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?

How to tell everyone you didn't read the OP properly just found an (unfounded) excuse to be bitter about 2nd wives 😂

Her brother is absolutely not unreasonable, she has reduced her time with the DC and made him the RP why on earth would he fund her 2nd family whilst doing the majority of parenting? She's lucky he isn't requesting CM.
She made her bed....

How is her life not going great?

• She has a job to return to after mat leave
• Exdh who has always paid more than he was required to
• Exdh who has willingly stepped up to facilitate her prioritising her new kids
• new dp to share the load both financially and running the home (if he isn't pulling his weight she has made her fertility decisions knowing that given this is her 2nd with dp)

Any problems she thinks she has are entirely of her own making

It is in that his ex is using the maintenance to fund their lifestyle, rather than pay for the children!

I think a key point here is that she asked him to have the DCs 4 days a week - unlike too many fathers who try to wangle this so they can avoid paying, then palm off the kids for their mum or whoever to look after

Add on the fact he's already been paying far more than he was obliged to, that the mum's made a free choice to take on the financial responsibility of more DCs and that the end of the payments had been fully flagged up, and yes - she's being completely unreasonable

Unreasonable? I don't think so. SHE is on maternity leave, having a child with another partner, yet JACK kept on paying maintenance? Which means he's effectively paying for her new child? That's absolutely MENTAL!

You've also stated that Jack will still pay for what looks like EVERYTHING for the children:

'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'

Yet that's still not good enough for this Anne person? Someone needs to take this woman aside and have a few well-chosen words with her. In effect, she actually owes money since Jack has been the RP but still paying HER for the extra night.

I actually think Jack is a bit of a saint putting up with his ex and her demands. She's with another partner, having children with him but HE is basically funding their lifestyle? Not on your life!

Confused why people think she’s asking him to fund her life/household rather than kids. Of course if she suddenly has significantly less funds towards her kids from her ex it will mean she will need to divert what she has budgeted towards her kids with an impact elsewhere.

Forums like this aren’t very helpful as only one side of the story ever presented

She doesn’t have majority residence of their children - he does. He could, by rights, ask for child maintenance from her.

She decided to have two more children without factoring in the financial impact of this. It isn’t up to her ex to ameliorate this.

All I’m saying is 1. Residency split doesn’t apply in high income situations when there is a huge disparity between both parents earnings. This is implied but no detail given and changes things drastically in the eyes of the law 2. Financial needs of the first 2 kids is the same regardless of any new kids 3. The story expressed here will be inherently biased. If the poster is upset, their understanding of the situation is upsetting them, and their understanding of the story is what they are sharing

So.you would be ok if a NRP was the dad and he expected the RP mum to pay him maintenance?

I don’t think that’s what’s happening here? Maintenance is for the existing kids. I happen to think it’s not appropriate for new partners to be expected to pay for previous partners children at all, in any way.

No, it doesn’t automatically change anything in the eyes of the law. Such cases are decided individually, and that the high earning parent is the one that has majority residency of the children would factor heavily into any decision making. As would the responsibility of their mother to step up and provide for her children, a responsibility she was aware of when she decided to have two more.

If the mother cannot afford her first two children then perhaps their father can assume full residency.

And no shit, that’s how message boards work.

That's exactly what's happening here. The dad is RP. The mum should be paying maintenance. She isn't. She shouldn't be expecting maintenance

Ah my bad, I thought it was to help people get different perspectives and help them understand and work through things, not just to get validation that their view was right and keep them stuck in conflict.

Did I say otherwise? Of course OPs can be challenged, but so can the opinions of other posters.

Sometimes conflict is necessary, and not to be shied from lest you aspire to be an absolute doormat.

I think you are best getting legal advice or speaking with child maintenance directly. My partner pays Child Maintenance to an ex we have to deal with this wrangle all the time.

He was recently declared disabled until he has a surgical procedure and then will have a period off work to recover. This is going to take roughly a year. He's been put into a desk job in the meantime and our monthly income is down by £400 a month. CMS have stated that when they do the annual review it will get lowered and not until then because technically he still has a job and they base it on the previous 12 months of his earnings reported to HMRC.

Right or Wrong in the eyes of public opinion this money grabbing woman could still have a claim even if they children are not with her full time.

I personally think he's right to stop. She's having kids with other people and expecting Jack to pay for her lifestyle.

He isn't in the wrong at all, in fact he's been more than generous in continuing the payments to subsidise her children with her new partner! For her to ask to have her older children less because of a new baby with her current partner is a bit shit in my eyes. Don't have more kids if you haven't got enough time for all of them. Sounds like they're better off with your brother OP.

I think both you and he are being unreasonable. Sounds like he is putting his comfort above that of his children.

Really? Even though he has them the majority of the time?

How'd ya work that one out?

Also to be clear there seems to be confusion in thinking having primary resident care means the other parent needs to pay the bulk of maintenance.

While that is part of it the overwhelming part is consideration of parents income. If I earn a £1m a year and my ex £35k then even if I have them more days I will expect to incur the greater portion of costs in raising them.

But somebody quitting their job to chill and thus ensuring their kids lose the full degree of support they got before just strikes me as a bum move. And the fact he was making voluntary payments is really neither here nor there. Court ordered minimums rarely reflect an equitable contribution to the rearing of a child.

And you also need to learn to mind your business. This is between his ex and him. You are just the new girlfriend.

You didn't read it did you. She's the sister.

You're also wrong on all counts.

No he couldn’t. Not given the financial disparity in their earnings.

Yes he could. His income has no bearing on the CMS. You seem to lack understanding in this area.

You could be a multi billionaire, have your kids ft and claim maintenance off your ex who earns minimum wage.

Yes. How I worked it out as fairly easy. See my comments on income disparity. The maintenance system takes that into consideration when determining contribution to the children’s rearing.

If she remains out of work this would indeed be the case. If she returns to work he would be fully within his rights to apply for maintenance. Him being in a better position financially does not negate her responsibility towards her children.

This is completely inaccurate. Income disparities absolutely is taken into consideration when determining child maintenance payments.