High earning, asset-rich partner has cut maintenance

[AnotherNaCha]

So my ex has been paying £xxx amount of maintenance which is agreed between us and has been long-standing, but not made official or through CMS etc.

But he was made redundant (and is unlikely to work again) and has suddenly halved the amount. He has gradually upped his days with our DC so now it’s almost 50/50 so says he owes me no maintenance. He is worth millions in assets.

Can this be right?

I work part time on a low wage without much hope for ever increasing that.

There’s no ‘had to’ about it. It’s a choice. My DM worked full time with 5 children over t0 years ago, I continued working full time 40 years ago after having my first child, had my second and still worked full time, some of that time as a single parent. Both my children now have children of their own and both returned to work full time. We did it because we chose to. My DM had, and now me, has a decent pension because of the full time working we chose to do.
It’s not like women are stupid and don’t know that they can work full time of they choose to.

Maybe she just saw a rich man who’d pay for everything for her? We don’t know do we.

Can’t see how, they were never married.

There is still the motherhood penalty on earnings.

Why on earth would you give up your career when you are someone's gf? If he is wealthy you could have continued working to protect yourself, instead you gave up your career, unmarried without a backup plan. He's upped to 50% so surely you can now work more to plug the gap? It sounds like he has paid more than necessary to allow you to continue working pt, he isn't working now so is cutting back what he sends and upping his contact. This all sounds fair.

You need to up your hours and focus on re-establishing your career, any money from him would have stopped once your child reached 18 anyway, you need a way to earn your own money and ensure you are paying into a pension.

S1CA puts the child in the best situation for them which in this instance would make the father the primary care.

Strong financial means and unlikely to work again sounds like a no brainer. Seen it happen a lot with early retired parents

I don’t think that people are being unnecessarily harsh. Obviously OP can’t do anything about the marriage but remember that people other than the Op may search for this dilemma and be unaware or the legal stuff like CMS being based on income and not assets so redundancy meaning no CM. The legal position is the realistic position and I’ve seen people on here fail to accept that the legal position is what it is and 50% CM is more generous than the system as it is today. Being antagonistic could backfire with the ex saying no CM . (I’m not saying that OP is being antagonistic btw, I’m thinking more about the stories on here where people failed to see that they had a good deal and should suck it up)

Ideally dad would help but realistically dad may only do that once the child is over 18 and he can give gifts directly to the child. Richer parents can take advantage of the fact that the poorer parent may be unlikely to take legal action because of the cost financially and emotionally and as with all legal questions, a professional can help with the facts.

Op increasing her income is the fastest way to make up for no more maintenance. Obviously there may be reasons why she can’t work more eg health but she doesn’t have to disclose that here if she doesn’t want to.

But the choice isn't SAHM or corporate burnout.

I'm a single parent and as the kids have grown I've increased my work hours gradually. My job isn't a "career" as such but I know I need to work more because eventually they'll be over 18 and I will lose a lot in maintenance and benefits, so I need to increase my earnings now.

OP doesn't have to try to get back into the previous career, but she does need to consider her own future.

Op, not sure why someone is posting you to a solicitor, if you wish child maintainance then use the cms calculator. It’s based on his earnings, not his assets or savings, and if he has the children 50 percent then it is likely nothing is due as you are responsible for them 50 percent of the time financially.

This is a lot of hyperbole. The op is also responsible financially;for her own children fifty percent of the time, and she is financially responsible for herself. Working to pay for you and your kids is not shaming or burnout. It’s life, we all have to work, not just put our hands out and expect someone else to work and support us.

Because according to previous posts, OP believed she was going to be bought a house outright after the split by ex and still be named in his parents will as they liked her. Finding out this was no longer the case has somewhat thrown a spanner in the works…. Even part time work apparently came as a shock.

He’s 50/50 and has plenty of time for childcare, good luck to OP arguing in court for even more maintenance than she already gets. 50/50 also makes it much easier for OP to maximise her own income.

50/50 care doesn't not necessarily mean no maintenance. If there is a large disparity in income then some may still be due.

If the ex is acruing income from assets, rental income, savings interests, dividends etc then this will still form part of his taxable income it will just be more of a pain to get it as it will more likely be self assessed and more easy to hide them the gov.

Pp are correct that cms have a process to deal with this situation but you will or bably need to chase and chase and wait months/years to resolve it. In the meantime time he could very well move things around to bake it harder, move assets abroad, put them in a partner's name etc.

It's worth chasing but I would do anything in my power to not depend on getting anything from him. It's shit but best to try to cut your cloth and improve your own situations as much as you can and then any thing you get from him will be a bonus.

Ffs every single time this subject comes up the extremely relevant advice that the OP needs to go and see a solicitor due to section one of the children’s act is dismissed out of hand.
Do you seriously think Patsy Kensit went to the CMS Website and put in a calculator what she should expect out of Liam Gallagher 🤦‍♀️

Not necessarily. We don’t know the background do we? So let’s not make idle threats?

It was a nasty sarcastic post.

Why would you wonder that? Surely if that was the case op would have mentioned it?

Secondly to @AnotherNaCha most of the comments are extremely valid.

Why dont you work fulltime
And what is your plan for when your dc have grown up and no longer have support?

Because if she's earning that little, the government will pay 85% of her childcare.

Not that they go up to this ridiculous amount, but to put that into numbers, OP would need to run up a £10,000 per month childcare bill, in order to pay £1500 herself. And she hasn't even got the child for 50% of the time. So that's zero bill.

So yes. It's not that hard to pay for childcare on very low income because you have to pay for virtually bugger all of it.

If her bill is £1,000 she's actually got to find £150. Which is bugger all for any parent to pay, because OP needs to pay for her own childcare just like everyone else, rather than this odd expectation that only dad is liable. It's just a convenient way to say you "can't" work by selectively ignoring that the child isn't there 6 months a year, and almost all the bill would be paid by the government. Christ, love them as I do, the amount of work I could get done if my children weren't here for 6 months a year!

Well maybe in this day and age the woman should say no. Im not giving up work, and you (the man) have contribute fully to childcare??

Without figures of how much he’s paying can’t really comment

I agree it's worth consulting a solicitor, but Patsy Kensit isn't the example you want here since she was married and thus in a much more advantageous position. Lisa Moorish maybe!

That being said OP, having looked at a few previous posts, as you know this man is coercively controlling. There's got to be a very real risk he'd respond to any schedule 1 application by ramping it up. It's a tough situation, but that's also something I'd factor in.

The posts are just awful on this thread. There are millions of women who are disadvantaged by having children - mostly because the caring responsibilities fall on them and society simply doesn't recognise the value (economic or otherwise) of caring

For single parents it isn't just a case of "up your hours". You need to find a job and childcare that supports your need to care for your kids. These jobs are had to find, particularly if you did step out of the labour market for a while. Childcare in this country is expensive and limited - the free hours don't cover 52 weeks a year for example, you need to find child care for older children who can't be left alone, and there's a huge shortage of childcare for SEND children.

You're generally paying 100% of the household costs on one salary and doing all the juggling. I actually didn't stop work when I had kids, but that's because I was a high earner and it still made financial sense for me to work - even so, childcare ate most of my salary in those days (and yes, it was still seen as my salary that paid for it).

Single mothers are facing dire retirements (like lots of women actually) and instead of attacking single mothers, the women on here should be looking at why policy makers allow this to happen.