court has jurisdiction either if DF out of jurisdiction or if he is here but earning over £156k gross pa (in case of the latter you first have to go through the motions of getting a maximum CMS assessment).

However, regardless of that, the court in EVERY case has the power to make lump sum orders. Not in lieu of maintenance, but freestanding lump sums. So if DM can show a specific lump sum need (eg new car) that she can't find out of income and DF has means to pay, the court can order lump sums.

Schedule 1 is usually used by unmarried DMs but no reason why it can't be used by an ex spouse.

@OP
Sorry to hear the court system failed you.
Out of interest, I'm not sure you needed to faff around with REMO. There's a lovely thing called a Writ non exeat regno. You can slap one of these on someone who owes you money if they are leaving the jurisdiction. They then cannot leave until they've paid you. I've never done one myself but often threatened it. Just the threat always worked.

But all that matters is that he has no taxable income. He doesn't need to be studying anything at all to get out of paying maintenance.

People don't half chat a lot of hysterical shite on these threads.

I'm a doctor.

As various posters (most of whom are either doctors or lawyers) have already pointed out, medical schools can't discriminate based on age. If you're an otherwise good candidate, you can get a place at any age. In my year group, we had a graduate-entry student who was 44 when he started (so would be 48 upon qualifying). It's ridiculous to claim that the acceptance letter must be fraudulent because of his age.

Please don't humiliate yourself by contacting the university and trying to claim that he's unfit to be a doctor because he's ethically unsuitable. The affair certainly isn't relevant. DH and I are both doctors. We met when we were both married to other people, albeit both in marriages which were on their last legs and which we were both, separately, planning to leave. We are now married to each other, have a child, and nobody gives a shit. Both sets of colleagues know we are adulterers and NOBODY CARES. Having an affair doesn't make you unfit to be a doctor. If you tried to stop every person who has ever had an affair from practicing Medicine, the staffing crisis in the NHS would become even more acute.

Child maintenance is calculated on earnings. If your ex isn't earning any money, then he is technically correct to state that he won't be legally obliged to pay maintenance. I agree with those of you who have pointed out that he has a moral obligation to support his children, but he's not doing anything illegal or so unethical that it would stop him from practicing Medicine, so don't expect the medical school to revoke his place because of that either.

One of the lawyers on this thread suggested there might be an alternative mechanism for claiming money (schedule 1 of the Children's Act). I don't know - I'm not a lawyer - but maybe you should speak to a local solicitor and see if this is worth exploring, if you think he has a lot of capital?

I understand this must have come as an awful shock, OP, but many of the comments on this thread are inflammatory and inaccurate. Try to stay calm and clear-headed.

Theoretically CMS has been deducted already from when it was income, so it’s like being taxed twice

that makes no sense (apart from the fact that we often pay tax when we spend money we have already paid income tax on). You should use what money you have to support your children - whether it be savings, income from a job, income from investments, inheritance etc. Paying for them last month shouldn't mean you get to keep all of last month's money even though your children are hungry. CMS don't take money from anything but income but that is a policy choice (gosh I wonder why) - nothing to do with paying child support twice. where I am in the US the freeloading wannabe doctor would still have to pay his child maintenance - and would be unable to renew his driving licence unless he did.

Many, many doctors are tossers same as us civilians. There was the co sultant at Northwick park who murdered his pregnant partner (or attempted murder)
Mr. Anthony McGrath orthopaedic surgeon done for massive fraud.
Being a doc is not an automatic given of compassionate nature.
He is a prick

I would want to respond to his pontificating in the vein that when he followed his dream and created two dependent humans who were, and are, his as well as your responsibility, he was following a dream that could not be unfollowed. Ever.

His complete selfishness will have a lifelong adverse effect on his own children. They will know that they rated so low in his priorities that his dream was more important than their needs.

Obviously with this in mind they are way better off without him but I wouldn’t hesitate to tell him that his behaviour has created hardship to the very people he should be willing to sacrifice anything and everything for.

And I may be a bitch but I couldn’t be one of those women who paint daddy to be a great person. No, because he most definitely isn’t.

We’re you married OP? You say Ex rather than exDP

How has he run up debts in £150K salary?

I’ve got nothing to add, except - from all you’ve said - he’s a massive twat. Sorry, it sucks.

OP if he wasn't your DH but a DP that's potentially a game changer for you. You could apply for not only lump sums for general things, but also a lump sum for housing (the latter would revert to him on the DCs reaching adulthood - lump sums for other things like cars do not revert and are outright).

If you were married and already had a financial settlement then the right to a housing lump sum theoretically still applies but would be less likely.

All of this of course depends on what capital assets he has.

If you see a solicitor make sure it's someone with Schedule 1 experience. It's not an obscure area but in my part of the country none of the other solicitors seem to know about it.

@aridane, the man has been on a six figure salary abroad and didn't have the morals to pay up for his own kids since the law couldn't make him. He comes back to the UK and within months he's packed in his job to become a student. Yes he's doing it to avoid paying her. It just so happens it coincides nicely with his pissy dream

@pallisers

I didn’t say this man shouldn’t support his children. Just that I don’t like the idea of taking savings into account for maintenance, given maintenance will already have been paid on that amount. I was using tax as an example. I understand CMS isn’t tax.

Just to repeat. I did not say this man shouldn’t support his children, which is what your quote from me suggests.

Foxmuffin Do you think it is different for residential parents? Or do you believe in general people shouldn't have dip into their savings to pay for their children? What should they do instead? Leave them without proper food or clothing? Put them up for adoption?

No, I understood that Foxmuffin but you did say that you are unsure whether savings should be a target of CMS. I think they should and the double taxation analogy makes no sense. I think if someone has no income, then their savings should be fair game for supporting their children. After all, if the OP was out of work for a while but had substantial savings it wouldn't occur to anyone that she should be eligible for handouts or food banks because her savings came out of her income. Only absent parents (mostly fathers) get away with that.

YouWhoNeverArrived has it spot in (IMO)

spot on even