DH Resident in UK - his ex wife and children living in RSA ...

[Loosemo]

Since my DH divorced in 2002 & agreed to pay child maintenance for his 2 children, living with their mum in South Africa both his and his ex-wife's circumstances have changed dramatically.

My DH is now a UK resident, married (to me, natch!) and we now have 4 children together.

Ex wife is now working full time, living with another man and has re-married too.

My DH has a voluntary court order, dating back to 2002 stating that he should pay R6000 per month for both the children plus reasonable private school fees, plus yearly increase according to the consumer price index. Ex-wife's right to Spousal Maintenance was waived.

This was okay to begin with but has become increasingly difficult to meet with the arrival of each of our subsequent children. My DH, not wishing to short change his children in South Africa continued to pay, but we now find it increasingly difficult to meet the payments.

Ex-wife is not open to negotiation.

Where does my DH stand legally? Surely we don't have to go back to court in South Africa to resolve this issue? Is this something that we can resolve via a solicitor in the UK? My DH still wants to pay maintenance for his children in South Africa, but needs his new circumstances to be taken into consideration.

Can anyone out there help or at least point us in the right direction?

Thanks in advance,

Loosemo

But all the comments seem to be saying what an awful mat etc and that he has obligations-he is not shirking thoses obligation just wnats it to be fairer to his situation now. The exwife has had more kids, no criticism of her though.

I don't think it's relevant who ended the marriage The op's husband made an agreement to support his dcs. His ex's behaviour, earnings or marital status wasn't factored in to that decision at all. It's about him supporting his kids. Now HIS life has changed and he expects to pay less. I don't think that's fair and I don't think the OP would think it's fair either were she in other shoes.

I can't see anywhere that the ex has had more children.

But "Fairer" means fairer for his new family. That means being unfair to his other children

I don't think the ex-wife has had more children has she?

So its ok for a woman to go onto have more children but not a man ? I agree he has to look after his other children but people are making comments saying he shouldnt have had anymore children then. Life changes he has 4 other children so should they suffer, its about getting a balance as the OP stated but people seems to think slating her DH is fine - I dont.

Stewie - yes we do have a reciprocal agreement with RSA

Maybe you and your dh should have sat down to work out whether he could afford 6 children before you went ahead and created such a large family?

TBH, you can bang on about the rights and wrongs of more children, blah, blah, blah and we'll never agree.

I'm watching my DH working himself into the ground trying to support everyone and not let anyone down. He lost his job and didn't work for 3 months - still sent the maintenance and paid the school fees for his 2 in RSA. We went without here so that he would not let them down. Last year he got a loan to pay the school fees - which we're still paying off. Just before Christmas he was forced to take a 10% pay cut from his employer - and yet he is still expected to pay the same amount of support? If less money is available then there is less money to dish out between everyone - we cannot be expected to carry on giving what we really don't have, surely?

Some people decide they cant afford to bring more than one or two children into this world, for financial reasons. A good friend of mine is still waiting to earn enough to support one child before she goes ahead and try for a baby. You guys have chosen to have four more in addition to the two he already has. Keeping breeding without concern for the costs is just silly, and a whole flock of kids is not a god-given right. Everybody has to budget, such is life!

If I go and buy a Porche, or a yacht, I dont expect anybody to feel sorry for me if I complain they cost a lot to insure and fuel up! At least a supercar you can sell.
Go have a look at the thread about Full Price babies at the Olympics.

Quintessentially - we could afford our children at the time they were conceived. We don't claim any benefits and are not a burden to anyone.

What I'm looking for is sensible, legal-ish advice not people with big baggy judgy pants on! Honestly!

I get what everyone is saying about the children - your comments have been duly noted.

Any more for any more?

Just to put some figures on this, if both these parents were in the UK and used the CSA the ex would have got 20% of the father's take home pay. If he got a pay rise his maintenance payments would have increased. If his pay fell his maintenance payments would have gone down.

When his first child with his second wife was born his payments would have fallen to 17% of his take home pay. The second child would have made it 16% and the third child 15%. There would be no further reduction in maintenance regardless of how many children he had.

StewieGriffinsMum is right that having more children doesn't automatically reduce child maintenance in Canada but it is possible for the non-resident parent to have their maintenance reduced if they can show that they are suffering undue hardship because they have a legal duty to support another child.

I am of the view that all the OP's DH's children are equally important. Insisting that maintenance payments remain the same regardless of how many children he has with his second wife would, in my view, be making the children of his first marriage more important than his younger children.

OP, I know no more about the law than the next person. I do know that some people on Mumsnet (as elsewhere) allow their own prejudices to colour their views. There are some people to whom the ultimate crime any woman can commit is to have children a man who already has children from a previous relationship.

I hope you find a resolution to your situation that is fair to all your DH's children.

prh47bridge and MsHighwater - thanks.

DH loves all his children equally and wants to provide what he can for all of them. We are in a bit of a dip at the mo - like so many others, and are trying to cut our coat according to our cloth. Trying to do right by everyone - especially when there are so many miles between them is no easy task.

Ok then - well you'd better try and get the ex to see that, as you didn't think about his liabilities elsewhere before you had four children, she will also need to cut her cloth accordingly.

So if the OP DH suddenly gets a massive payrise or wins the lottery I suppose you'd all be of the opinion that the ex still only gets what was agreed in the court order. From what OP has said it sounds to me as tho he would share his wealth.

If it's legal advice and legal advice only, you'd be better off with speaking to a lawyer. You were boumd to get some judgmental responses on MN. A lawyer won't judge. He'll take your money and tell you what's possible/likely within the framework of the law.

Surely you knew or your DH knew before he married you (natch) and you had four children together that he had existing obligations to the children he already had? And the level those were set at?

Re-reading your original post, I think it is likely that he will have to return to court. Basically, he will be asking for a change to the original consent order. A consent order is a legal document and a new judge will look at the situation and either rubber stamp, amend or throw it out. The wrong thing (legally and, I think morally) would be to unilaterally decide on a new preferred lower amount and pay only that. Not saying that's what he intended to do.

Thanks to those of you who have posted some practical advice, I appreciate you taking the time.

So people shouldn't have more children in case their situation changes?

Is that everyone or only second wives?