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?

It doesn’t happen very often because earning over £156k puts you in the top 1% of the country.

Not the fact that the RP paying the NRP would be absolutely stupid?

The certainty with which terrible legal advice is often dished out always cracks me up. She did say ‘seek legal advice’ at least, which presumably means ‘get a solicitor to tell you I’m wrong, because I’m not prepared to admit it’.

That’s just your opinion. Someone with 100% custody paying someone with o% custody is stupid. Anything else is negotiable at that level.

Okay. Would you feel that way if it was you paying?

It's my opinion. But luckily also the law because anything else would be ridiculous, wouldn't it?

An RP paying an NRP who chooses to see the kids eow and doesn't work or has 3 kids with someone else. You'd be happy to pay them right?

Thanks. I keep saying there are two different situations and it depends which the relevant one is, but that keeps being ignored in what I’m saying

But why are you talking about 50/50 on this thread when it's not that? What you've said is wholly irrelevant isn't it?

The relevant one is that he is the resident parent, and thus doesn’t owe maintenance. That he’s the resident parent is right there in the OP, so why I’m not sure why you’re trying to suggest that the situation is unclear.

to say 4/3 is a big shift from 3/4 is derisable.

It doesn’t need to be a big shift in order to establish him as the resident parent. 4/3 is not 50/50, is the bottom line. He isn’t in the position of a higher earner with shared care still being required to pay maintenance.

OMG, the cheek of her! She wants your brother to help support her household when three of the five children aren’t his and she’s no longer the RP for their shared children.

Her current partner needs to step up financially and I agree that your DB should do as much as he can for his two children.

I wouldn’t be all surprised if his children opt to live with him pretty much full-time in a few years, especially when they’re at secondary school and have more homework and exams.

Ofc it is. I'm sure you'd find it a big shift if you were the one paying hefty maintenance.

I do wish people would at least read the Op's posts- he has paid off his house so has now down graded his job to one with a lower salary, this will give him more time with his DC. He won't be a big earner in the future, he will have his sons four days out of seven and his previous agreement over money with his ex is now ended.
Some people on here just think a man should pay and pay no matter the circumstances, that's no more fair than when a man pays nothing. If his ex wants to keep having DC she's going to have to find a way to finance them

(this is in response to the OP updateing that it is the EW is now preggers with child number 5!)

Just wow. She needs to stop having children she cannot afford.

Or it could be the flip side-- she may be in a toxic relationship where her partner is controlling her via multiple pregnancies. She owns her house, will not marry the guy (totally good decision), more than likely will not put him on the deed (good move too) so if he cannot have access to her wealth, tie her down with many children until she has no other choice.

Shocking update, OP.

Shame on Anne and her partner. I hope your DB stands his ground. She will have even less time to offer her two older children now, too.

I'd say it's more likely she just thought she was on to a good thing

Thank you to everyone who has commented but unfortunately the question is now redundant; instead of continuing with 60/40, Anne has decided she will be switching to every other weekend (one night) and a midweek dinner with the kids instead; please note, this was presented to Jack as fait accompli with no discussion whatsoever.

Anne has also stated she is going to be a SAHM so will not be returning to work “and therefore will have no earnings” in a not so subtle way of telling him she won’t be paying maintenance (not that he expected it).

When Anne and Jack divorced, she got a 3 bedroom, mortgage free house which was obviously big enough for her and their 2 kids.

With baby #5 on the way though, Anne has decided there isn’t enough space for 7 people and she can’t afford to move to a bigger house without Jack’s maintenance therefore “it’s best” for all the children if my DN’s stay with Jack as they have a bedroom each at his house and that way, baby #3, #4 and #5 “can spread out and have more room” at hers. Apparently she needs to think about what is best for all 5 of her kids and not just the older 2.

I know it’s Anne’s house to do with as she pleases but I’m absolutely furious that my DN’s are being pushed out of the home my DB provided for them in order to make room for 4 additional people and not only that, but she then has the gall to insinuate it’s my DB’s fault they’re being pushed out because if he carried on paying maintenance, she could afford to move to a bigger place.

Anyway Jack has contacted his solicitor to get a draft order drawn up in order to vary the CAO however the change will be effective almost immediately so the kids can get settled into the new routine before the new school year begins. He’s also looking into some sort of counselling or therapy for the kids so they can work through their feelings (hopefully it will mitigate against them having life long issues but who knows).

Jack has also handed in his notice and managed to negotiate a shorter notice period (end of the current project rather than the full 3 months) so at least he can be around for the kids which will hopefully help.

My goodness, this is shocking..... almost sounds like she only kept the children in order to secure the house! Surely your FB should be able to put a charge against the house, as it's mortgage free but was to provide (in the main) housing for the children, who are now barely there!
Really hope all goes well and the children settle well with the new setup. Please ensure your DB documents everything, so the children know what their mother did, should she try and blame him for what happened!

So she's pushing out her old kids to play happy families with her new ones? That's awful. I think counselling is a very good idea as they're going to feel so rejected. Will they even have somewhere to sleep when they go over there EOW?

If you get a house in a divorce, it's usually meant to be the family home and sold once the children are no longer living there with the proceeds split 50/50...

My DH's ex did something similar . He took legal advice and was told that he had signed the house over to his ex, so it was hers. She moved her kids out to my DH and her childless partner in and there was nothing my DH could do.

Absolutely dreadful! So she only wanted to keep her eldest DC when money was coming in.

just wait until she starts whining that that the eldest two have more stuff/holidays that her youngest three. In a few years Jack will be able to earn more his children get older

There are no words.

Yes the whole point of the house was to make sure the kids would be adequately housed when with their mother but instead, they’ve lost their bedrooms to the new kids / her DP and they will now be sleeping on the sofa and a camp bed in the living room when they stay over every other weekend although my DNiece is already saying she won’t go if she can’t stay in her bedroom and wants to know why it’s been taken away; it’s honestly heartbreaking because she actually asked if she’s done something wrong.

There is no mesher order, their divorce was a clean break so the house is Anne’s to do with as she wants.

But yes, seems now there’s no money coming on for my DNs, they’re being pushed out so Anne can play happy families with the new children.

Absolutely no words…. Those poor kids. I’m sure Jack will do his absolute best and be a fab father figure but the must feel very pushed out by anne