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?

Why is it "best not to go there"?? Would the same apply if she were a man?

She shouldn't be able to dodge her responsibility.

Agree with this.

It's the bio-mothers job to sort her own livelihood.

If this was the other way round (primary carer Mum who earned £100k and non primary parent Dad earned less) MN would be crying out that why should Dad should still pay, it’s his responsibility and so on. The step parents salary is not taken into account and why should it be.

You mention that she is a single-income LP hh and works FT, well that would put the kibosh on any chances of becoming a 2 income household (eg: finding the time and energy to form a relationship) - unlike your DP who had the time and energy to find you and have more dc.

And now your SDD is of an age where her DM can consider further improving her income chances - by OPs reckoning the LP in question would be better off finding a DP to help with the bills instead.

How far we women have come....

Surely she should pay as has now become the NRP only a couple nights a week

I'm a bit torn on this one. Your DH is right legally BUT... for the first 12 years or so of DSDs life - which are the years when childcare is a major issue - her mother has been the one doing most of the childcare pick ups drop offs working around school hours or paying for after school clubs etc. This will have had an impact on her career/earning potential etc. Now that DSD is in secondary school her mother understandably sees this as a time she can now focus on her career (which has been the case all along for DH). SHe's taken the income hit from the need to have child freiendly hours all these years and now your DH wants to inflict another one. I'm guessing that she's retraining for nursing or something similar so she will still have a few years of struggling with childcare around her shifts and on shit wages too. YOur DH may have the law on his side but morally I do think he owes her for shouldering the income hit of a child-friendly job for so many years. I'd suggest he offers to calculate the new maintenance based on the old one less any expenses he now has that she doesn't eg afterschool club. The cost of a couple of packed lunches seems a bit petty though - 4 slices of bread, a bit of cheese, two packets of crisps and a couple of pieces of fruit a week - unless you are really struggling financially.

Er, when did I say that?

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.

If this was temporary situation then I’d say to keep it as it is.

However, as this is ongoing then it needs to change.

As she is still training I would reduce the payments and then after that stop it completely.

She will be getting child benefit and UC top ups on top of the maintenance and she’s not even having her child 50% of the time, so of course he needs to stop paying maintenance.

If this was me and my DH in this situation with his ex, we would stop paying any maintenance at all as the mum barely has the kids now. We would also claim the child related benefits. It's not about being horrible, that money is for the children and if the children are not with the mum; then the money is being spent on herself.

I would probably also claim maintenance off her if it was needed.

I'm a bit torn on this one. Your DH is right legally BUT... for the first 12 years or so of DSDs life - which are the years when childcare is a major issue - her mother has been the one doing most of the childcare pick ups drop offs working around school hours or paying for after school clubs etc

RTFT. The ex has always worked full-time and OP and her partner have been the ones to work flexibly around drop-off and pick-up.

I get your point but this isn't really true if you read some of my earlier posts.

That being said i do understand where you and others are coming from.

I think she and DH and maybe need to sit down and have a chat about what works for everybody. I don't think the maintence will stop completely but maybe some sort of compromise.

How absurd. If single mums didn't have time to meet men, half the toxic relationship posts on Mumsnet wouldn't exist.

Also, she could have been creative and done some sort of house/childcare share with another mum, or extended family, or otherwise supported a household without relying so heavily on maintenance.

BUT... for the first 12 years or so of DSDs life - which are the years when childcare is a major issue - her mother has been the one doing most of the childcare pick ups drop offs working around school hours or paying for after school clubs etc

Except that's a made up senario and not what's happened here.

As per the OP

However she has always worked full-time and since we have flexible jobs and can wfh we have always facilitated school pick ups and holidays etc and then DSD has gone to mums for her tea.

Is the increase of nights a short term change or a permanent one?
If permament then legally its fair as its 50/50 arrangement.
If its short term then I think a temporary reduction maybe fairer.
However she is likely to be struggling as a single mum retraining . If as pp said she put her career on hold to take on burden of child care whilst still with your DH and his career didnt take any hit at all then I think theres a moral arguement for continuing as now until she is qualified and working.
DSD will benefit from having a secure warm home with her DM which is probably what most of the maintence is paying for so it would be in DSDs best interests to continue especially if affordable.

If your DH doesn't want to reduce maintenence fully, and he would be well within his rights to do so, then he could consider he was paying for 5 days max previous and now he is paying for 3 days max so to pay 3/5

The amount of CMS paid, is usually dependent on who looks after the child the most. If the OP and her DH are going to have her SD the most, why should her DH continue paying his ex. As you ask, the Child Benefit should actually now come to the OP’s DH too.

I think the OP’s DH is being very generous, to offer to continue paying half of the CMS to his ex. If the ex disagrees and it goes to court, it would be unlikely that the DH has to keep paying the current amount. She could also get a nasty surprise and find that she loses all her CMS payments, so if I were her I’d gratefully accept the half payment.

I do apologize OP, it must have been another poster who mentioned how difficult things are for single income households, I thought it was you, if she has a DP to share the HH bills with than that changes things a bit.

And exactly Zelda - but there are a few LPs out there who do prioritize their dc over and above entering into another toxic relationship which usually involves someone else's discarded 'baggage' or a cocklodger no matter how much easier it seems it would be if there was someone else to share the bills.

Well, I don't have a strong opinion on this either way as I'm not a step-parent, but just because they broke up soon after child was born, doesn't mean that she was in an equal place to further her career compared to your dh. More likely the opposite: she was resident parent while the child was youngest and most needy, thus she most likely had to forego career/income progression while he (as non-resident parent) was able to further his career and income.

You also say that you now do all the mental effort, appointments, and driving around of her child, so she's not doing that any more. I want to think about that from the other perspective. Up until this child started living with you more frequently, your DH did NOT have to do the mental effort, doctor appointments, driving around. Without those things on his plate, he was able to do the best for his career. Again, those things affect career progression because the person is unavailable for overtime or for more challenging/higher authority positions because they have to leave "on the dot" to deal with their child. You're sort of falling into that trap of thinking of the mental effort and lifework as being the mum's job (that the mum is no longer doing and therefore shouldn't get paid for) rather than seeing it from the flip side where it's something that prevents the mum from furthering her career whereas the dad gets to put his career on full throttle and benefit from the income increase that creates.

Again, I don't have an opinion what you should do, just something to think about.

Let's reverse this:

NRP father wants to retrain and further his career so he asks his ex (who has the kids most of the time) if he can stop his maintenance payments to her and she pay it him instead so he could afford to retrain even though he wouldn't be having the kids much.

There is no way anyone on here would agree to the above.

Child maintenance isn't compensation for the financial inconvenience of mothering a child.
At the moment a wedge of money is leaving the household the child is in the majority of the time and going to the household of one adult. That's not acceptable, especially as OP has other DC and they are struggling to cover everything.

I get that this is normally be the case, but you can't make assumptions that it's what's happening here.
While the Mum has been RP OP and her DH have done a lot with the child. Pick-ups, drop-offs, had her more or less nights a week. It doesn't look like she's had to deal with it all by herself which is normally then case.

It's also laughable to assume that actually, 'anybody' in this situation has a proper 'career', with 'career progression', vs just FT jobs. Or even the ability to get one. While we're assuming away, what if the ex was , say, a receptionist with no further qualification? And just continued being one after the divorce? No change there, left in the exact same position.

FWIW I don't think they should go full on legal and make her pay maintenance. But I do think the amount paid should be challenged. Whether OP's DH should pay 0 or a minimal amount depends on the figures but from what's written here the ex hasn't necessarily made great sacrifices that merit extra money.

Also @aloris actually come to think of it the RP has had MORE flexibility actually because she's had help with drop-offs/pick-ups.

I think maintenance may need to be reduced but it’s extremely petty to stop it altogether if the mother only has a single income coming in.

But it's not OPs or her partners job to pay for the mother to live. His only responsibility is towards his children, who now live with him most of the time. The money is for the children who are not living with the mother anymore.

What on earth is petty about it?