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?

So, she is still angry that her gravy train dried up?

I need to ask to confirm this: They went to court to gt it changed to where your DB is now the RP? Is there any chance she could try to reverse it (though I doubt it would work). Has she said anymore as to why she wants the CM still?

I just don't understand how she can be hitting the roof and be so upset about something she knew would happen.

Do you mean Anne's new DC with her DP, or Jack's DC? If you mean Anne and Jack's DC, then if they are SEN and Jack has them more, surely he has more reason to give up work and stop paying?

If, however, you mean Anne's new DC with her DP, then why on earth should Jack pay for someone else's DC??

Apologies if this link has already been shared, but I haven’t read the whole thread. Jack has been more than generous, and now, as he is becoming the resident parent, he should receive maintenance from the ex.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/child-maintenance-how-a-childs-living-arrangements-can-affect-payments-factsheet/how-your-childs-living-arrangements-affect-child-maintenance

I believe it's usual for the non-resident parent to pay CM. Which means she should be paying him. And he should be receiving Child Benefits for them too

I find this highly emotive as a Mum who receives no maintenance or little bits here and there. Tho think you are correct in this one and the is still contributing just not in a form of cash. Not sure how it works if they both have kids kinda 50/50 or in terms of of he had capital in the bank would that count. He is paying for kids not to maintain her household and she wants him to have them equally or more and still pay. I would speak to the CSA this women sounds unreasonable.

If custody is 50/50 no-one pays maintenance. The ex DP is not expected to fund the household of their former spouse and their new DP, only to maintain their DCs. Whoever Anne is she is pushing it. She is not entitled to have her household maintained by her ex-DH. His contribution is now rather more than half of the care of their mutual DCs.

If the children are still financially dependent and her circumstances haven’t changed then it seems he’s punishing her but harming the kids.

If it’s voluntary and custody equal, that’s typically a high earning individual. CMS governs parents with income less than £156k pa. There is an expectation parents earning more than that will contribute, even in 50:50 agreements if there is a big disparity of earnings between the parents, this is so the child can have a similar lifestyle at both home.

You are definitely being extremely unreasonable. Picture this: you have an agreement with your ex either by court order or by consent. You arrange your mortgage, and budget on the basis of that agreed sum coming in. Then suddlenly ex decides to bale out of the agreement and leaves you high and dry. Then you have to suddenly have to find the shortfall to pay your mortgage. Where? How?
An agreement is an agreement and ought to be honoured. BTW this is between Jack and his ex wife. You are a girlfriend and naturally don’t like his ex wife (it’s a story as old as the hills). How would you feel if you were treated that way?

In short, Anne is a greedy cow. Your brother shouldn't have continued paying her CM when he started having kids more.
Is he sure both kids are really his?

I think Jack is her brother, not boyfriend

I’m fairly certain the OP isn’t dating her own brother.

No one has bailed, it was agreed the maintenance to the NRP would stop when maternity leave ended and that the NRP wouldn’t be paying maintenance despite them having an obligation to do so. The NRP and her new partner could pay the mortgage by working.

Shes his sister not his girlfriend You obvs didnt read it properly in your eagerness as a co founder of the first wives club

Doesn’t matter, it’s still between Jack and his wife. Telling it like it is: if there’s an agreement and it’s not being honoured it is the DC who will suffer. That has nothing to do with my marital status. I told my son the same when he said he was going to renege on the agreement he had with his ex-wife. I didn’t particularly like her, but she didn’t deserve to be treated like that.

He made her aware in advance that the child maintenance he was paying would stop at the end of her maternity leave. The children ‘will suffer’ because she doesn’t want to work to provide for them. Instead, she has two more children whilst under the delusion that her ex, the actual resident parent, was responsible for providing for her.

He is supporting his children, that’s all he needs to do. He isn’t responsible for propping up her household.

Second wife syndrome. I’d make sure he’s generous to her in your own interests, not impossible that could be you in a few years.

She's his sister not a girlfriend or a wnd wife

So OPs brother should also be paying to raise his sisters children?

Maintenance payments for children in 50/50 custody situations are not mandatory and one should not arrange one's finances on what is a time limited payment, if the custody is not 50/50. I speak from experience here.

Yeah? I couldn’t be bothered to work out all the silly acronyms. None of her business then, is it really?

Sadly though @Coco1379 you aren't "telling it like it is" - you are "telling it like you think it is" but have things wrong.

Best if you go back and read the OP's posts before you make any further mistakes

That isn'f remotely the same. 🤣

She is using the money to pay for her lifestyle.

In black and white according to child maintenance rules:

-Jack is the resident parent, he is entitled to receive child maintenance.

-Anne is not, she is expected to pay child maintenance.

-Anne’s amount to pay would be calculated according to the nights they spend with Jack (4 nights = 11.43% of her salary after taxes but this may be less or more depending on how they split school holidays)

-Anne is entitled to a small discount on the amount she has to pay as she has other children living with her full time (whether they are hers or not).

Jack was generous paying over what he was required to pay, Jack is still generous not expecting her to pay him child maintenance.

The tricky point is, did Jack cash in those investments BEFORE the residence order was changed recently in his favour? If so, Jack may be owing Anne £1,000s as the income from those investments will be considered as part of the CM calculation. If not, though for Anne but she gets nothing.

To be fair, we all have a moral obligation to ensure that our children are provided for 7 days a week. That's a non-negotiable part of being a parent. Jack had the children 4 nights, buys uniforms, hobbies, trips etc. He is meeting his obligations.

After parents split, each will make their own choices and their standard of living may not align anymore. This seems to have been the case with Jack and Anne. The children now have 2 homes with different income levels, that isn't in any way damaging to the children unless one household is in poverty.

If we look at it from the other side, imagine an exH insisting that mum live in a house in a 'better' area, 'better' car etc in order that their lifestyles match for the children. People have different priorities, which may have contributed to the split in the first place. Or an exH insisting that mum doesn't take the children on fancy holidays because he can't.

They are 2 separate families now with children that overlap, they make choices independently.

Just be careful about he word ‘agreed’…my ex sent me a legal letter saying ‘we’d agreed’….what he meant was ‘he told me’…economic abuse in marriage doesn’t stop after divorce. Not saying this is what’s happening, but you’re probably too close to the issue to be objective.