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?

When you wouldn't be entitled to anything via CMS and you're complaining about a £10 a week reduction on voluntary maintenance, is a different thing.

It didn’t even cross our minds to alter CM for DSD ( now an adult ) . The reality is though that she has had much more cool life experiences funded by DH than we can now afford for DS and Dd . It’s a thought I push out of my mind

It's not the child's fault no but adults need to take responsibility for existing children before having more. I personally would get rid of this particular rule as it's entirely inequitable.

You can both take responsibility for your existing children and reduce what you spend on them you know? The two aren't mutually exclusive. Most parents do it when they have more than one child.

CMS do reduce it if they have other kids living with them. I guess someone has told him this. I don't think it's fair one bit though.

Lol my ex is absent and pays an absolute pittance. I already do everything and pay for everything, why the hell should I do more for a deadbeat father.

Thank you again for all of your replies.

To clarify a few things…

We share 50/50 residency. This is no issue and never has been. We are amicable, respectful and it was my ExH decision to pay maintenance which mainly goes towards additional costs like new shoes, school trips, that kind of thing, as a PP mentioned.

The AIBU was whether I was right to feel a little irked by the suggestion of a reduction due to ExH having other children. I can see some of you think I am and some don’t - that is fine. I was looking for other perspectives/opinions/experiences to help me understand how to respond to the message from my ExH.

... OK. I'm sorry your ex is a shit but I think you've missed the point.

I think you should be greatful to receive anything at all if you share 50/50 residency

Through official channels, you'd be entitled to nothing. So if I was you, as you're on good terms, I'd say I understand but could it reduce by 20 instead of 40 and play very nice. What are you receiving in total

No I haven't. The system works against women and panders to feckless men. It needs a complete overhaul.

Perhaps if child support was a realistic amount and properly enforced then it would act as a deterrent to irresponsible parents.

Some people thought that... Until your massive drip feed that you only have 50/50 custody. And aren't entitled to anything.

So essentially AIBU for complaining that the maintenance that I am not entitled to has gone down by £40.

The reason is actually irrelevant. You're essentially being gifted this money for your child you only have 50% of the time and whinging that the gift is decreasing. Do you actually hear that out loud?

If it's 50:50 he should be paying 50% of her costs (allowing for CB), will he being doing that?

"It's not the child's fault no but adults need to take responsibility for existing children before having more."

Ok but that doesn't help when the "new children are already in existence. So yeah sorry kids, daddy already had a kid who he's paying xxx for, too bad how sad for you? The second kids exist, to suggest they should have less spent on them because their parent shouldn't have had them is only punishing the child?

The father wants to pay. I think you have missed OP question. The father is asking to reduce the amount he is NOT saying he wants to pay £0 for his child.

That rather depends on her income doesn’t it?

I really think it's fair enough OP if he also has your shared child 50 percent of the time.

I wouldn't let this sour my opinion of him - he pays you money so your child can have extras when she is with you plus also has her half of the time. He sounds great to me.

It's based on income. What's a 'realistic amount' ?

It's a shit system yeah and it does need to be enforced. But the reduction for additional children is tiny.

But if someone earns bugger all in a marriage, why people expect them to get a divorce and then pay £££ in maintenence is beyond me.

If they're purposely quitting jobs yeah fair enough.

If you are on good terms, maybe you could suggest a separate account that you both contribute equally to, and that is the account that is used for school fees, books, uniforms, school shoes ect all the essential stuff. I have a friend who does that with her ex. They both contribute to the account and have access to it, and only use it for essential things. Day to day expenses food ect they each pay.

that way he can see exactly how much your dd needs and you can have a conversation about adjusting the amount when needed.

And they deliberately fiddle their income to avoid paying....

Or they give up work altogether.

I don't care if they earnt bugger all during a marriage. People ( men let's face it) need to pay for their children or face severe sanctions. Its often just a continuation of abuse.

You have 50/50 custody - therefore he doesn't actually have to pay you a penny

If I were you, I'd consider losing £40 vs whatever he currently pays - given that, legally, he doesn't owe you a penny

What would you do - take it to CMS?

Yeah, nobody is saying hiding income is okay.

But if you earn minimum wage in a marriage why the fuck would you expect that person on divorce to magically earn and therefore pay more?

I'll ask again what's a realistic amount?

It's not abuse to pay what CMS tell you to if you are in fact declaring what you actually earn. Which anyone who is employed would be.

???

Seems fair to be honest.

At 50/50 he doesn’t have to pay you anything anyway.

I think that, given the relevant information, you should respond graciously and accept what he is offering to pay. Especially given that he doesn't actually have to 😬