To think he’s not doing anything wrong by stopping maintenance?

[GumdropsAndLollipops]

My DB “Jack” has two kids with his ex “Anne”, DS8 and DD10.

Up until a year ago, Jack had the children 3 nights a week and Anne had them 4 nights a week. Jack is also a high earner and has always paid child maintenance to Anne above CM rate (as it should be).

Last year, Anne was due to have her second child with her DP and asked Jack to swap the schedule so he had their children 4 nights and she had them 3 nights instead. The court order was updated and means Jack has been the resident parent for the last year however he carried on paying maintenance to Anne at the same rate due to the fact she was on maternity leave (this was due to stop when she returned to work).

Fast forward to now and Jack recently cashed in an investment which has allowed him to pay off his mortgage and become financially secure. With this in mind, Jack has decided he would like to quit his job to spend more time with the kids and to just generally live a less busy and hectic life as without the commitment of a mortgage payment, he can live comfortably on freelance work while the kids are in school or at their mum’s.

Jack didn’t foresee any of this being a problem for Anne as the maintenance payments were due to stop anyway but she has hit the roof; saying he needs to continue the payments as not doing so would put her household into financial hardship.

Jack has it made clear that he will not be requesting any maintenance from her and that he will carry on paying for everything as before (clothes, uniform, trips, hobbies, sports etc) and has offered to have their children more, do pick ups / drop off on her days, cover all sickness absences as he won’t have a work schedule but all hell has broken loose.

As per my title, I don’t think Jack is wrong (but I’m biased as I don’t like Anne) so I thought I’d ask here in case there’s something I’m missing or have not thought about.

So, is Jack being unreasonable to quit his job and stop the voluntary maintenance payments?

I mean he could have warned her at least.

I think both Anne and Jack should make whatever life decisions they see fit provided the kids are suitably looked after, and then run the CMS calculator based on those circumstances and see what it says then do that.

It's unreasonable for DC to spend hardly any time with their mum (unless that's what she wants). It's unreasonable to push your own children so they see their mum struggling financially creating stress for them

She sounds a bit like my ex who was expecting a payout when my mother died but instead I met DW we had children & I started working fewer hours.

Basically if you get maintenance you are at the whim of the paying parents circumstances.

He could drop dead, lose his job, fall ill etc etc but his ex wife never seems to have considered this

Did he warn her?

Aside from the lack of warning, HINBU.

It was nice of him to continue paying.

Was the deadline discussed last year to be the end of her maternity leave? If yes, did he gently remind her?

If yes to the above he has done nothing wrong and has been extremely nice supporting her maternity leave and being flexible with the kids.

Even if he did just stop it, yes she can be annoyed as a good co parenting arrangement should have good communication. However she isn't entitled to it and got it for a lot longer than she should have.

From what you say he is being extremely reasonable and flexible.

Did they have a discussion that the maintenance was stopping when Anne finished maternity leave?

Otherwise I don't know why Anne would be upset if her ex is working or not as it wouldn't affect her

He should have warned her well in advance of the change. Is he trying to get the kids full-time? Could that end up being the outcome because Anne won't be able to afford to have them live with her? In the long run that could backfire and the kids may feel he deliberately tried to alienate them from their mother. I think he should sit and come to an agreement with Anne.

Three days isn’t hardly any time for a parent to be with their children, his ex partners earnings and her new partners earnings are not the responsibility of the RP here, if the NRP and her partner would like more money they need to find a way to start increasing their earnings.

Good on jacks he's paid and now he wants to quit his job and work when he needs and see his children more, has them more anyway and still provide hobbies etc. good on him

Plus surely he should be the one clawing child benefit and child maintenance from her as he has the kids one night a week more than she does

Silly woman

Ex should not have had 2 further dc if she was relying on her ex to fund her household....

But he was paying something he didn't need to, supporting her when she wasn't working...why should he not stop when he wants to, why does he need to tell her. They are no longer together, he has the kids more (because she is prioritising her children with her new partner)
He has experienced a huge drop in salary, what would she have said if he was off sick/made redundant/sacked?

I think he's been more than fair

It's probably the second baby to her DP that has put them in hardship. She shouldn't be planning more children based on maintenance for her exsiting children. He has the children, but she can't hammer her work hours because she has young children that is nothing to do with him. It's for her and her DP to sort out.

He is paying for his dc. His ex doesn't seem to be though...

That lives with him as the resident parent? And he's paid over and above the CMS rate for?

He's not paying per view, he's spending more time with them and less time in work. It's his exes problem to deal with her household income, shouldn't have had extra children 🤷

Sounds like he has been supporting her financially above and beyond the minimum.

She isn't in a position to insist he stays in work so there isn't in practice much she can do.

Also sounds like he is being helpful in offering to cover sick days, school runs etc.

Sounds like she was relying on the maintenance continuing as it was which is never a good idea - he could have gone under a bus at any time.

I posted before reading, if you can’t tell.
jack isn’t responsible for funding their household BUT if the children are special needs or something and she can’t work then I think he should still pay

Well child maintenance is based on number of nights with the parent, so as she's asked to become the non-resident parent she surely expected payments to greatly reduce or end altogether.

He is the resident parent. She should be paying him child maintenance not the other way round.

I don't think he is in the wrong no, did she definitely realise the payments were going to stop once she was off maternity leave?
Perhaps as a compromise he could pay for most clothes and hobbies, after school activities, pocket money etc even when they're at their mum's house? The kids are going to miss out otherwise.

It's weird that doesn't seem to apply when it's their dad. She's remarried and had another child. Not his issue. He's providing for them in his time which is the majority. She should be paying him maintenance.

I don't know why he was subsidising her maternity pay when she chose to have another child with another man and have the children they have between them less? He should have stopped as soon as the arrangement changed.

You mean SHE should pay for her children right?

He has them 4 nights a week, she has them 3 nights a week

He pays for hobbies, uniform etc

He wants to spend more time with his children and spends more time with them than the ex wife anyway

Assuming also she claims child benefit

So surely you mean she needs to pay for her kids

According to CMS they are