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 shameless do you have to be to want another man to maintain your family?

What does her current partner think of her embarrassing them?

I dunno. Dhs ex is v similar. She's never ever paid her own way so it's I think, genuinely shocking to her that she might have to.. maybe its the same for this woman.

I'm not saying its right, BTW. It's pathetic and embarrassing.

Why would you do that ? How on earth can you give a response when you haven't read any of the thread?

His life, she doesn’t get to tell him what to do, as he was paying over what he needed she can use that money as surely she would have saved it all. Maintenance is never guaranteed.

Indeed! I'm embarrassed on her behalf 😢.

If she was struggling with money then she shouldn't have chose to have another child. Her older children aren't a meal ticket. He is doing and covering more than his fair share. Which is more than what a lot of father's do. She also needs to take some responsibility for their children.

She shouldn't have had two further children if the household is going to be in "hardship" without the maintenance that she's not entitled to anymore. Maybe her or her DP need to get 2nd jobs.

I'm with Jack - if Anne has had 2 more kids she can't afford to support without money from her ex husband, that's on her! I doubt if the positions were reversed, that she would continue to work so she could financially support Jack and his new missus!

Anne is a real cheeky cow. Why is she having more kids with another man if she can't afford the ones she has already?

Fully on his side. He is being (and has been) more than generous.

What is best for Jack’s kids? That’s what Jack should do IMO.

If stopping maintenance is going to mean they have a crappy standard of living half the week then he should carry on paying. Sounds like he is well able to.

I know full well that’s not how CMS works but morally I think it’s a bit repugnant for a high earner who is in a position to take early retirement and pay off his mortgage (so pretty damn rich) to stop paying for his kids half the week.

I wonder if his ex supported him in becoming a high earner by taking on more of the childcare, domestic stuff etc when kids were small - I am willing to bet she did.

She should have expected the payments to stop as soon as she started having them less than half the time.

She did not need a warning for something so obvious.

He does not need to pay for expenses during her time.

Anne is being a moron and an idiot.

Jack has been more than reasonable. Poor kids, Anne asking for Jack to have them more often because of the new baby - talk about getting pushed aside. Good on Jack for making a lifestyle choice that puts his children first whilst they are still relatively young.

Anne is an idiot and clearly didn't realise how lucky she was. Up to her and new partner to fund her larger family.

He’s been very generous to keep paying during maternity leave

He does not need to pay for them when they are with their mother.

He is now the resident parent. Anne should actually be paying him.

Your brother sounds like a wonderful father- much better than so many we hear about on here! And no Anne can’t have her cake and eat it, she can’t have the kids resident at jacks while she looks after her newer babies and still gain from his money. If he was made redundant/terminally ill etc payments would also stop- she can’t live her life banking on his money. They need to cut their cloth. I suggest doing all through the cms from now on

OP your partner has absolutely zero legal obligation to make any contribution to his ex

And I say this as someone who receives support from an ex for our children (I have mine as an 70/30 split) and also my DP has his children 50/50 and therefore makes no contribution for his.

Your DP did not need to give his ex any heads up. Frankly she can swivel - your DP is not responsible for financially propping up her household.

She had her mat leave as warning!

Couldn’t agree more.

He has been a good dad and exceedingly generous. He does need to pay Anne a penny as he is the resident parent.

Anne does not deserve to have her ex pay for her new household. Anne and her partner should have planned their earnings better.

You’r still not reading. The Op’s first post says Anne was on mat leave, so she is working.

Team Jack all the way!

He's the resident parent, Anne should be contributing to him.

The OP has said that Anne is due to return to work following her maternity leave. Presumably her partner is working, so there will be two salaries to support the two children she has with her new partner and if Jack has the children the majority of the time and intends to continue to pay for the things he has done previously, such as all the extras, I don't see why Anne thinks she’s entitled to his money.

Just to be clear, yes it was agreed last year that the maintenance payments would stop at the end of her maternity leave (which is 4 weeks away) and he had the initial conversation with her 4 weeks ago thereby giving her 8 weeks / 2 months notice (not that I think she’s owed it as the terms of the agreement were crystal clear when residency changed at the beginning of her maternity leave).

Knowing her as I do and based on a few things she’s said, I very much suspect that instead of returning to work, she was hoping all along to become a SAHM and was going to pitch it to Jack as it being beneficial to their children as well (on the days she has them) and to have him continue the maintenance. I think it’s come as a shock to her that he’s giving up his high paying job so any chance of that is out the window and she’s now going to have to find childcare for a 3 year old and 1 year old in order to return 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.

I’m guessing Anne may also be jealous of this windfall and that it’s happened after they split.

Were they married?

If she can't afford to have her children then she needs to reduce her contact. It would be a shame that she would fail her children so but her failure is hers and not on him at all.