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?

Don't be ridiculous. Of course in a partnership you take on different things. Is he literally incapable of buying clothes?

As in, if you divorced him would he "not have a clue" or however it was put?

Because if so, of course that's not great.

You are being very unreasonable, he has 50/50 custody so he’s already providing 50% of the responsibility, providing for their living and what comes with that when they’re with him so what on earth is he paying you for? I’ve seen people say school uniforms, school trips … neither of which are things that are bought on a monthly basis and on top of that I presume you’re the one receiving the child benefit for said child? Are you giving him 50% of that? My guess is no and you have the audacity to complain that he’s reducing the monetary gifts, like how dare he have another kid and reduce your pocket money. Morally you shouldn’t be accepting any money off of him, let alone having a right to be angry at him for gifting you less.

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.

I don't think that that stuff is considered to be 'maintenance'. Those costs are supposed to be split between parents who have 50/50 agreements I think.

Will the amount he's going to be paying still cover half the cost of those kind of things?

He wouldn't owe her 'maintenance' but the extra costs are supposed to be split.

50/50 wouldn't be 50/50 if one parent pays for the childs day to day costs when the child is with them,
and the other pays for the day to day costs when the child is with them

But one parent is expected to pay for the school trips, school uniforms, clothes, extra-curricular activities etc.

"Monetary gifts" "pocket money" and "morally you shouldn't accept any money off him" Oh my God 😂😂

Would you think it was fair if the OP just paid for her costs when the child was with her, and the ex paid when the child was with him and the OP left it up to the ex to pay for all of the school costs, new shoes etc? 🤔

Who do you think pays for the “day to day costs” when the child is at his house? If she is not giving him money for the time when the child is at his and being funded by him why should he give her money when the child is with her? If you are both having the kids 50/50 then the costs are already split.

not sure why you’re adding clothes into extra costs if the child lives in two separate households then said child presumably has clothes, toys etc. at his house so I’m not sure why you think he should not only provide the child’s stuff at his own house but also contribute to the mums half of those costs too therefore he’s contributing 75%, as for extra curricular activities (Not sure why you’ve even mentioned that since not everyone signs their kid up for those anyway) but that would be something to be discussed with the other parent about contributing for that but that’s not maintenance and would also require both parents to agree to said extra curricular activity not just one parent deciding and forcing the other parent to pay for something that may be ridiculous. School trips and uniforms I have already addressed and like I said are not monthly expenses so would be a case of the odd contribution, not a monthly payment that likely exceeds 50% of the cost of uniform/school trip costs and again SHE WILL LIKELY BE GETTING CHILD BENEFIT what’s the bet that she isn’t giving him half of what she gets for that despite him having 50% care so some might say she could use that for the odd time of having to buy uniform or pay for a school trip.

OP is only contributing for when the child is in her care OP is actually only contributing 25% at best when you take into account also child benefit then that number would be even less. So yeah OP contributing half towards her child I do think would be fair, that’s not what’s happening here but that’s what I believe would be fair yeah, the scale is tipped in her favour at present and yet she’s complaining about it.

I'm presuming he pays for the day to day costs at his, and she pays for the day to day costs at hers.

But it's not uncommon that one parent (mainly the mother) is the one who pays for the school costs or even buys all the clothes etc that the child brings or keeps at the dads, which is why often the dad will contribute towards those expenses even though no 'maintenance' is due.

There's been plenty of threads on here too where the dad insists on 50/50 because he doesn't want to pay maintenance and he never ever buys a single stitch of clothing for the child and doesn't contribute towards the purchase of the clothes/shoes either so it is definitely not unusual for the dads to not be buying a set of clothes/toys etc for his house.

I mentioned the extra-curricular activities as a random example FGS.
Different children might have different expenses and I wasn't saying one parent could throw them into loads of activities and expect the other to pay either, just that often they are in agreement and they're shared.

You don't actually know what this childs costs are outside of the day to day living costs so it's impossible for you to estimate that she's only contributing 25%

Why on earth were you being so aggressive towards the OP when you don't even know the circumstances? 😂There is really no need. Maybe ask her first what the costs are 😂

Can he? My husband paid child maintenance and after we had two it didn't affect how much he paid (a lot more than CMS). Only change was when one moved in with us full time.

What a load of bollocks.
One of my good friends has his kid full time as his ex is useless and would rather smoke weed all day than be a parent - she pays him nothing.

Ok so let’s say he doesn’t have clothes at his house, seems impractical but ok … clothes are also not a monthly expense, you haven’t actually mentioned anything other than extra curricular activities that would be a monthly expense but since that’s not a necessity it doesn’t really come under maintenance. Let’s say the £40 shortfall he’s going for is a quarter of what he’s currently paying, does it cost £320 a month for clothes (since she’s meant to also be contributing half which would make the total payment £320) even if you add school trips and uniform on there for good measure is that really reasonable in your mind? My daughters had one school trip in a year and it cost £16 and school uniform throughout the year probably cost less than £100, clothes for outside school I maybe buy twice a year again let’s call that £100. How does that justify him paying her say £160 A MONTH and you still think she’s contributing 50%. Add to that that she will also be getting child benefit to go towards child costs which you keep overlooking and she is contributing less than he is to her necessities, sure she might spoil the kid, hell the kid could have a 70” flat screen tv for all I know but maintenance is about necessities so necessities are what we’re talking about because that’s all he should contribute towards, if she wanted the kid in designer clothes then she should be solely paying for that unless he also wanted and agreed on that so whether she spends vasts amount of money on unnecessary or luxury things is irrelevant so I don’t need to know exactly what she spends.

Where exactly have I been aggressive? I have given my opinion the same as you have, might not be the same opinion as you but that doesn’t make it aggressive. I just find the notion of her being annoyed by this laughable, the same way you have quoted things I’ve said that you’ve found laughable and have vocalised.

More nonsense. Plenty of men take their kids clothes and shoe shopping - it’s not 1920 anymore!

@Lilxaura
I didn't mention any other monthly expense because different families have different expenses.

I would rather wait for the OPs answer about what the expenses are instead of jumping in about how she has no expenses and going off on a tangent like you are....you're just plucking figures out of the sky and then having a big massive rant for no reason.

Where have you been aggressive? 😂All of your posts!!! Going on about morals and making out she's a cheeky fucker who has the audacity to demand pocket money. Bizarrely aggressive and completely unnecessary.

The courts will and/or have decided the amount. That’s what’s your entitled to. Stick to it. Other kids are kids problem, look after your own.

A massive rant for no reason 😂 I’m addressing your points that you CHOSE to put TO me and replying accordingly. If you can’t handle that (Coz that’s how conversations work) then maybe you shouldn’t start them, since my initial comment wasn’t to you, you just chose to “Jump in”. You haven’t waited for figures before giving comment though have you because you jumped in to reply to me with how you disagree and listing extra expenses she may or may not have none of which are consistent monthly expenses that would justify him paying her maintenance money every month.

The reason you had to embellish what I said instead of quoting what I ACTUALLY said is because I have at no point been aggressive so you can’t actually point any aggressions out and have to just make up what I was saying because I never called her any names much less that. The only one using aggressive language is you.

I chose to put them to you because you were very aggressive to the OP for no reasons, going on audacity and morals without even knowing the ins and outs of the situation.

Bizarre and OTT.

I can handle it, I just don't get why you were being so aggressive to the OP and writing massive hard to read paragraphs which made it look like you were rage typing and couldn't even take a break for a second

Yes I am waiting for figures from the OP before commenting on what's reasonable or not.

I haven't waited for her figures before 'jumping in' to respond to you though because as I said I thought your post was aggressive, bizarre and OTT.

I've already pointed out where you were aggressive. Are you not able to read properly? I said you were 'making out that she was a cheeky fucker', not that you used those specific words, and you did make out that she was a cheeky fucker, you literally said .....you have the audacity to complain that he’s reducing the monetary gifts, like how dare he have another kid and reduce your pocket money. Morally you shouldn’t be accepting any money off of him, let alone having a right to be angry at him for gifting you less.
That right there is making out that she's a cheeky fucker.

I like how you’re complaining about me writing long paragraphs while also writing a long paragraph (Which fyi isn’t even your first) and also accusing me of not being able to read while saying you struggled to read paragraphs … ok the hypocrisy. So saying audacity and talking about morals is aggressive to you? Out of curiosity, do you know what aggressive means? Actually you deciding what I was or wasn’t “Making out” or what my tone was doesn’t make me aggressive either, you’re just deciding that’s what I was saying to try back up your throwing out of a random buzz word because you can’t actually argue against my points or think of anything that would back yours up because the ones you gave aren’t adequate. Bit odd you’d make such assumptions when you’re complaining about assumption making.

There I kept it to one paragraph so you can comprehend it.

£480 a year. How much does he pay a month?

Mine actually have some kind of formatting 🤓My posts might be long but my paragraphs aren't.

Loads of people struggle to read unformatted long paragraphs that don't have a break. By struggle it's not even due to lack of reading skills, it's just because it's annoying, and not worth the effort due to the content of what you were writing!

Yes, audacity and talking about morals is aggressive plus the way you wrote your post.

Your points are based on the conclusion you've came to which is that the expenses are very little and therefore the OP has actually been profiting by the dad contributing financially. You're throwing out all these figures you just plucked from the sky so why would I argue back against those points 🤔😂

I could make up a load of figures too if you want and decide that the OPs childs expenses are £600 a month and that his contribution is X amount and X % but I won't do that because it's pointless and weird when we could just wait and see what the OP says 😂

There I kept it to one paragraph so you can comprehend it.

You clearly didn't comprehend what I said there at all. The problem is that you write in long paragraphs with no spaces or line breaks.

Splitting it into more is preferable than just putting it all into one 😂

This happened to me, mine was reduced by half because he had a partner with her own children and went on to have more. IMO it's wrong, if they cannot afford the children they already have they shouldn't be having more.

@NotQuiteNorma mum's acrylics? 🙄

@kkloo I totally agree. When I see long blocks of writing as done by @Lilxaura I literally scroll past. So much unformatted text. In my head it represents someone going on and on not pausing for breath. Overwhelming. Can't be arsed trying to decode it much as I don't enjoy people who drone on and on.

Reduced by half? I hope you challenged that because that's categorically not what the CMS would do. I would assume he was also paying maintenance to another parent? Is that what you mean?

Omg if it is 50/50 he needs to stop it all together he should not be paying anything. Why is he paying maintenance?! You should be paying him that back OP.

How's it bollocks as you've just proven my point lol. Their ex is a shit parent and should be made to pay.

If you mean he's a full time dad yes of course there are exceptions, but statistically over 90% of single parents are women and the millions owed in non payment of child support are by men. You knowing one doesn't change objective fact.

I live with a similar arrangement to you but the other side. I have two step children that we share with their mom 50/50.

I can understand how you would feel irked if you were responsible for all clothes, school fees uniforms etc by yourself. But as other posters have said, if you went through CMS, you wouldn’t get anything.

He seems like a pretty reasonable person, could he not buy his own things for her to have at his place and split all fees equally since he has her half the time? We do this, kids never have to pack anything to come to ours and we work out trip fees, after school activities, anything else that comes up between us equally.

How much is he paying? As it’s 50/50 he’s subsidising the 50 percent you are responsible to pay for your kid.