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?

Jack has been really generous. What is the situation with her new boyfriend partner? Isn't he the one who should be supporting his new family?

I hope if they were married that Jack got a clean break consent order with the divorce so Anne can't try to come after the investment.

He’s not wrong, legally he can claim maintenance from her, she should have realised he doesn’t need to pay when it changed over and he was the resident parent.

I dont see anything wrong with this.He has them more than her and pays for lots for them and wants to spend time with his kids..It's not up to him to fund her decision to have more kids. She should have thought about that before she had them.

As I said, I am well aware that what I think is not how CMS works.

I’m talking about morally. He’s a high earner, probably a very high earner if he’s in a position to retire early with a paid off mortgage, and he’s cashed in a significant investment.

Many (most?) men in this fortunate earning position with kids of 8 and 10 will have been supported to achieve their careers by the kids’ mum taking on the bulk of child rearing during the early years. Maybe this isn’t true for Jack. But if it is, I think that morally he owes Anne - a lot more than CMS requires.

Anne is a chancer. Dropping her days from 4 to 3 must make it seem to the older kids that her new family matters more.

But he doesn’t need to support her second family.

Morally she should be financially contributing to tge children she created.

Any decisions made during the realtionship were made as a family unit. They are no longer a family unit.

She has decided to further reduce her earning potential by 2 further children. That's no his problem .

Any financial settlement reflecting Jack was the higher earner would have been agreed in the divorce eg a bigger equity share of the family home or a pension split. He's also provided above and beyond for years already.

Just because Jack has come into money now doesn't mean Anne is entitled to any of it. And Jack is the resident parent - they live with him more, he is providing for them. This is not an absent father.

If we're talking morals, perhaps Anne should have considered the impact on her eldest children of having a further two children.

Reverse the sexes and see if you feel the same - mum comes into some money, has the children more, dad starts a new family and demands mum continues to pay maintenance even though she doesn't need to.

Has he put in a claim for child benefit as he is now R.P.?

Were they married? Did she get anything when they split up?

Why does Jack need to support Anne's children with a different partner?

Jack is the resident parent for their shared children.

Indeed, her new DP needs to step up

I would suggest he claims the child benefit he is entitled too. Mum can only claim for 2 children anyway and if she is claiming the child benefit for the eldest 2 she could do child maintenance claim against Dad.

She has had a baby with another man. If the two of them cannot support themselves and their family, they had zero business having a child.

It sounds like Jack pays for the majority of everything for the kids as it is. CM isn't to benefit the lifestyle of the ex and her new DP and their kid.

Jack is being reasonable and has been more than generous, IMHO.

I wouldn't say that situation is analogous at all.

The OP's brother is the resident parent. Yours apparently wasn't even able to house his adult children (who therefore needed no supervision) during university holidays or weekends, nor take them on holidays, and thought it was all his ex wife's job.

I'd be looking far more askance at your DB than you ex SIL in that situation, to be honest, and thinking there were probably a few other - rather different - sides and perspectives to that story.

I can’t believe the audacity of his ex. It’s not your brothers job to prop her household up. This is a typical example of someone being taken for granted.

Sorry Anne, your ex is not there to fund your second family

The part about only being able to claim child benefit for 2 is wrong. Child benefit can be claimed for any amount of children. There is a taper on earnings after I think it has just gone up to £60000. You may be thinking of the benefit cap for universal credit etc which does have a 2 child restriction.

Just so I'm clear on the yabu/ did he warn her/ is he trying to punish her/ alienate her from her children crowd.

Are we saying that non-resident parents should not only not pay for their kids, but in fact the resident parent should financially support them?

She's a fucking deadbeat parent and she's annoyed that the soft touch she found has wised up

I don’t think he does. Just keep paying what he used to for his own kids.

Why? He is their resident parent.

Not trying to be goady, I just don’t understand why he should be paying CMS when Jack is entitled to claim it.

He's the RP. He's already paying for them.
As NRP she actually owes him money.

Besides food and any treats she might give her two eldest children, I am finding it hard to see what she thinks she needs the money for, and she SHOULD be able to fund that herself. He pays for clothes, uniforms, sports, trips, hobbies, etc. He sounds MORE than generous since it seems his ex doesn't spend much at all on the children that are half hers.

What else is he supposed to do? Not his circus, not his clown car. It also seems like she knew the CM was going to stop when mat leave was over, so her hissy-fit is unwarranted.

@GumdropsAndLollipops
She sounds very greedy and grabby. I hope your DB protected himself from her trying to grab any more of his money. It doesn't sound like she deserves it.

How long have they been divorced/split up? Who kept the house?

He's been more than generous imo. He has carried on paying when she was on maternity leave from her relationship with someone else to help her out and then tool ok the larger child residency and has offered to do the lion share of child rearing. She's taking the mick if you ask me. And I'm normally on the mums side