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?

If he's the resident parent he doesn't have to pay maintenance, the non resident parent does.

He's been fair to continue to pay despite being owed maintenance and reasonable to not request maintenance from her.

He still plans to pay for the children's expenses so what she wants to receive is basically spousal support he's well with in his rights to say no.

Who mentioned spousal maintainance?

Ok, forgive my ignorance. If Anne had supported Jack’s career at expense of her own, how is that taken into account on divorce, except via spousal maintenance?

It is but she may well have got more than 50% of the marital assets

If she wants to play that game she should be careful as technically she could owe him maintenance...

You should have finished reading…

Jack sounds like a great dad and Anne is a bit cheeky

When dividing the assets.

Why are you so determined to make out the man is somehow at fault? This is a woman who has had two more children to her new partner. She wanted her existing children to spend an extra day with their father. Why after accommodating this, along with continuing to give her money during her maternity leave do you think that he should still give her money? He has the children the most, he is paying for those children on the days he has them. It is her responsibility to provide for them on her 3 days not his.

Or other way around, out of interest, if the non resident parent was male and not only expecting not to pay any maintenance ever but further was expecting for their minority part of the week to be subsidised by the resident parent on the basis they'd gone and had another kid they couldn't afford, would there be even one vote in their favour or one part trying to whatabout the situation.

You're even trying to attribute the parent who's actually caring for the children and giving them some standard of livings success to the I've who doesn't contribute a penny towards them.

It’s like you’re enjoying her hardship.

Nope. The rp owes the nrp nothing financially. Regardless of whether they're male or female, regardless of earnings, regardless of whether they had further kids. That's legally how it is and rightly so. They aren't a couple anymore. He isn't obliged to support her.

I'd don't like the sound of his ex to be honest, she's let your brother have the kids more and more it seems to accommodate her new family and seems to be pushing jacks kids out, it is not your brothers fault if she's had kids with someone else that she can't afford, your brother should not be expected to keep them.
I would seek legal advice if I were him to double check he doesn't have to pay anything for the three days she has them.
I would also tell her I will pay you what I've been paying you for three months to sort your finances out but after that the payments stop.
She is getting family allowance and probably tax credits for them too and they only live there three days a week.

Nobody is responsible for their exes’ finances. If he is resident parent he should pay her nothing - I kind of feel he has got himself into this situation by being overly generous. People tend to take the piss when you extend generosity.

To answer some questions:

1. They were together 4 years in total but married for less than a year when he found out she cheated on him with a colleague, they split while she was pregnant with their youngest (whole other drama / thread)
2. He had both his children 3 nights a week from when they were 2 years old
3. He was already established long before he met Anne so no, she did not facilitate his career; he actually took a sabbatical so she could finish her professional qualifications as she was running out of time
4. He’s always paid above the CM rate (as is only right) plus expenses, for example he also covered the childcare bill on her days in full so as not to impede her ability to work
5. Anne was fairly compensated in their divorce for anything some of you think she is “owed” during their short marriage and yes they have a clean break
6. He is not retired, I clearly stated that he will continue to work to provide for his children but what he should NOT have to do is stay in a job that is detrimental to him and his time with his children, in order to support the new kids his ex has with another man. What is causing her financial hardship now is the fact she has to pay for childcare for a 3 year old and a 1 year old which is nothing to do with my DB. He is supporting his children; Anne and her DP need to do the same
7. He has already said he will not claim maintenance from her, will continue paying for everything they need as detailed in my first post and is more than happy to have them more if she needs and to cover extras like school holidays, sickness absence etc.

My brother is not perfect but he loves his children and wants to do right by them but that doesn’t mean he needs to be a doormat and taken advantage of. He’s already tried to be nice by voluntarily paying maintenance when he didn’t have to and this where it gets him; give someone an inch and they’ll take a mile as the saying goes.

Why did he need to warn her. Surely she would know that at the point he had the children more than her she is no longer entitled to maintenance.

I think he has been more than fair to his ex still paying her during her maternity when he had kids 4 days a week.

He sounds like a decent bloke to me!

It’s her responsibility.
And her new DPs.

Personally though I couldn’t care less.

Anne is a CF

The way I read your OP is that she asked for a temporary change to the overnights because she was having a baby. This makes sense both for her and her new baby/toddler, and also for your DB’s children as she would have been in a better position to be present for them if she had them three nights instead of four initially. However, perhaps it was always clear this was intended as a permanent change…

Your DB has now decided to make significant life changes but, as a couple of PPs have said, the net result of that is to potentially make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for Anne to have the children back for more than 3 nights a week (and likely to struggle with the 3 nights she does have them).

In the next few years these children are going to hit puberty and the financial demand they will make on any household even just in terms of food much less anything else (clothes, hobbies, tech etc) will increase for a some while. (This may be something your DB hasn’t factored into his own career plans - although if he earns so well, perhaps his view is that he can easily pick up another well paid job in a few years if need be.)

If you believe, as you say, that it is right that as a high earner your DB should have paid over CMS to provide suitable financial support to his ex for the children prior to baby 2, then to me it follows that it is still right after baby 2. Perhaps the balance shifts, in terms of overnights and/or maintenance. Perhaps financial help is tapered off over several years. Perhaps a tough conversation is had about her and her partners’ abilities to fund any further growth in their family size etc etc. But the fact remains that your brother has two children and, given his financial resources, he should continue to see it as important that they have a reasonable lifestyle whichever parent they are with. Furthermore, that the amount of time they spend with their mother shouldn’t be an entirely financial decision. The emotional impact of what he is proposing could be very significant, and could result in his children feeling rejected by their mother and/or used as pawns by their father. They are far too young to weigh in with what they 'want' in terms of choosing between their parents - they have no real concept of the ramifications here either way.

It also strikes me as interesting that Anne hasn’t married her ‘DP’. Perhaps there are numerous reasons for this - and probably your DB isn’t privy to them nor should he be. But it’s worth keeping in mind that it may well be a choice on her part to protect her home as her sole large financial asset (a home she presumably owns as part of a divorce settlement from your DB) and that, if so, such a path is likely to be in the children’s financial interest long term and their may well be some personal sacrifice involved on her part in managing things this way.

Many parents don’t have the opportunity to provide materially for their children in the way they might wish. Many parents don’t have the opportunity to spend time with their children in the way they might wish (often because they are working long hours in low paid jobs). Your brother doesn’t fall into either of those categories. It’s therefore very sad that he hasn’t thought about the impact of his choices on his children in any wider context than his immediate ability to be available and/or his immediate ability to provide adequately for them at his mortgage free house.

His financial privilege seems to have short-circuited his moral compass. I think he should try and figure out a more equitable situation starting out from the assumption that his children would benefit from spending at least half their time with their mother, and not a mother at her financial wits end. He might go on to consider that building a positive relationship with their young siblings isn't something to take/leave but something which he as their father should also actively encourage.

This is not about what the CMS/court says he has to do. It's not about whether what is being asked is 'fair' (if he has got this far without appreciating that life isn't 'fair' then he should consider himself bloody lucky). It is about him realising that he is in the rare position of being able to do a substantial amount to his childrens' benefit over the next ten years or so and taking that opportunity. It is about giving himself the gift of being able to look back knowing he couldn't have done more or prioritised them more. Hopefully being able to see the positive impact that has on them and being able to protect them from some of life's harsher realities for a while longer. Frankly it’s about looking at the bigger picture.

As a result no doubt of his hard work and talent, he is living a fucking dream. Why would he want any part of his children’s lives to be a nightmare, if he could prevent it?

Fair point.

Is Anne's lack of agency and responsibility genetic or just pure bad luck?

Absolutely ridiculous

Her lack of Intelligence, lack of planning and general lack of common sense is not his burden to bare.

It never made any sense to reduce her time with her children.
That was her mistake. And one she should not be compensated for.

Her inability to forward plan does not mean she is his burden.

The fact she snagged a rich guy once upon a time and now ended up broke is laughable but not his problem.

If the children don't wish to be with her due to her limits that's again on her.

👆🏼👏🏼

She's given him primary residence so she can care for her new children.
Had Jack subsidise her maternity leave (with new partner's baby).
And you think she may be hard done by?
She may be jealous, but much of her hardship is her own doing.

Based on the (one sided) information you've given your db has not done anything wrong. Nobody should have children they can't afford, so the ex should've thought about this before she had 2 more children. Your db should not have to subsidise her lifestyle and choices.