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?

I think if he can afford to continue to pay, then he shouldn’t reduce the payments.

However if he can’t afford to as a result if the new baby, then I’d suggest giving her as much notice as possible to allow her to budget

My ex was supposed to pay me £200 month for our child only 8 months of the year we would get it, then he decided to have another child so now we only get £99 per month. I resent him totally and why have another baby when you can't afford the one you already have?

There is a difference between losing a job and having another baby. Choice. Choosing to have another baby and expecting your ex and your older kids to fund it - yep, that would piss me off. I'd be ok with reduced payments because of unemployment.

No, I am not posting from experience. I would fight much harder to maintain my kids lifestyle. I am, yes, greatly concerned with fairness. I won't pay more than the non resident parent contributes as his 'fair share'. Why should I? That would be unfair. So, if that isn't enough to fund the lifestyle, then more needs to be contributed - by both.

In this case, the woman funds from investments. Up to her where she gets her money from. And appears to have negotiated a great deal on cm. Good for her. And good luck to the poster in reducing it without fallout.

I would say there is passive bitterness from other posters, along the lines of 'i only get a crap minimum cm payout, why should she get more?'. That's life. Roll over and you get shafted.

Just because children have a NRP it doesn't mean they should be handed everything on a golden platter. I get a pittance from my ex due to his choice post split to work part time for minimum wage to avoid paying full whack. My partner pays his ex £450pm which has consistently gone up each year due to him not 'shafting' her. Some men are shits and do whatever they can to avoid paying what they morally and legally should. Others are not. In this case, I think the OPs partner falls into the latter. It sounds like he already gives more than he legally has to, and if his life evolving means his current children have to drop an activity or their mum pays well then that's life. The same would likely happen if he were still with his ex and they had another child. We are talking losing an extra curricular activity here, not 5 hot meals per week.

So essentially what a lot of people are saying is "No, you already have your children and because your relationship with their mother broke down you aren't entitled to more if you cant keep them in the lifestyle they have become accustomed to, and neither is your partner who may not yet have children and should throw all of her time and money too at parenting your children as her own 2 weekends a month because if not it may hurt their feelings, but thats her fault she knew what she was getting into being involved with someone with kids". It's entitled and ridiculous.

At the end of the day it is about being fair. And fair is being allowed to evolve in life, fair is being allowed to not have your past dictate your future, fair is making sure all kids are treated the same whether they come from the same mother or not. And that is exactly what OP is suggesting.

Before I had my son, my daughter went to private school and did a whole host of extra curricular activities. After he was born she was moved to a state school and her weekend dance lessons stopped. They were luxuries we could no longer afford and -in the name of fairness- I knew I certainly couldn’t afford to send both children to private school and I didn’t want to send one and not the other.

I adjusted my finances, DD lost out on a few niceties but it had to happen so we weren’t living beyond our means. This is what happens in most families isn’t it?

OP’s kids aren’t going to be left destitute FGS, they may have to give up one hobby if mum can’t afford to pay for them either. If mum had a baby and explained to her DCs that they could no longer afford XYZ it would be considered fine and NRP would likely have pressure on them to pick up the tab for the activities. That happened with us... DP’s Ex had a new baby and declared she couldn’t afford things now for their 2 DCs and we were berated when we explained we couldn’t afford them either.

OP I don’t think you’re being unfair. Your DP sees his children a lot and pays a good amount of maintenance by the sounds of it. A small adjustment in finances in fine.

Yes, people are often unfair on both sides. Equally, if the resident parent decides to have more children and it reduces the lifestyle of the existing children, that implies they are cross subsidising. Again, not fair. Easily avoided by running separate bank accounts. I run several. It sounds like the ex in this case also runs a separate account for the kids. It's quite a clear, transparent way of doing things. New child = separate new bank account with contributions from new partner and resident parent. Choose a wealthy partner without major financial commitments and your new child has a well funded lifestyle. Choose a poor partner with a lot of financial commitments and your new child obviously has less. Why should your existing children subsidise your life choices?

How would this work OP?

Your boyfriends ex decides to have another baby, as a single mum. So she tells Her ex that he has to increase the numbers of nights that he has his kids, as she won’t have enough time to care for them with a new baby.

Would you think that was fair and reasonable? That it’s ok for her to have another child without thinking of her ability to care for the children she already has. Would you and your Bf be happy for him to reduce his working hours ( and income ) to be there for his kids?

There’s 13 weeks school holidays a year BTW, plus INSET and sick days. How many of these weeks does he cover now BTW?

How soon before the new baby is born should his ex tell you her plans for your life ? How long woudo be need to negotiate part time hours with his employer ? Or should she wait until the baby is born?

@IM0GEN - if the OP's dp's ex had a baby there would still be a father even if they weren't living together as per your assertion that she'd be a single mum!
Seriously - there's no correlation here.
I can't speak for other women but I certain know that if I had another baby with dp (who works away a lot of the week), bar medical issues I certainly wouldn't feel the need to send my kids to their dad's more once I was home from hospital!!!

No, the first wife tend to make the sacrifices, you are right Magda. It wouldn't occur to most resident parents to make decisions that negatively impacted their ex. Funny how the nrp often doesn't think that way.

No because absolutely no resident parents move or make it hard for the nrp do they?
What rubbish.

Plus isn’t making life hell for them negative?
Get a grip tear

To be fair, I pay 50% of costs, but I absolutely refuse to subsidise my ex's contributions.

But the OPs partner is paying half and then subsidising his ex’s contributions by paying for her days out with the kids and paying for all their extra curricular activities. All he is suggesting is to pay half, ex pays for her own days out (like he pays for his) and he pays for one lot of extra curricular activities and she pays the other.

I can’t see that that is unfair in the slightest?

I’m fact the ex has been taking the piss expecting him to pay for her days out with the kids. Especially as she has a higher income!

Imagine if a dad came on here and said he wanted his ex to pay for his days out with their kids. He’d be ripped to shreds!!!

Ops partner negotiated that deal himself. Who knows why. Maybe guilt. Maybe some other reason. That was the deal they agreed. He should live within his means

If my ex wanted to reduce payments because he bought himself a new merc, i'd tell him to jog on. Lifestyle choices shouldn't affect previously agreed financial commitments, particularly to kids

(I pay half for some days out my ex takes the kids on - it's nice for them to have the opportunity, I get free childcare, win-win. We have similar incomes so it keeps it fair. No big deal)

@IM0GEN - if the OP's dp's ex had a baby there would still be a father even if they weren't living together as per your assertion that she'd be a single mum!

You are very sheltered if you can’t think of any possible way that a woman could have a baby without the biological father staying around to support and care for the child.

Oh FGS I'm not sheltered, I just think you're making a ridiculous comparison. I'm so sick of the prevailing attitude that all men are potential d**ks and as the mother of two boys I find it massively worrying that so many women are inherently sexist!
Some men behave appallingly as do some women. Men don't have the monopoly on behaving badly in divorce or any other aspect of life!

Yes Magda, but we are not talking about your sons or your husband.

This thread is about the OPs partner and his plan to reduce his support to his sons. Posters are discussing whether or not this is reasonable or fair.

Quite magda
Basically some women think men are just a meal ticket. It’s so depressing.

It doesn't really matter whether posters on the thread think it's fair, the CMS is calculated on the basis that payments can be reduced by 11% for an extra child living with the maintenance-paying parent, so legally that is where the matter ends. There has to be an objective calculator as we can see that there are so many differing situations with separated parents and so many emotions involved.

Children living in the non-resident parent's household can also include existing children of a new partner.

Imogen,
parents split up & both parties are entitled to go on and have more children with a new partner if they so wish.
op's dp is not reducing his support to his first 2 children. He is adding to HIS family unit and now has to spread his earnings over 3 children as opposed to 2. If this were a nuclear family no one would say anything about older children having to make a few sacrifices as the family was being added to!
Are you and all the other naysayers on here basically saying that post separation/divorce, subsequent children are not full family members; that the only type of proper family is the traditional one of mum, dad and joint children???

op's dp is not reducing his support to his first 2 children

Read the OP, he is.

Pretty poor attempt at a straw man there Magda.

It wouldn't occur to most resident parents to make decisions that negatively impacted their ex

utter bollocks. Dps ex has made our life hell from day 1. When ds was living with her, and when he was living with us.

pretty much all of her decisions were made solely to piss us off or make our life harder. There was not 1 thought about her child in there either. She still doesn't give a shit about him.

Some people are bitter & twisted.

Ffs why should new dc be affected because you choose to have more or to suit your new lifestyle.
The dc first born where because you choose to have them. So why does the Choice suddenly not become yours anymore.
P.S new siblings not just kids.

@TearingUpMyHeart your response is one that has no experience at all. You don't just ship you dc off just like that. And to be called sexist because as a mother I want to live with my dc is foolish!

Ignoring the right and wrong of it all I would contribute with two points:

1. as soon as possible as her cut backs may require notice

2. I take it this is not court ordered or you’d have to go back to court surely

The dc first born where because you choose to have them. So why does the Choice suddenly not become yours anymore

eh, so you think the ex wife should have a say in whether her ex husband has any more children?

I notice nobody has pointed out the fact that she does not work. I would suggest if she misses the money maybe she gets a job.