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

Truck, I don't think anyone is saying that but the OP said that things got more and more difficult with each subsequent child not just when circumstances changed. And there are four children.

Op in the UK your dh's changing circustances would be taken into consideration and the order may be changed by court for a variation downwards to consider his other children with you. Not sure what happens in SA though. I think you need to seek legal advice.

I find it a bit rich that so many on here cry well he shouldn't have had all those other kids. God forbid anyone says that about single mothers having several kids that the state pays for.

My dh agreed by consent order maintenance for his ds by first marriage. We then had our own ds. We didn't apply to reduce the amount although we could have, we were happy to pay as we could afford it. Ex wife has a further four kids by three other dads. I took ill five years ago and now earn very little and we find ourselves in the position of having far less disposable income than the ex wife, even considering her extra children. So, god forbid my dh should need to reduce the steep maintenance he agreed when times were good, but there is no pressure on an exwife to ever adjust to changing circumstances, even though in a marriage its what you do all the time with kids.

I'm sure the lawyers will correct me if I'm wrong but if there was a court order for child maintenance in the UK predating March 2003 the courts would have jurisdiction, not the CSA. Although the courts' starting point for determining child maintenance is CSA rates the courts must also consider other factors so the amount paid wouldn't necessarily be the same as the CSA.

My understanding is that the Government here thinks the current difference between the position of children in first and second families is too great. Under the draft regulations for the new gross income scheme it's proposed to lower the amount deductible from the non resident parent's income for children living with them to get closer to equalising and if the NRP's family isn't in receipt of Child Benefit there will be no reduction. That will effect higher income non resident parents who loose CB next year???

Doh .... affect

Doh....lose LOL, never post in the early hours when tired/drunk

have to say that my DH's DD from previously is every bit as important to me as my own DDs....every bit. Her welfare is just as important.

If he were to neglect her financially it would be a massive deal breaker for me. DO people not see that how he treats his other DC reflects on how he would treat YOUR DC in a similar situation?

My issue with the original post was the same as 2ndtimeblues - the OP stated

"This was okay to begin with but has become increasingly difficult to meet with the arrival of each of our subsequent children. "

And also this irritated me

"married (to me, natch!)"

Smacks of gloating in my opinion.

The children are presumably settled in their schools...a cut in the money he pays could mean them having to leave? THat would have a huge effect on them.

ok, so a lot of people are saying/implying that the OP and her partner should not have had more children if they couldn't afford to given what he was already commited to pay for his existing children.

So, how would you feel if you met the man of your dreams who had previously been married and already had children and he said 'sorry darling, we can't have a child/children together, I already have some that I need to maintain financially'?

Don't forget here that as well as the OP's DH's situation changing, his ex wife's situation has changed. She is no longer a single parent with no income of her own. She has re-married, so is presumably being supported by her new husband and she is also now working, so has her own income now.

Things change, responsibilities change. I don't think the OP is suggesting that her DH should stop making any financial contribution towards his children, just that it should perhaps be reduced.

One example. Husband and wife divorce, maintenance is agreed for their two children and he pays her x pounds per month. Fast forward two years, they have both re-married, she is now working and he has two more children with new partner. The maintenance for two children from first marriage is reduced due to change of circumstances.

Agree BandOMothers, you put it much better than me.

and Truck, the point is that if your circs change, then you deal with it - I have 5 dc. If my dh suddenly lost his job then things would be hard. We would as the op said cut our cloth accordingly. However, it seems to me that the op's dh had a prior commitment to these older dc.

it's hard, and i do sympathise with the op, but as another poster said, this money that he pays to the other dc should not come into the equation, they should think of it like a tax, it's not her ( or their) money - he agreed to pay it.

MOS In my opinion there's a vast difference between "we can't have any children together" and having 4.

And I still don't like the "natch" it's a horrible sentiment

heiss maybe they were trying to conceive for a while, had IVF and ended up with quads? We don't know but we are not here to judge (well, most of us aren't) The OP asked a legal question in the legal section. She did not post in AIBU asking if she was being U.

I also don't like the word 'natch' but I'm not going to judge her on one word

MOS - "with the arrival of each of our subsequent children" - I read that to be one at a time not 4 all in one go.

Agreed posting in the wee hours of the morning isn't a good idea.

The bottom line is we have laws because people have different opinions and cannot agree. There isn't much point in wishing different laws exist, we all need to work with the law as it exists at the time in the country that has jurisdiction.

4 children (let alone 6) is a luxury very few sensible people can afford. There is a massive difference between having no children with a new partner, and 4.

There may be legal ways around it so that the ops husband find a way to pay his older children less so that the 4 new siblings should not be so hard off, however, this is not fair on the first children who live without their father.

So what if the the first born childrens' mother works, and has remarried.

OP do you expect your husbands exwife to tell her kids "sorry, we can no longer afford your school fees because your dad has fathered 4 more children with his new wife so you will get less now"?

Quint said it so much better than me.

It's FOUR extra children, not just one or two, and it's (from my reading of the OP) all of those children after knowing it was getting harder after the first one and the second one and the third one and on to the fourth one.

And I'm sorry but the OP comes across as gloating and unpleasant.

Why is the OP "checking the original agreement" for the details - it's really not her business, it's for her DH to sort out - I wonder how much of this is being driven by the OP rather than her DH?

MOS and Babybarrister - I am not aware of having given legal advice. I do not watch Jeremy Kyle nor is my legal knowledge obtained from a friend down the pub.

This is, however, a parenting site, and any post, surely, is open for anyone to comment on, without being told to f off, whether or not with a smile at the end it's still an f off.

There is no polite way to say F**ck off. You are misguided to think so, and rude with it. Mumsnet is not a law forum, it is a parenting site, where people post views related to most things, in fact.

Babybarrister, I have enjoyed reading your advice on many threads, and always found you to be reasonable but today, I think you have a bee wedged up your proverbial.

With respect, I beg to differ.
If one was seeking advice on say, a holiday to Singapore and posted in travel asking for advice, they would no doubt expect people replying to have at least visited Singapore.

If seeking advice/asking for comments/views on a particular pushchair, again, one would expect/hope that people responding had knowledge or experience of that particular pushchair.

The same goes with legal. I have over the past few months seen certain posters giving thoroughly bad and wrong advice. Of course no one posting on here has their qualifications checked out by Mumsnet and any one with any common sense would instruct a lawyer qualified in the area of their query. However, not everyone can afford to instruct a lawyer, hence them posting their query on here in the hope of some free legal advice. There are several experienced family lawyers who regularly post on here and try to help as much as possible. However, for each qualified lawyer, there are probably at least 5 posters who are not legally qualified and do not have legal qualifications. My Jeremy Kyle comment was tongue in cheek as on one occasion a few years ago a poster who was giving bad/wrong advice justified this advice by saying she had seen it on Jeremy Kyle so it must be true!

With respect, I beg to differ.

Mumsnet is a parenting site where parents post dilemmas/problems/funny stories. All kinds of everything is on this site.

In order to comment on anyone's predicament/story it is not necessary to have been in the situation in which the poster finds themselves - if that was the case, threads would be very short indeed.

Yes, indeed, it is a parenting site, with lots of different subject matters.

Short threads would not necessarily be a bad thing. At least the OP could hopefully get the information they were seeking without having to read through pages of completely irrelevant comments and judgements.

Just to be clear for those who are hung up about the OP having four children, in the UK maintenance for the ex would have gone down after each of the first three children. There would be no further adjustment to maintenance for the fourth and any subsequent children.