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?

I lack sympathy for anyone who continues to have children and no plans to support them herself.

The additional 2 children are not his and not his responsibility to support. She's openly admitting his money was funding her ability to have them. With someone else. Nope.

Agreed.
The fact that she’s set up another family and seemingly can’t finance her commitments to all of her dependent children is both alarming and baffling. What a let down of a mother.

Why? She’s in another relationship and having more children.

The bottom line is that, despite his higher salary and good intentions, Jack is now the resident parent and as such, he is not requested by law to pay anything to Anne.

YANBU

Technically she should be paying him maintenance.

He’s been very kind still paying maintenance, even though she was the one who chose that he became the resident parent.

I would tell her it’s stopping and ignore her from then on, unless it’s about the kids.

I think Jack has been very generous and with your update crystal clear with communications and timelines.

Anne needs to be handed a grip. I'd say she is in panic on the money front as you suggested and saw ex as a cash cow due to high earnings.

Could she also be annoyed that jack is giving up job in the sense did he work lots when they were together and now he is making changes she would have like when they were a couple

Even so again - not Jack's problem

If they have a crappy standard of living, then she or her DP can get a second job. They chose to have two more children they obviously cannot afford to have.

If she cannot afford to pay half of her eldest children's food/treats, then she should just let Jack raise them, and she can save her precious money for her "new children".

It looks to me like Jack has been more than generous for these years. Anne got grabby and greedy, a problem, it seems, with some exes who want it all without doing the work.

I am not going to conjecture that "Anne worked behind the scenes for Jack". There is a good chance he was already educated and ready to be an earner in his field.

Perhaps, he paid for her to go back to school/get training, and she blew it off to have an affair with her new DP. Just giving an opposite/equal view.

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.

He is already paying for his kids 4 days a week. Are you suggesting that he has a moral obligation to pay for his children 7 days a week? Does their mother not have any moral obligation to pay anything?

This.

It's lovely to hear of a dad who fully supports his children and step up not just financially but with time and effort too.
He's paid an extra year longer than he needed to as the resident parent to make sure that his two children lived in a suitable home the three days a week they are with mum. Mum and new partner had a year to sort this out, they chose not to.
Now it is time for mum to step up and pay for her kids. She has four, her choice. N

It is odd that they were married and are now at very different stages in their lives.

As wonderful as it is for Anne to have two young children, the next few years will be hard and cash-strapped while Jack eases into a privileged semi-retirement. Jack also has the freedom to organise his work around their two DC and do fun stuff with them while mum is overworked, knackered, grumpy and broke.

There is bound to be some jealousy from Anne, and maybe a few what ifs. With high earners, the job often seems to play a part in relationship breakdowns. Now she’ll see it as him reaping the benefits of those difficult years while she misses out.

Jack sounds like a great dad and Anne is a bit cheeky, but the vitriol and scorn being poured on her is outrageous. Some posters on here are frothing and ripping her to shreds when we know next to nothing about who she is or what she thinks.

I think that's exactly what she had hoped to pull. Of course, he still had the children three days before the change, so what would she do those three days? Oh yeah, have her ex pay for her to sit at home with children that are not his!
Jack's children are also in school and have hobbies and sports. How nice for Anne that Jack is going to take over all of that, so she can work and put her "new children" in nursery/care.

She sounds like a real peach, that rotted to its pit.

Jack also has the freedom to organise his work around their two DC and do fun stuff with them while mum is overworked, knackered, grumpy and broke.

Presumably the mum's current partner will be able to help ensure that they're not broke. It's not really Jack's role to help subsidise his ex's new kids. And as she'll only have her oldest kids for three days a week that'll help prevent her being overworked, too.

💯⬆THIS
I think a couple of posters think Jack should just support them all. They sound bitter.

Maybe his ex has found this thread. It certainly sounds like it.

Why was he subsidising her household while she was on maternity leave with another man's child in the first place? No he shouldn't be paying and tbh, he should be putting in a claim against her if he had the children for most of the time. Non resident parents are supposed to pay maintainance. No good deed goes unpunished. He was nice enough to continue giving her money.

This. Jack has been fair. His ex should have planned better for her two babies. She should also count herself lucky that he won’t be asking her for any maintenance!

Sounds like Anne is a money grabbing bitch who was hoping her ex would fund her new lifestyle!! I certainly wish my ex was even a third as reasonable as Jack, he's been more than generous

She chose to have more children. Jack chose not to. Maybe if she hadn't she wouldn't be so cash strapped!

It is her choice to be knackered, overworked and grumpy. She chose to have two "new children" and already dumped her "old children" to Jack for more time.

Yes, Anne is being ripped to shreds because she actually has the audacity to expect Jack to continue to support her household when she has next to zero expenses for her "old children".
I feel zero sympathy for the greedy, grabby Anne, nor for her DP. It's their house, their problem. The fact that she doesn't want to spend $30/week (of her money) to feed/house her children, shows she and her DP are irresponsible, at best.

She should have thought about her responsibilities before she popped out more kids.

Jack isn’t her responsibility and as the resident parent he needs to be claiming maintenance from her.

Out of interest if the new DP and two new kids didn’t exist I wonder if the opinions would be different?

I’d like to know how much parenting Jack did during the small child years - or was he was off building his high earning career while Anne stayed home to support this?

He may well have been but that would have been taken into account in the divorce settlement

If the new dp and kids didn't exist then I'd imagine that Anne wouldn't have suggested that Jack have majority child residency.

Not usually these days? Isn’t spousal maintenance pretty rare?

I guess Anne will have plenty of time to consider the life choices shes made, won’t be going out much.

Incidentally so will Jack. But with a G&T in hand.