When to tell ex about change to maintenance

[Banhaha]

When do you think it would be best to inform OH's ex that he has to reduce maintenance payments as he is expecting another child? Should he let her know as soon as possible - at the same time she's told about the baby? or should he wait until it's born? Payments will still be above the level the calculator suggests but she will need to know not to expect as much. Has anyone got any experience with this? How did telling the ex go?

OH and I would gladly have them here and he could be main carer. They seem happy at their mum's though and the arrangement is so far working for them.

She does use her investments as her income - That's her choice though and I don't feel her wealth should have an impact on what OH pays. Other than if she was struggling we'd pay more.

I think she could cover the extra lessons if needed or get a job to cover them but I don't think it's fair of us to assume she will.

Maybe you could mention it as an option as well (incredibly tactfully!!!!). How much does he currently see his kids?

They stay every other weekend, half the holidays and two evenings each week but just for dinner. This might change as they get older as they start wanting to see their friends more.

Your dh sees his kids loads and supports them well so that’s great op.
Don’t let people make you feel bad. Your dh is entitled to carry on with his life.

@TearingUpMyHeart - my ex does support his kids. He gives me minimum maintenance to cover the basics as I am the rp & as I said he agreed in our divorce agreement to go halves on medical, school expenses etc. After that, so long as his three kids with me are financially treated the same as his two other kids with his dp within that family unit, I don't have a right to complain. Nor would I expect his two other children to go without at the expense of my three. My kids are part of a 7 person household in their dads house & part of a 4 person household when with me - that's just how it is.

So much projection on this thread!

OP you sound very thoughtful
If they only took up lessons last year then they won’t be massively invested in that instrument yet BUT they will see it that the new baby ‘stole’ their lessons so I’d def not link the two

DH needs to chat to ex fave to face and try and forge a reasonable compromise.
If he stops the half term treat cash initially and agrees to a year of lessons in both instruments then they choose just one unless she pays half of day that’s fair.

I know I will get told it’s not relevant but it is- his ex sounds pretty independently wealthy and it’s unreasonable of her not to contribute to the kids extra stuff that costs a lot.
Amazed that everyone thinks it’s ok that she doesnt work at all despite secondary age kids and still insists he pays for outings when he isn’t even there?

Ah, I thought they were already teens? The mum might prefer you two as main carers if you plan on reducing payments and leaving her to make up the difference. I would. Hard to bring it up tactfully though.

This is obviously a pretty high dual income family that has split up, if she pays her share from investments and his £200 monthly reduction is considered a small reduction.

Wow tearing your attitude is appalling - you would stop your kids from seeing their father or make them think he no longer has time for them because he is having another baby just because he has to adjust the payments? Perhaps you need to think about the kids not just yourself. Taking kids away from a loving father who is still paying a fair amount just because you are pissed off is selfish and vindictive. He is entitled to have another baby and the budget has to accommodate that. I am not in this situation but I have seen men cut to shreds by vindictive ex wives withholding access to children and frankly this attitude disgusts me

I wouldn't withhold access. Mine are teens. I would just inform them that their father decided to reduce their money as he wanted a new baby with his new partner (see op's posts). Up to them what they do with that info .... but I think we know. Alternatively, let their dad live with them day to day and deal with it. Which makes me a brilliant parent by your logic - willing to go non resident to let him see them even more.

Yes, I am vindictive though, that part is right. Only if pissed off. This would piss me off.

surely it's not guaranteed music lessons will have to go, there might be other areas she could save money. like groceries?

This is actually what the op is saying. The kids dad decided to have more children. He is funding that decision by reducing the money he pays to his existing children. His new partner thinks they could cut down on holidays and music lessons to fund her and his new baby. Up to them. But why would teens be impressed by that? Or feel wanted? I mean, I guess they might do, or be super excited about a new baby and not mind that it is paid for at their expense. Who knows?

It actually might work well to swap main carers. They sound like they almost do 50:50 as it is. This way they can feel more integrated into the blended family, rather than just getting the negatives of less stuff, they get the positives of new baby. Then decisions around money feel more natural.

If a resident parent has a DP with the new partner, naturally finances change so there is less money to spend on the existing DC. Eg,after my DSS's Mum had a new baby, they no longer went in holidays abroad and he had to drop some of his extra-curricular activities as they had less money.

However, if the non-resident parent dares to have another child, they are castigated for making the necessary financial reductions.

Basically the answer seems to be that non-resident parents should not dare to reproduce again.

This.

OP you are quite within your MORAL rights to reduce outgoings with the addition of your new DC and as with any family, whole or blended, everyone needs to understand the new dynamic and how it affects them. Siblings have to share resources. Siblings that think this is unfair are entitled and selfish.

She does have a very high income (from what OH has last been told) and she is open about this so maybe she'll offer to cover it. OH has high income but not as high. And we don't feel her income should affect what we pay.

OH would be saying he can't afford to pay for the extra lessons due to new baby. There might be a better way of phrasing it but yes it's true that's what would be happening. But wouldn't mum have to explain she won't pay due to wanting to spend her money on the horses, nice clothes etc?

Is she increasing her spend on horses and clothes then?

I'm sorry, but if you are a couple with children and you have another child, your money has to stretch further for that new child. So why should it be any different if the child is with a new partner?

Too Fund and take care of new SIBLINGS!!!
Not new dc and new partner. Their siblings. My ds's love their baby db, even though there is 10 years gap and I'm the rp but if the df has more ( which he's planning on) they will love them too.

It sounds like parents should wait for the first dc to be old enough to ask permission if any other sibling is allowed to be born? Because they won't get as many things.

And what stupidity saying - swap rp.
@TearingUpMyHeart You think if your ex had more dc you could move your dc or stop contact? You crazy as a cat! Money matters but more importantly the child feelings matter.

@TearingUpMyHeart ahh I see your point now. No she wouldn't. I see.. her spending habits should stay exactly as they are and not be affected by our decision. Just because she could cover it doesn't mean she should. Sorry it took me a while to get there!

Kids have both parents. No need for mother to be the resident parent. It's very retrograde thinking to think the woman has to do the resident parenting, maya. Are you usually so sexist and old fashioned? She might fancy a break, to spend more money on clothes and horses, while the dad has his hands full with a newborn and two kids. He can budget as he desires then.

I get criticised on this thread both for saying less contact with father and more contact with father. To be fair, by different posters. My position would be: he made a financial commitment. If he wants to change it, there are consequences. Either I am an amazing parent, by offering to let him full time care for the kids, or a terrible parent, for telling them the truth.

OP,

Nothing you are saying is wrong.

Tearing, it might come as a surprise to you that BOTH parents should make sacrifices to support their children. If the ex does not work and has horses etc, she can give up some things to pay for an extra music lesson a week (two is super extravagant anyway). Equally she could get a JOB! If this went to court, she would be told to do so. These days not working for life is rarely considered an acceptable position for a divorcee to take.

In what world does a family not make compromises as it enlarges. A 4 child family tends not to enjoy the same lifestyle as a 2 child family. But they have extra siblings.

Who knows, maybe the existing children would prefer a new sibling to one extra music lesson...

So dropping a instrument and a day out in the holidays is too much of a sacrifice, but being sent away from their Mum's house where (as the op said) they are happiest and settled is what should happen? That won't impact them negatively at all!

Investments are a type of income. I know it's hard for the working classes to imagine (that's just a joke) but the upper classes have made a living out of it for centuries.

I do actually think they should pay 50:50 or if proportionate to income, then yes she could supplement her investments to make it 50:50, perhaps, shudder, by working.

It is not even dropping an instrument, just having fewer lessons.

And the ex wife sounds like she could easily cover the shortfall should she choose to do so, even with a ‘pocket money’ part time job.