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?

That's actually the crux of all this isn't it? All those extra costs which aren't the bare essentials but pretty much are a part of most kids' lives. CMS % rarely results in the NRP coming anywhere NEAR to covering half the real costs of their child and even in a 50/50 split, as I says upthread it's highly likely that the mum in most cases will be the one sorting a lot of stuff out, noticing knackered or outgrown shoes, thinking ahead to an event that needs kit or equipment or a birthday present and so on. If the NRP drops maintenance to fund a choice he has made independent of the RP like further children, the reality is that the RP will step up and fund it. Most aren't going tell little Johnny he has to quit football because dad's not paying as much. The system is broken in so many ways.

If you went on to have more children with someone else, you yourself would be having to share your money between your current child and your new one. Why should this be any different for your Ex H just because the new child isn’t yours?

Again cms is 'rarely enough'. Its based on income. Therefore its a different amount for everyone.

Everyone's kids cost different amounts because people live to their means.

What dh paid to his ex was categorically more than we spent on our child in total. It was more than enough. But nothing would ever be enough for his ex. But yet my child doesn't get that spent on them per week and dh isn't a particularly high earner but we just don't have massive child related outgoings.

Everyone is different. Saying cms "isn't enough" just doesn't make any sense. It isn't a set amount and children don't cost a set amount either.

And like why do people expect their average earning partners to certainly have a shit load of spare cash when they split up. Like open your eyes. If they're avoiding paying or hiding income yes absolutely abhorrent and the cms definitely need to close the loopholes, but if they're paying what they should pay then... like what did people expect?

There's still the cost of school dinners school trips school uniform and after school activities to split though so sometimes money will change hands to cover their share of those costs

I can see why you dont like it. Why is he giving 6 months notice? How does he know he will struggle in 6 months and bot now? Because 6 months notice sounds like he can afford it and he just wants to make a saving by cutting costa on your child

Consider asking if he cam have her on one of the more expensive days, such as an activity day or wraparound day or a day where you can earn overtime.

Maybe she needs to increase her income then.
Does she even work she hasnt stated if she does. she shares 50/50 custody so this must allow for time to have a part time job or does she just rely on benefits and child maintenance to cover her looking after her child 50% of the time.
Does she pay anything for her child or is it the tax payer and ex partner.

Exactly. The system is stacked against the resident parent which ordinarily is mum. Another example of our fine patriarchy.

@Mumtryingtolivethedream who is she? You're making an awful lot of assumptions in your post and it comes across as not very nice. Its like people want drama on threads people can't seem to stick the issue that OP is talking about.

Well, like, the NRP who only sees their child eow can work a LOT more than a single RP who has a shit ton of childcare costs which, contrary to popular belief is not always covered by UC. They can work nightshifts, overnight stays, double shifts or two jobs. They can seek promotion which pays more without the constraints of fixed childcare. That's why, like, I expect NRPs to add to their income if they want to add their family. Not, like, passing it on the RP.

@BibbleandSqwauk absolutely agree!

You’re making a lot of snooty assumptions there. I’ve no idea if she works or not but it’s perfectly possible that she’s working 2 or 3 low skilled jobs full time in which case £10 a week is a hell of a lot. It’s also possible that she’s working for a decent wage but that £40 a month pays for an extra curricular that she wouldn’t otherwise have agreed to. £10 is not nothing to everyone and they don’t have to be lazy for that to be true

I don't know her name so she is "she"
I'm not making assumptions I'm saying she hasn't stated if she is working or not im asking questions.
She is asking if him reducing his money is reasonable but how can we say without knowing all the facts.
Is she working? how does she contribute? you cant sit and complain money is being reduced if you aren't contributing yourself.
We don't know his income is he just getting by or is he an high earner.
She's lucky he's forthcoming with money as not all fathers are. there are expenses outside of 50/50 so I get why he gives her money but if it was done through CMS she might get less which we don't know as she's no obligation to state how much he gives her so yeah lots of assumptions by lots of people accross the board because we don't know all the facts

I'm not making assumptions I'm asking as we don't know the facts.
We don't know if he's struggling on his wage which is maybe why he has to reduce his payments.
Whenever another child comes along spending on other children will slightly reduce.
He's working he has the child 50/50 he pays his contribution and people sit here making assumptions on HIS circumstances and whether hes right for reducing his contribution but aren't questioning her circumstances.

Maybe he's working a low skilled job in which case yes £10 is a lot so he's had to reduce it so like I said we don't know either of their circumstances

That's not this situation anyway, but no I don't think you can expect someone to get a better job because they've got divorced?

I think you need to read the last line of your OWN post. You are not entitled to be rude on a thread and then demand that OP share further info to cause a bun fight. Has OP been unreasonable?? I've read her update and she hasn't been rude to anyone on this thread. You have ASSUMED massively here that OP may not work and the "tax payer" is paying for her child. Being a single parent doesn't make you exempt from paying tax what a silly assumption to make.

FFS, she's not "lucky" he's forthcoming with money and should be grateful. Should he be grateful she does the bulk of the parenting? Oh no, that's just what mums are meant to do isn't it? If they use UC to top up wages so that they can balance work and a proper parenting presence they are not contributing and lazy. RP mums absolutely cannot win but so long as a male NRP pays the bare legal minimum she should be lucky and is grabby to expect more. I despair. If he cannot afford his existing payment by adding to his family he shouldn't do it. I said this upthread but you don't get to reduce any other bill do you? Pay less for utilities? 10% off your mortgage because you've had another child? No. Why is CMS different?

Its bad enough that NRPs can dick around changing jobs and hiding income with fuck all done about it, but willing compliance and allowing CMS to reduce in these circumstances is a joke. The CMS, UC and HMRC should all be part of one agency to ensure that ALL children receive appropriate levels of household income. If the NRP overstretches themselves by having more kids that should be recorded, his CMS stay the same and his household income assessed and topped up by UC if needed, taking into account that he has the CMS fixed bill for the earlier children. If they were really clever about it, they could keep track and if that extra support is needed for more than 2 children, it gets linked to HMRC and state pension and accrues as debt. Just like CB is fixed a 2/3? children, this could be similar. We cannot just keep allowing men (and 99% are men) to have multiple kids with multiple women and contribute minimally with the RPs and the children bearing the cost. Women have a role to play too in not falling for the "bitter greedy ex" bollocks and thinking carefully about how their new partner interacts with his ex and their children before having them too.

The last line says does she its an open question and she's under no obligation to disclose anything yet everyone sits here making assumptions on whether the father is right to reduce his payments without knowing his circumstances so we can all judge the father but not ask questions about the mother.
I think he's been really fair up to now.

I'd thank him for paying anything if he has 50/50 care? Oh yeah you can't say that on mumsnet 😂

@Mumtryingtolivethedream I think you need to raise your standards. OP comes across as grateful the question at hand was does she have a right to feel irked. YES she does.... this is her own personal thought it's not as though she has contacted her ex and hurled abuse at the man for a £40 reduction. People are entitled to feel disappointed or whatever.

What I notice is on these CMS debates it's always the mums that get F all that will be saying "you should be grateful" and "that's a lot of money dad's paying you". I can't bare these comments OP does not have to be grateful FFS. They get along on a reasonably and tbh this is how co parenting "should" be. Unfortunately it's not though and all too often.... it's expected the mother must just be "grateful". Funny how we have NO figures yet people keep saying OP should be grateful.... just goes to show OP is in the minority and its not really that common.

I don't think mothers should be grateful for receiving maintenance at all.

But this situation isn't that. He's subsidising her. He's covering more than his share. You'd say a dad should be grateful for a mum doing more so why not the other way around?

@Chocolatebuttonns quite a few posters have been fair to the dad here and rightly so! He sounds like a good sad. I think some people are wanting to make this bigger than what it is. We have already acknowledged that OP is in the minority.... and everybody doesn't co parent like this. People poking their noses in saying why does he pay? I don't see how that's anybody business. OP seems fair too she has updated and took comments on board as far as I can read.

She asked MN a question and most have pointed out that she has a good set up.... no need for the drama.

Well yeah if he's happy to subsidise her that's up to him but I can see why people think she doesn't have a right to be annoyed about it.

I think it's generally because it perpetuates the "mums alright right dads always shit" that's peddled on here.

@Chocolatebuttonns you've definitely misunderstood the thread. Most have pointed out to OP that dad is definitely doing his part. Myself included.