DH stoping paying CMS

[donewiththistakemeaway]

My husband told his ex-partner — the mother of his two oldest children — a year ago that he planned to leave his job within the next 12 months. She has never worked, and for the last 9 years he has paid her £1,500 per month voluntarily, even though the Child Maintenance Service calculates the correct amount should only be around £300.

The kids stayed with us for 10 nights a month, matching my husband’s days off. Between us, we did all school runs, clubs, meals, and bedtime routines — returning them to their mother around 8pm each evening. They couldn’t stay more nights because my husband’s shift pattern meant leaving at 5pm, driving 2 hours, working until 7am, and getting home by 9am. This would have left me alone caring for all 5 children while also working, handling all household tasks, and managing their activities. Meanwhile, their mother only had to put them to bed around 9pm, yet received far more money than required. We also take all five children to their clubs and activities every weekend.

My husband has now left that job — he was exhausted, and after 12 years of hard work, my own business has become successful enough for me to be the main earner. He reminded his ex repeatedly over the year that this change was coming and that his income would no longer support those higher payments.

He explained that he is now available full-time: he can offer full custody, 50/50 shared care, or flexible arrangements — whatever works for the children. He will be there for school runs, sickness, doctors’ appointments, school events, and anything else they need. The only change is that he can no longer make those payments.

This has caused a huge reaction. She is angry, calling him names and saying she won’t be able to afford her home. He asked her to consider getting a job, or for her new partner to contribute financially ( he does not work either) but she has threatened to involve a solicitor — claiming that if my husband stops paying, I must cover the cost because I’m so flush.

I do not believe this is my responsibility. To keep things calm, I offered to pay the £500 per month which sis still more that what the CMS says is the correct amount, but this is still not enough for her. She won’t stop us seeing the children, as she only cares for them a few hours a day and enjoys having her evenings free with her partner.

My main worry is whether there is any legal loophole that would force my husband to keep paying that higher sum just to maintain her lifestyle?

Is housework work?

What is your point? 😂

Am I reading this right, that the mum only has her kids for 1 hour a day, so max 7 hours a week and that’s not even taking into account the 10 nights they spend at yours, OP?

And your husband, up until now, has been paying her £1500 a month… for what?!? By the sounds of things, you and your husband pay for almost everything for the kids anyway.

If that’s accurate, she’s been making a mug out of you guys. How utterly selfish and lazy of her. If the house is paid off then surely her benefits (or, you know, the lazy cow can get a job!) should pay for whatever bills she does have?

Absolutely shocking. Her equally lazy partner will be loving having his cake and eating it too.

Tell her to get stuffed, don’t pay her another penny. She has no leg to stand on.

And to the folk disagreeing with Dad giving up his job - it is perfectly fine for the other adult in the household to be bringing in the money while the other stays home to look after the kids and that absolutely does not have to mean Mum stays home! As long as they can make that work financially, then more power to them.

Good luck to you both, OP.

DO NOT pay a penny out of your salary. These are not your children and you do not have to pay CMS for them legally. Your salary is not counted.
They are your husbands children and it is his job to pay for them.
Those two ex wife and partner sound like proper spongers. Get a fucking job.
Keep your money for your own children.

The OP is not answering the questions about title deeds. They're clearly preparing to through ex out of the house and starting to brainwash the children to get them on board against their mother. OP
is test running the narrative for proceedings to polish it.

When you have children you dont get to just give up your job it is your H's job to support his own children.

You’re obviously bitter but talking a load of rubbish. If you’d read the thread the OP is offering more money than CMS requires anyway with the £500 a month. The ex has a free house, a partner and £500 a month. She also palms off most of the big expenses: clothes, clubs, uniforms, evening meals etc onto the OPs household.

And if taking kids to clubs etc is just being parent why does the mother never do it?

He is not a deadbeat dad if he takes his kids to all their activities, provides most entertainment, food and clothes. She is a deadbeat mum if she can’t even be bothered to go to parents evenings or sports days when she doesn’t even work. No wonder he left her. And if anything they will despise the parent who didn’t do a thing with them not the one who paid for everything and supported them in all their activities.

It is volunteering work, yes.

It's not my point, it's the gov that pays NI credits for caring after your own children 🤷‍♀️

Paying more than the CMS recommend was his decision and whether he was right or wrong to do this, the fact remains he should still be working to pay for the kids he has had from a previous relationship. He doesn’t get to pre-pay child maintenance and then stop. I do agree the mum could get a job as both parents should support their kids financially.

The sexism on this thread is pretty standard for Mumsnet, where a man, after working 30 years in a physically demanding job, isn't 'allowed' to stop work to enable his wife to push on with her career by providing childcare for the family.

I would have thought that the OP being enabled to build up her pension would have been cheered on from here!

He seems to be paying all their expenses as it is, and is offering to have them 100%

I assume that if that happens, their mother would be expected to pay him maintenance?

She should be working and paying him child support. She has had a very easy ride and is miffed it’s coming to an end. Oh dear, never mind.

He does

Exactly this.
The ex has had an easy ride.

You don’t have to pay. So don’t. So why are you? It quite literally is not your responsibility.

That would be perfectly fair if there were no "step-children" who the DH knows rely on him (and solely him by the sounds of it).

Poor kids... mother doesn't work and is not interested in supporting them and now the father is quitting his financial responsibilities to them as well.

But the mother has never worked so does that make her a shitty mum?

He's offering to house them full time.

Or haven't you bothered to read the thread?

He isn’t. He’s prepared to have them living with him which is what they’re practically doing anyway. Or the OP is offering more than the CMS requires while her household pays most of the big expenses anyway.

THE EX SHOULD GET A JOB.

Yes, if the kids lived with the dad 100% of time she should be paying maintenance, that would be one way for him not to pay.

Utterly ridiculous post. Have you bothered to read beyond the OP ?

OP says they take their children to ALL clubs and activities - not just during the time they have them to stay. They also do ALL school runs and have the two children every day after school, feed them and return them to the ex every night that they don’t stay overnight.

Now look at what the ex does as a parent. She gives them breakfast 20 days a month. That’s it. The roof over their heads and the financial cost of the children has been paid by their dad and the benefits system. She has contributed nothing.

Ex can afford to sit on her arse and not work because DH has been paying her FIVE TIMES the rate of CMS he’s responsible for. That money isn’t counted as income for benefit purposes, so ex and her partner will have been able to claim benefit as well.

OP has explained that her DH has burnt out and can’t continue the job. He’s perfectly entitled to do that. He warned ex that he intended to give up his job, and offered to take on the children full time instead, which she has rejected. It’s not a question of expecting the ex to change her whole pattern of life - it’s the perfectly reasonable expectation that she stop using her kids as a meal ticket, get off her arse and work, as her DH has.

OP has said his kids actively want to come and live with him and he’s prepared to take on being a full time dad because quitting work means he has the time for that. Which is essentially what his ex has been doing isn’t it ? Except that she hasn’t. She may have been a SAHP, but it’s clearly dad and OP who have been doing the bulk of bringing them up.

Your summation is that he is a deadbeat dad, based on what OP has posted, is one of the most ridiculous things I’ve seen on MN.

Except he’s not. The family are continuing to cover most of the children’s expenses while subsidising the useless, lazy mother to the tune of £500 a month. The children won’t suffer as they will still have their clothes, activities and food paid for. It’s the ex that will suffer hence her kicking off.

Do you say that to all the SAHMs out there, or is is just men who have to do paid work? If OP is happy to pay for all 5 and them live with her full time, more power to her. The mum of the older two sounds feckless.

Not much help but wow she sounds like one lazy, piss taking entitled woman!!! And she’s probably claiming loads of benefits too illegally. So she’s got a free house, money for nothing, does no cooking, no parenting. Is her name Waynetta?!

This. It’s very telling that ex refused DH’s offer of full custody of the two children. From what OP says, she has very little input into their care, and doesn’t provide for them financially at all, so it’s not difficult to see that the only reason she’s kicking off is because she will lose the money.

I doubt she’s claiming benefits illegally - child maintenance isn’t counted as income for UC so would be wholly disregarded.