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?

Stop responding to my comment I posted it before reading the thread

Jack shouldn't be paying her maintenance at all if he has the children 4 nights. Most dads don't pay maintenance on 50/50 custody so Anne has been very fortunate that he did.

Why can't she and her new partner provide enough support for the family? She has 4 children she needs to support.

Jack didn’t foresee any of this being a problem for Anne as the maintenance payments were due to stop anyway

He has them more. Even if they do have additional needs which isn't mentioned, she has 4 days in which to work.

He is.

Both of them. 4 out of 7 days a week.

Also offering to provide care during mums contact to support her financially with pick ups and sick days.

Why haven't you said "mum needs to pay for her kids?" Especially since he's paid a year extra to support her maternity leave with her current partner and their joint child.

Maybe don’t do that then?

If there are any benefits due their df can now claim for 2. His ex will therefore now be able to claim for her recent 2 dc also. Maybe this will help her instead of expecting her ex to...

The kids are going to miss out? Whose fault is that then?

Dad has been paying maintenance when he didn't need to, over and above what he would have if he did need to. Their mother had had another two children with another man so it's not his fault.

Anne shouldn’t be relying on her ex to keep her and her new boyfriend and their kids afloat. That’s up to her and the new boyfriend.

It's staggering how much people rely on maintenance then have further children, take career breaks, move on and assume their ex won't also change their lifestyle, and which may impact this.

It is up to him if he wants to stop work, reduce hours etc and none of her business as long as he was to pay any due maintenance as per the calculator, which he doesn't need to do in this situation.

She should be paying him maintenance whilst prioritising her new family

Are people seriously saying he should've warned her?

Is she that dull? A mother of 4 should have the brain cells to understand. If not that's 100% a her problem.

It's not his problem if she is in financial hardship. Multiple children are expensive.

He is the Resident Parent. I'd send a message reminding her that 10mins on a phone and he will have a CMS case open against her.

He’s not in the wrong, she should be paying him CMS. She opted to have her kids less and he was more than kind paying when he didn’t need to

So the ex wants 3 incomes to subsidise the extra expense of having dc with a new dp.
However she wants your db to be the resident parent so she has a less hectic life.

She’s entitled.
And sees your db as an atm.

My ex sil was the same. My db paid maintenance until the dc finished university.
Db wanted to give the money direct to dc when they began university. Ex sil refused to allow the dc to come home at weekends if db didn’t give the money to her. As db worked away a lot he had to effectively pay twice as he wanted dc to have a home to go to.
Every year he gave half of his bonus to ex for dc’s holiday. She never took them on holiday.

I think Jack should play by the book … then Anne will be very sorry, and will appreciate what Jack has actually done so far, when he didn’t even have to! Would love to see her face when she’s told she must now pay maintenance to Jack.

But if he is having them more why on earth should he?

Lord. Why did he give her the bonus more than once if she didn't use it on the dc the first time?

Do you mean you posted before reading the OP's post? Given there were no updates from the OP, the rest of the thread doesn't really bring any new information...

So she sees the kid as a cash cow then? He’s got cast aside and given to his dad more as mums got a new baby to love now. And not only that, she wants dad to carry on paying full whack, despite him now being the resident parent, plus offering to still support her on her days with school runs etc.

Sounds like Jack has been more than generous, particularly covering the maternity leave period.
He's continuing to be financially and physically involved with his children, so no issue there.
Ex doesn't like the change in the status quo basically! Think he's just got to ride out the storm...if it ends up back in court it will just cost the ex more!

Stop posting preconceived bullshit without reading. It's a blight on mumsnet.

I'm not sure why he should pay?
He has the children more, so she should be paying him?

anyone in particular?

Surely as the NRP now she didn’t expect the payments to continue? He has been very generous to keep paying her at all, let alone at the same rate as when he was the NRP.

She shouldn’t be planning or have planned her finances around money from your DB as she shouldn’t really be receiving anything. She wasn’t paying him when he was the NRP was she? She’s being completely unreasonable here. Your DB on the other hand sounds like he is making life choices for the benefit of his children and sound lovely.