Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think he’s not doing anything wrong by stopping maintenance?

380 replies

GumdropsAndLollipops · 14/07/2024 19:28

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?

OP posts:
Nanaof1 · 15/07/2024 00:04

preparingtobeflamed · 14/07/2024 23:40

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?

They won't be living any nightmare I am sure. Because someone has money, they should still help support a ex that cheated on him and was vile and nasty? Nope, no way.
The MOTHER and her DP can do whatever they need to do to feed and house those kids or she can give total custody to the father and have them EOW. It's not Jack's job to support the lifestyle she wishes she had. She can get a better job or a second job. Ditto the DP. It's not, in any way shape or form, Jack's problem.

I love how some just think that others are entitled to steal money from a high earner "for the children". Guess, she and her DP should not have had children if they couldn't support the ones already born.

Must be a lot of ex's on here that are bitter and "wanting".

Nanaof1 · 15/07/2024 00:08

minipie · 14/07/2024 22:42

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?

Can we hear your opinion now that you know the facts?

Basically, none of your "theories" are correct and add to that, Anne is a cheater too.
How vile of her.

Evilspiritgin · 15/07/2024 00:11

Crikey's, some people will twist any word to make the man , the faulty party

preparingtobeflamed · 15/07/2024 00:53

@Nanaof1 the whole point is that Jack’s decision should have as little as possible to do with Anne, and have everything to do with him looking himself in the eye and wanting his children to flourish. If someone can afford to be more generous than they need to be then that’s what they should try to do, whether in terms of money/time/support or whatever you have to offer. Reducing people to their financial capabilities alone is demeaning and reductive, especially when it comes to parenting.

Modeling generosity for your children and making it clear to them that people aren’t worth more because they have more money is a pretty valuable lesson to teach.

I don’t subscribe to the view that a child’s access to their parents should be determined by who has the most disposable cash, if that is something that can be in any way avoided. Sometimes it is not, but it appears ghat it is here.

(Also, I have no idea who these “bitter and wanting” exes might be - or why you’d assume that bitterness would come into wanting the best possible outcome for a child in this situation).

Allthegoodnamesaregone1 · 15/07/2024 00:57

preparingtobeflamed · 15/07/2024 00:53

@Nanaof1 the whole point is that Jack’s decision should have as little as possible to do with Anne, and have everything to do with him looking himself in the eye and wanting his children to flourish. If someone can afford to be more generous than they need to be then that’s what they should try to do, whether in terms of money/time/support or whatever you have to offer. Reducing people to their financial capabilities alone is demeaning and reductive, especially when it comes to parenting.

Modeling generosity for your children and making it clear to them that people aren’t worth more because they have more money is a pretty valuable lesson to teach.

I don’t subscribe to the view that a child’s access to their parents should be determined by who has the most disposable cash, if that is something that can be in any way avoided. Sometimes it is not, but it appears ghat it is here.

(Also, I have no idea who these “bitter and wanting” exes might be - or why you’d assume that bitterness would come into wanting the best possible outcome for a child in this situation).

No. Bottom line really is she shouldn't have stepped out of her tax bracket if this is such an issue for her .

His children are going to have everything they can dream of.
If they have to slum it a few days I'm sure they'll survive before returning to the safety of their home.

And then they can vote with their feet.

biscuitandcake · 15/07/2024 01:09

Halfemptyhalfling · 14/07/2024 19:33

It's unreasonable for DC to spend hardly any time with their mum (unless that's what she wants). It's unreasonable to push your own children so they see their mum struggling financially creating stress for them

They are spending almost 50% of the time there and just over 50% of the time with their dad. As agreed between the two of them. He hasn't kidnapped them.

biscuitandcake · 15/07/2024 01:11

But also, in that situation, he shouldn't have to pay maintenance BUT I would keep out of it. Its not like when someone posts on mumsnet for anonymous advice and people cheerfully put the boot into them or the other person. You know these people in real life and they haven't asked your advice. If your brother has asked you/does ask you, that's a bit different.

TempestTost · 15/07/2024 01:57

Mayorq · 14/07/2024 23:44

Fair point.

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

Show quote history

.

BruFord · 15/07/2024 03:13

preparingtobeflamed · 15/07/2024 00:53

@Nanaof1 the whole point is that Jack’s decision should have as little as possible to do with Anne, and have everything to do with him looking himself in the eye and wanting his children to flourish. If someone can afford to be more generous than they need to be then that’s what they should try to do, whether in terms of money/time/support or whatever you have to offer. Reducing people to their financial capabilities alone is demeaning and reductive, especially when it comes to parenting.

Modeling generosity for your children and making it clear to them that people aren’t worth more because they have more money is a pretty valuable lesson to teach.

I don’t subscribe to the view that a child’s access to their parents should be determined by who has the most disposable cash, if that is something that can be in any way avoided. Sometimes it is not, but it appears ghat it is here.

(Also, I have no idea who these “bitter and wanting” exes might be - or why you’d assume that bitterness would come into wanting the best possible outcome for a child in this situation).

@preparingtobeflamed It sounds as if Jack’s going to be providing more support in terms of time with his children, but if he’s freelancing, the high income simply won’t exist anymore. I imagine that he’s put away some savings for his children when they’re older-but that will be for their futures, not their Mum’s household now.

They were only together for four years and they have a 60/40 split of their children. if he pays for his children’s clothes, uniforms, sports, etc., Anne needs to feed and house them three nights a week. He can subsidize his children more directly from now on.

2021x · 15/07/2024 03:24

preparingtobeflamed · 14/07/2024 23:40

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?

This is an interesting take.

Essentially any hardship on the children has not been from DB decision to work/not work but on the Ex decision to have more children. If she has the right to have kids he has the right to change his career.

I doubt that she thought about the children’s needs in this overly complicated way when she decided to have more children.

I am assuming she has been relying on his financial input, which is her problem, not your DBs

MissTrip82 · 15/07/2024 04:52

I understand why she’s freaking out because she’s got used to the money but it’s not hers it’s for the kids. If he’s doing more than half the care and still paying for things like uniform, I can’t see that he’s unreasonable. Few people can afford four children now; his exwife is finding that out!

It does interest me how many divorced men give up work or reduce their hours. I don’t know any men who are still coupled who do that.

Ottervision · 15/07/2024 08:25

I wonder @Stormingnorman whether youd be so approving of a man reducing his contact because he'd had another child or two?

Daleksatemyshed · 15/07/2024 08:37

Frankly, the only one here who needs to look at their morals is Anne. She had an affair a year into her marriage with two small DC, if it had been the DB MN would be screaming for his blood. He's been generous and a good DF, his ex has made her own bed, it's wrong she thinks he should going on paying

Chartreux · 15/07/2024 09:08

preparingtobeflamed · 15/07/2024 00:53

@Nanaof1 the whole point is that Jack’s decision should have as little as possible to do with Anne, and have everything to do with him looking himself in the eye and wanting his children to flourish. If someone can afford to be more generous than they need to be then that’s what they should try to do, whether in terms of money/time/support or whatever you have to offer. Reducing people to their financial capabilities alone is demeaning and reductive, especially when it comes to parenting.

Modeling generosity for your children and making it clear to them that people aren’t worth more because they have more money is a pretty valuable lesson to teach.

I don’t subscribe to the view that a child’s access to their parents should be determined by who has the most disposable cash, if that is something that can be in any way avoided. Sometimes it is not, but it appears ghat it is here.

(Also, I have no idea who these “bitter and wanting” exes might be - or why you’d assume that bitterness would come into wanting the best possible outcome for a child in this situation).

What about Anne's decisions? When she decided to change the arrangements, she should have factored in that Jack had no obligation at all to pay her maintenance, and indeed that he could have claimed maintenance from her. You're assuming that this was only intended to be a temporary arrangement, but given that they went to the trouble of changing the court order so that Jack had residence that is highly unlikely.

Chickenuggetsticks · 15/07/2024 09:11

I mean tbh if I requested a switch to fewer days I would be expecting that I now owe my ex maintenance. I wouldn’t need warning for that.

It really nice that your DB is winding down to spend more time with his children.

StormingNorman · 15/07/2024 09:48

Dweetfidilove · 14/07/2024 23:56

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.

Show quote history

I said she had a hard life in comparison and I never said that wasn’t the result of her own choices.

I also said she is a CF. The result is we both think the same, Jack shouldn’t keep on paying. The difference is that I have some sympathy for a new mum who has just realised there is a second major upheaval to her plans and finances. And yes, I know she was told this would be happening.

Ottervision · 15/07/2024 09:49

StormingNorman · 15/07/2024 09:48

I said she had a hard life in comparison and I never said that wasn’t the result of her own choices.

I also said she is a CF. The result is we both think the same, Jack shouldn’t keep on paying. The difference is that I have some sympathy for a new mum who has just realised there is a second major upheaval to her plans and finances. And yes, I know she was told this would be happening.

Edited
Show quote history

Genuinely why? Why can't she pay for her own kids?

Bluebirdover · 15/07/2024 09:55

minipie · 14/07/2024 22:29

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 sounds like a good decent father, sorry that doesn't suit your narrative though.

StormingNorman · 15/07/2024 09:59

Ottervision · 15/07/2024 09:49

Genuinely why? Why can't she pay for her own kids?

Show quote history

She should be paying for her kids. Nowhere have I said she shouldn’t. My original post said she was a CF.

I have had so many responses to this post just because I have some sympathy for her position. The cheating revelation has somewhat diminished my sympathy and makes Jack’s support even more generous. But either way, this thread has become ridiculous in its spite and condemnation.

Bluebirdover · 15/07/2024 10:01

@StormingNorman what makes you sympathetic to her?

  1. She's a cheat
  2. She's putting the new family above her original one
  3. She's a CF for not paying the maintenance fir her existing children
  4. She's after a meal ticket.

All round unpleasant.

minipie · 15/07/2024 10:02

Nanaof1 · 15/07/2024 00:08

Can we hear your opinion now that you know the facts?

Basically, none of your "theories" are correct and add to that, Anne is a cheater too.
How vile of her.

Show quote history

Agreed

My views were always theories as you say - ie dependent on the facts

Very commonly when there is a high earning spouse and a SAHM, who split when the kids are a little older, the SAHM will have enabled the high earner’s career while the kids were young. Doesn’t sound like this was the case here, but you can understand why I might have wondered if it was as the OP didn’t make it clear ?

I have little sympathy for cheaters or indeed people who go on to have more kids if this will mean they struggle to support the ones they already have - whether in time or money terms.

Ottervision · 15/07/2024 10:02

StormingNorman · 15/07/2024 09:59

She should be paying for her kids. Nowhere have I said she shouldn’t. My original post said she was a CF.

I have had so many responses to this post just because I have some sympathy for her position. The cheating revelation has somewhat diminished my sympathy and makes Jack’s support even more generous. But either way, this thread has become ridiculous in its spite and condemnation.

Show quote history

As it would if she was a man. Because if she was a man, you'd be screaming about reducing contact and why should a woman support just because she's successful etc. But because it's a woman who's done it it's all oh poor her she needs her ex to look after her.

StormingNorman · 15/07/2024 10:08

Bluebirdover · 15/07/2024 10:01

@StormingNorman what makes you sympathetic to her?

  1. She's a cheat
  2. She's putting the new family above her original one
  3. She's a CF for not paying the maintenance fir her existing children
  4. She's after a meal ticket.

All round unpleasant.

Read my post. It’s all in there.

StormingNorman · 15/07/2024 10:10

Ottervision · 15/07/2024 10:02

As it would if she was a man. Because if she was a man, you'd be screaming about reducing contact and why should a woman support just because she's successful etc. But because it's a woman who's done it it's all oh poor her she needs her ex to look after her.

Show quote history

Literally the opposite of what I’ve said. Calm down. Re-read my posts. I have said Anne is a cheeky fucker and Jack should not be paying.

Inspireme2 · 15/07/2024 10:12

Does the Cm payments not go thru a government agency that would be contacting her as to the changes as time goes on.
Surley, as the mother dropped her days, so does her expected cm income.
Wake up seriously.
No, the father isn't her bank he's done more than his fair share.

Swipe left for the next trending thread