To agree that DH should reduce maintenance

[Tiamaria86]

I have a DSD. We previously had her 2-3 nights a week in general. Sometimes it was more and sometimes less.

Her Mum has decided to retrain in a different career and this has meant late nights and early starts so we now have DSD more like 4-5 nights a week.

DSD has her own room with us and has friends round and we take her to all her hobbies and clubs etc.

DH pays for half her uniform and we buy her clothes and trainers and electronics etc.

DH has approached DSD mum and suggested that maintenance shouldn't be paid anymore. He's happy to go half's on anything she needs as well as continue to buy her things but really monthly maintenance is no longer appropriate.

DSD mum doesn't agree and is really shocked he has suggested this as we are a 2 income household and she will really struggle without it.

DH has suggested paying a lesser amount for now as a transition period which I think is really reasonable. DSD mum is really unhappy about it and can't even believe its been suggested.

My PILs also think DH is unreasonable and should continue to pay.

Am I going mad? Maintenance isn't appropriate in these circumstances is it? Or are we wrong?

If I was your DH, I'd tell the ex that maybe they should use the CMS calculator and do it properly, seeing as they aren't seeing eye to eye on this. Be kind and cordial but it is really silly for you to be paying CM when the daughter is with you most of the time.

This.

if a father decided to retrain and not pay cms, there’d be hell on.

take it to the cms. She pays her contribution to you, as the resident parent.

she should have thought it through when she decided to retrain and have dd stay more at yours to facilitate that.

Also adding your DSD is 12, if it's a 3 year couse she will be 15 when it finished, only 3 years away from uni. If she wants to go those costs have to considered too!

Father’s rarely take the career progression / wages / pension hit that mothers do.

Maybe so, but in this case, the ex has always worked full-time and OP and her DH have been the ones to cover the school pick-ups etc.

Have CMS ever been involved? I think it would be worth looking at their website to see the basis on which calculations are made - so all parties know what they would say if they were involved. Also, use an online benefit calculator to see what both households would be entitled to, if the CMS rules were followed.

That could be an eye opener, and pave the way for a fairer outcome for all involved.

How much did the ex sacrifice whilst they were together? If your saying she always worked full time when they were together who looked after the child? Nursery? Who paid for the fees? Did the ex have to change her hours to fit around his job? Did she put off re training so she could do school runs etc etc

I don’t see why your husband should be paying maintenance when he is the the primary resident parent. But run it all through CMS.

I do have to say I found it odd you said your step daughter has her own room at your house and she is allowed friends round. Surely that is basic parenting and didn’t need to be stated?

With this sort of reasoning all those dead beat fathers that have their child EOW shouldn’t need to pay maintenance, and should really receive some from the mother, as it doesn’t make a difference that they only have their child 1 day out of 7. They still need to put a roof over their child’s head during those times…

But there are also many mothers who never had much of a 'career' in the first place. It would be silly to argue that they gave anything up.
IMO in the scenarios about fathers posted on here the NRP is usually a complete deadbeat and tries to get away with doing as little as possible.

Both parties here are reasonable, the ex has worked FT, OP's DH pays his share and they're not precious or calculative (as the DSD stays more or less with them) so I think it's the ideal and they have a good relationship.

What the 'majority' of people do isn't relevant here as this is great unlike most other posts...

Sounds like you are keeping her not his children. If you are having her half if not more of the time and paying for the bulk of things anyway she's clearly using that money to subsidise herself not their shared child. She's been lucky you have been paying her anything up to now, I'd stop paying it, it isn't up to you to fund her whilst she retrains, that's up to her to figure out.

I think this is a very sensible solution.

And towards keeping a roof over the child's head?

I think what OP is trying to express is that their house is also DSD's 'home'.
A step above a parent's house that she just 'visits'.

I can understand the status quote aspect from he ex but if you went to CMS he probably wouldn’t be required to pay anything anymore (ex cms worker here). However if he wants to pay a lesser amount then that would be the next step and she’ll have to suck it up I’m afraid

As several people have said, she should have discussed the impact with her ExH before committing to this decision, since it clearly impacts him too. They need to sit down and discuss what is now 'reasonable'. Looking at what CMS would suggest is also useful.

Don't get the moral argument at all people are bringing up at all. There are plenty of single mums having to cope without any maintenance because the "father" is useless or being dishonest. your dh has paid and sounds like contributed more than he technically had to along the way. he has a moral duty to all his children. paying for his ex partner's bills puts her above his family and all the children. if you're letting her continue with child benefit and not claiming cms (it sounds like she should be paying it) then you're already being more than fair. she's being ridiculously entitled to think your dh should pay CHILD maintenance when it's hard to see what her justification is now. She may have made sacrifices but I'm sure you and your husband have as well. she surely knows that child maintenance is connected to a child living with you most of the time. she's treating it like spousal maintenance and thinks it's ok to be taking money away from a household with multiple children to fund her household in which a child will only be living 2 days a week, whilst she claims the child benefit. i think she's being ridiculous and selfish tbh. she sees it as her money and not the child's. I'd question what she's been spending it on all this time given her attitude.

I've never seen anyone say this the other way round. If the mum had a new partner and dad was single but having DD 2 or 3 nights a week do you think the mum should say don't bother with child maintenance as you need it more than us? Does anyone ever suggest the mother is just providing a few extra meals a week. Usually I hear housing/electric/gas/food etc etc etc.

So your first line is that you aren't blaming the OP and the second line is that you are blaming the OP and her DH.

I wouldn't say anything you have said has been particually supportive to the OP given you have misquoted the rules, complained of being flamed when pulled up on this and spent several posts telling the OP it is her fault.

If this is you in supportive mode...

I thought this, she'll be needing to cover his expenses as he has his daughter more. I find it bizarre that people seem to think he has his daughter more and then still subsidises the ex anyway? He isn't responsible for keeping his ex, her deciding to career change is her choice, it's not his responsibility to cover her shortfall, he's having his child more to help.

Your DH suggestion sounds more than fair. Can I just also say you sound like a lovely step mum and care about your DSD

🙄