Ex partner reducing maintenance because he has other children.

[sandyofthesea]

ExH and I share a daughter. He has always paid maintenance of the same amount every month since we split even after his children with new partner were born. He has now said he is going to reduce maintenance in around 6 months because he has other children.

I’m not sure what to think. Part of me thinks okay, he has more kids to pay for. But I also feel why should DD miss out.

Just to add he is a very good Dad. There is no animosity between us, or myself and his wife, but something just feels a bit off. I can’t put my finger on it.

What are other peoples opinions/experiences please? AIBU to feel this way?

It's a thread about reducing maintenance if there are subsequent children. I gave my opinion on the subject as others have given their own experiences but yet you've only taken with my post.

Bizarre.

The csa (or whatever they now are) take other kids into consideration. So it's mandatory

It is wrong in lots of ways.. For example my now ex had his reduced when he moved in with me and my dc... If (I didn't but if I had) gotten cms off my dc's df they would have financially been financed by 3 adults all in whereas dh's ex just 1..her. Rubbish system.

£10 a week is a lot if you need it, as it can cover clothes and shoes for the year. If you don't need it, it can provide extras like pocket money, after school snacks or go towards a day out once a month.

Why is he paying anything if he parents 50/50?

If you go through CMS and he genuinely has her 50/50 then you won't get a penny.

Why is he paying you maintenance?

Is he paying for school uniforms, PE stuff, shoes, extra activities?
Any phone bills or top ups, did he pay for the computer/ iPad for school?
is he buying any of their child clothing? gadgets? hobby items?
List can go on....

I'm guessing he makes quite a low payment??

For the sake of £40 I wouldn't make an issue of it, and as others have said he is probably within his rights to do it if he has her 50/50. Presumably he is covering costs for her while she's with him.

If he has her 50/50 then he doesn’t need to pay at all. So long as he also does 50/50 of school uniform/lunch money etc.

All existing children should be provided for by their parents.

Unfortunately when people move on and have more kids it does mean that children do miss out and get less. You seem like you have a good arrangement so I would suck it up. Some fathers wouldn't pay whilst doing 50/50 and some people would love a 50/50 split regardless of money.

How much does he pay you?
How many other kids does he have?

If he doesn’t have much and he has 3 other kids then very understandable to reduce (or stop).

Irrelevant. It's none of your business the father wants to pay for his own child end of.

So he has her 50/50 and still pays maintenance? Sounds like a good man to me and you have nothing to complain about as he doesn’t even need to pay. I have my kids full time and get nothing.

My friend has cms come out of his wages automatically. He was ill and only got 800 in wages and cms are taking 330. He only pays for 1 child with ex and has 2 new children with new partner. Does that seem right or should he contact them. I must add he has arrears from covid etc when he wasn't working. Thanks

Of course it's not irrelevant when the entire thread is about him reducing that maintenance

The problem is this isn't a case of spliting 'treats' unfairly like 'he use to give my DD 5 sweets because she was the only child but now he has 5 kids she only gets one treat' but CMS is for her cost of living.

Splits dont work the same with kids in 2 house hold. Its not splitting the £500 xmas budget between 2 kids this year instead of giving it to one its having too pay a portion of running two different houses which haven't changed.

When I went from 1 to 3 kids I still paid the same rent, bills etc... because we lived in the same family house. Yes Christmas costs, birthdays, holidays, days out etc... changed but not most LIVING costs. The only thing requiring being added was things like nappies and milk which in turn did not take AWAY food from my existing child.

His share of his daughters housing/bills/groceries costs have not gone down because he added another kid to his other house (and the small increase in his shopping bills was his CHOICE to take on).

So did mine. He cheated on me when I was pregnant with another woman who was pregnant (not his child). They got together and he refused to pay until I put him on maintenance. He then had the audacity to claim her child as his dependent because they were living together. He never paid any money for our child until he was two, yet paid to raise this other woman’s baby from birth.

There is the moral answer to this and formal CMS one. The first says he should only have children he can afford and should pay equally for them. The latter says he doesn’t need to pay anything at all.

This. Don't have children you can't afford!

@sandyofthesea I thought when it was 50/50 then no money changed hands anyway? can someone verify this for me please?

As it’s 50/50 I’d consider yourself fortunate to get anything by private agreement and accept graciously tbh.

Or mums acrylics....

But should the "new" children be negatively impacted? It wasn't their choice to be born either but they shouldn't be treated equally because they came second?

You're right.

According to the cms op is due nothing.

I think that might be what happens if you go through official routes. But maybe OP pays for everything for their DD, shoes/clothes/ actives/ Christmas/ main birthday/ phone/ laptop and they just find it easier for him to give her a set amount instead of splitting every cost 50/50. That way they also know what budget they are both working with, with regards to buying stuff for their DD.

That's my guess and I could be totally wrong!