Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

380 replies

GumdropsAndLollipops · 14/07/2024 19:28

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?

OP posts:
Grammarnut · 15/07/2024 17:49

If the children are essentially 50/50 then no-one is expected to pay maintenance. This happened with my DCs, when I went to court for joint custody after my ex would not keep to voluntary contact schedules e.g. he would not let them come to me every other week-end, and sometimes left just-teen DD with only slightly older DS over a week-end (when I heard I went and fetched them to my house - furious). I stopped paying maintenance immediately after the contact arrangements were changed, which made me and my new DH a considerable amount better off and I saw my DCs regularly. He is not BU. I am surprised much maintenance was paid in the first place.

FeeBee73 · 15/07/2024 17:52

Why should her ex fund her new partner and child's life? The partner should be supporting them?

ErinAoife · 15/07/2024 17:55

JohnofWessex · 14/07/2024 19:33

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

Every separated parents should have life insurance in place to cover if one of the parents died.

Tomorrowillbeachicken · 15/07/2024 17:55

She should be paying him maintenance

Tomorrowillbeachicken · 15/07/2024 17:56

Grammarnut · 15/07/2024 17:49

If the children are essentially 50/50 then no-one is expected to pay maintenance. This happened with my DCs, when I went to court for joint custody after my ex would not keep to voluntary contact schedules e.g. he would not let them come to me every other week-end, and sometimes left just-teen DD with only slightly older DS over a week-end (when I heard I went and fetched them to my house - furious). I stopped paying maintenance immediately after the contact arrangements were changed, which made me and my new DH a considerable amount better off and I saw my DCs regularly. He is not BU. I am surprised much maintenance was paid in the first place.

Except he paid her maintenance at 4 nights so she should be paying him now. Equality ftw

GoingRoundInTriangularCircles · 15/07/2024 17:59

Anne should be paying CMS. As the dad is the RP parent. Its in a court order.
Don't spit out kids if you can't support them. It works both ways whoever the RP or NRP is.
My eldest moved with her dad as was easier for the school she wanted . I notified cms and started paying her dad as soon as circumstances changed. Because she's both our dd therefor we both support her.

noosmummy12 · 15/07/2024 18:04

ByLoudSeal · 14/07/2024 19:44

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

Why though? He is the residential parent to their children. Whether you mean their children together or her children with her new dh, in what capacity do you think he should still be giving her money?

MustWeDoThis · 15/07/2024 18:05

GumdropsAndLollipops · 14/07/2024 19:28

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?

She should be paying him child maintenance because he has them more. Neither of them actually need to pay any CM because it appears to be an almost split custody. Asking him to have the children for an extra day is disgusting. It's like she's having a new baby, so out with the old and in with the new?? How does she think single parents cope? Cohabiting families? If she had the baby with the same man, what would she do with the children then? She sounds very double-standard, a leach, and a hypocrit.

If her family are living in hardship, what the hell is she doing having another baby? Jack had enabled her to have a lazy lifestyle. I suggest she get a better job if she wants more money? Work more hours?? Her partner needs to work more/earn more? Sounds like she's taken Jack for a ride!

Sleepytiredyawn · 15/07/2024 18:06

Is she wanting these payments to fund children that aren’t your brothers?

This is how I’ve read it, sorry if I’m mistaken.

He seems very hands on from what you have said. I always though if having the children was split 50/50 then you didn’t pay maintenance but you paid half each for all other things the children need?

If these payments are voluntary and not mandatory then I don’t see anything wrong with it as long as all their needs are met. It’s possible she has just got use to having the money.

HowardTJMoon · 15/07/2024 18:06

I'd suggest he not pursue CMS. Yes, legally and morally Anne should be paying. But the reality is that if Jack pursues this a) he's not going to get anything as she's not working, and b) it will just antagonise Anne further. Unless he's really desperate for the money then sometimes it's better to take the pragmatic choice.

Ottervision · 15/07/2024 18:07

HowardTJMoon · 15/07/2024 18:06

I'd suggest he not pursue CMS. Yes, legally and morally Anne should be paying. But the reality is that if Jack pursues this a) he's not going to get anything as she's not working, and b) it will just antagonise Anne further. Unless he's really desperate for the money then sometimes it's better to take the pragmatic choice.

She's on maternity leave so presumably she does work?

Donsyb · 15/07/2024 18:07

This happened to friends of mine. When they had their children he told his ex he would have to pay her less (he was paying well over what he’d be legally required to pay). She hit the roof because his maintenance was basically subsidising her life with her new DP, and they had been working part time but would now have to go full time 🙄

MikeRafone · 15/07/2024 18:08

trippily · 14/07/2024 19:30

I mean he could have warned her at least.

You'd have to be a tad daft to not realise that if your ex is having the children more than you are - that you owe them maintenance and why are they gifting you money every month

PeachyPeachTrees · 15/07/2024 18:10

He doesn't need to pay CM as he has them the majority of the time and he's doing the right thing paying towards uniforms etc. He has been kind paying during her maternity leave.
Anne and DP have chosen to have 2 more kids even though they both have 2 kids each already. If she gets into financial hardship, it is because of extra kids and not Jack's responsibility.

HowardTJMoon · 15/07/2024 18:13

I could be wrong but I get the impression Anne has been on maternity leave for quite a while so I was guessing she's likely just getting SMP. If so the amount of money Jack would get via CMS would be minimal.

Given the situation I can't help but think that Anne's already contemplating taking Jack back to court to try to regain being the RP and so the recipient of CMS. An acrimonious court case is only going to benefit the lawyers so if Jack forgoing a tiny amount of CMS means there's a smaller chance she'll take him back to court, I'd let sleeping dogs lie.

Biggleslefae · 15/07/2024 18:19

Anne is trying it on imo, I'm thinking she is used to getting her way when she throws a fit?

noosmummy12 · 15/07/2024 18:19

Allthegoodnamesaregone1 · 14/07/2024 23:50

Absolutely ridiculous

Her lack of Intelligence, lack of planning and general lack of common sense is not his burden to bare.

It never made any sense to reduce her time with her children.
That was her mistake. And one she should not be compensated for.

Her inability to forward plan does not mean she is his burden.

The fact she snagged a rich guy once upon a time and now ended up broke is laughable but not his problem.

If the children don't wish to be with her due to her limits that's again on her.

Show quote history

Also, OP has not said her DB has completely stopped working, but is instead working around the DC…

Ottervision · 15/07/2024 18:20

HowardTJMoon · 15/07/2024 18:13

I could be wrong but I get the impression Anne has been on maternity leave for quite a while so I was guessing she's likely just getting SMP. If so the amount of money Jack would get via CMS would be minimal.

Given the situation I can't help but think that Anne's already contemplating taking Jack back to court to try to regain being the RP and so the recipient of CMS. An acrimonious court case is only going to benefit the lawyers so if Jack forgoing a tiny amount of CMS means there's a smaller chance she'll take him back to court, I'd let sleeping dogs lie.

Would you recommend that if Anne were a man? Oh just let him do what he wants so he doesn't ask for more access? Even if she did she'd get 50/50 if that and he still woilsnt have to pay her.

It's irrelevant that she's on maternity leave, just as it would be irrelevant if a man claimed benefits. A mum would still get told to claim.

boredsoscrollingonMNagain · 15/07/2024 18:20

He’s not being unreasonable at all . He is the primary carer now . Maintenance isn’t for the mother , it’s for the child.

My ex has our child 3 nights per week and I have them 4 . He’s never gave me a penny. I don’t send clothes for our child- he has everything there for them. He pays towards school trips etc , there is no need to give me money .

HowardTJMoon · 15/07/2024 18:33

Ottervision · 15/07/2024 18:20

Would you recommend that if Anne were a man? Oh just let him do what he wants so he doesn't ask for more access? Even if she did she'd get 50/50 if that and he still woilsnt have to pay her.

It's irrelevant that she's on maternity leave, just as it would be irrelevant if a man claimed benefits. A mum would still get told to claim.

Show quote history

I am a man. I've gone from paying CMS to the mother of my children to claiming it from her so I've got a bit of an idea about the competing motives.

Nevertheless if this exact situation in the OP were reversed then actually yes, I'd suggest that Anne let sleeping dogs lie. The RP/NRP situation is still relatively new and the RP doesn't need the money so I'd do what I could to try to ensure that nothing changes that doesn't need to change right now. An acrimonious court case isn't going to help anyone, children included.

Addictforanex · 15/07/2024 18:33

4 days vs 3 days is considered resident parent and owed CM? Is it all or nothing?

My ex has had my DC for a total of 3 days during the whole of 2024 so far (where he funded nothing, his parents did) and I get no maintenance at all (he’s unemployed), so whilst Anne will have to adjust it could be worse!!

JenniferBooth · 15/07/2024 18:33

GumdropsAndLollipops · 15/07/2024 11:09

Yes my DB asked for my advice and unfortunately I’ve also been on the receiving end of Anne’s anger several times as well.

As I said in my OP, Anne really hit the roof and all hell has broken loose so I’m currently the one who is running my DNs between their households (currently once a week but will be twice a week once the holidays start) so I have no choice but to deal with her (grey rocking as much as possible).

Show quote history

So to go with everything else you are having to run round as well Shes a piss taker

Daleksatemyshed · 15/07/2024 18:36

I can see why Anne is blowing up about the money because she's made her life very complicated indeed. Plasterers do make good money but there's six DC in her family now and yet she thought she could be a SAHM. I think it's very fortunate for your DB that he has a contact order, she's going to find it hard to get it reversed and his CM would still be less without a big salary.

Ottervision · 15/07/2024 18:38

HowardTJMoon · 15/07/2024 18:33

I am a man. I've gone from paying CMS to the mother of my children to claiming it from her so I've got a bit of an idea about the competing motives.

Nevertheless if this exact situation in the OP were reversed then actually yes, I'd suggest that Anne let sleeping dogs lie. The RP/NRP situation is still relatively new and the RP doesn't need the money so I'd do what I could to try to ensure that nothing changes that doesn't need to change right now. An acrimonious court case isn't going to help anyone, children included.

Show quote history

An acrimonious court case won't help, no. But I highly doubt she'll do it considering she'd have to explain why she asked for her time to be reduced in the first place and why she wants it to go back.

It seems to be alright for one party and not for the other. Maybe you personally woulsnt say different for a man but most of MN absolutely would.

sassyclassyandsmartassy · 15/07/2024 18:44

The problem here is that no good deed goes unpunished. Jack did the right thing, in fact he went over and above. She came to rely upon him being that guy and now the life she planned around that will not be! She should have planned for all eventualities I am afraid. Jack should give up his job if he wishes to to spend more time with his children, that’s a lovely thing to do and is not responsible for funding her household when he has the children more and still meets all of their needs cost wise.