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?

Basically even though they live apart she’s still relying on him to fund her. Tell the lazy mare that a job produces money, not your ex. You have another child to think about if she wants to be a twat about it, tell your DP to go to CSA and get a court order job done. Then she might get off her arse and provide for her child rather than expecting everyone else to

As a NRP/stepmum on here you mostly can't win.

If this was reversed, and a none working mum was raging that her ex was having a new baby and would be cutting his maintainence down by not funding one music lesson per week there would be fucking hell on. Cries of get a job, he is entitled to have more kids as are you, he has been more than fair etc would be slung at her.

But there seems to be this misconception that NRP and their new partners are selfish, utter bastards out to swindle the ex wife and current children out of everything they can.

Unfortunately it mostly isn't even about the kids. The kids probably won't bat an eyelid at missing out on the farm this week. It's often sadly a case of ex wives using their kids to champion their own agenda against their ex.

Enjoy your pregnancy OP, make sure it all stays fair as I'm sure you will from what you've said and all will be well. After all if she isn't happy she can always be directed to CMS and she will soon see she isn't getting such a shabby deal after all.

I’m sure it won’t go down brilliantly if it is explained to the children “Banhaha and I are having a baby, which we see as really good news. Unfortunately that might mean that some of the extras and days out might have to stop/stop for a while as obviously we will have an extra person to pay for.”

I imagine they will be fairly unimpressed, unless they especially want a new sibling. But I imagine they would also be unimpressed if their two biological parents were having another baby and told them this! I’m not saying it’s at all wrong to choose to have another child knowing that this will limit the amount of nice (primarily code for ‘expensive’) things you can do with your existing children, but I can’t imagine that many children would be massively enamoured by that regardless of whether it was a full sibling or a half sibling

I think the people making out that this is primarily a step/blended family issue are being quite unfair to the OP, really.

No I'm saying the children shouldn't stop parents having more children.
That the first child isn't more or less important than the next.

I still want to know whether the dad is paying out 2/3 of his salary

Exactly Bella, it is a life issue not a blended family issue. When I was with my ex and I was pregnant with #2 We had to explain at times to #1 that because we've had to buy baby pram or car seat that week that this weekend we will go to the beach rather than amusement park for example. But that it isn't forever. And it wasn't. It's a good lesson for kids, blended or not. The world and all it's plans doesn't revolve around you simply because you got here first 🤷🏻‍♀️ some ex wives could take note of that too it seems 👀

Good god. So many women unable to see the very logical fact that having an additional child that then has an impact on the financial situation of a household that has no say in the issue is unreasonable. It is nothing to do with not being allowed to move on, or who came cost and is therefore more important, or how many music lessons is enough. It is basically saying ex, you pick up my slack.

As for the ex having investments and not working. Good for her. So much jealousy when a PWC is able to work less hours - or not at all - when, let’s face it, many of us wouldn’ Work if we didn’t have to. We know nothing of her life, what may have happened to mean she has all these investments, the state of her health etc. Not working, for many reasons, maybe her only option currently.

Why shouldn't she take some responsibility of the cost of her own children. Shes still getting more than legally he has to pay her.

Dps ex has a shit job by choice. We got less maintenance because of that. Was that unfair too? Thought not.

Why shouldn't she take some responsibility of the cost of her own children

How is she not doing when she is living off investments? If she won the lottery would you say the same?

Shes still getting more than legally he has to pay her

Do we know what he’s supposed to pay her? Firstly, maintenance on all but the highest of wages rarely reflects half the cost of bringing up a child - something widely acknowledged by people on both sides of this argument. £200 extra doesn’t look so great if his CMS assessment is £nil, does it?!

Dps ex has a shit job by choice. We got less maintenance because of that

I haven’t received any maintenance for 3 children in over 11 years. He’s self employed. Like many women in my situation, I grin and bear it and my children enjoy a good quality relationship with their father. Your point is?

So many unable to think logically.

The principle courts apply is that a sustainable standard of living is calculated for the children and then the couple split the costs according to ability. Marital assets are generally considered shared. No court is going to leave one parent destitute and working all hours and the other living in clover

Of course a lot depends on timing and a variety of factors. However given the facts from the OP a court would most likely dramatically reduce maintenance and suggest (strongly) that the OP’s partner’s ex wife gets a job.

It is not the living on investments that is a problem, it is the inability to even consider a pocket money job or to give up the odd luxury to allow the children to continue with their hobbies (not that this is even in doubt, anyway, it is 1 music lesson vs two).

Who is actually making the bigger sacrifice to provide for their children here??

However given the facts from the OP a court would most likely dramatically reduce maintenance and suggest (strongly) that the OP’s partner’s ex wife gets a job

It’s not in court? You are assuming you know all pertinent detail as to why the ex doesn’t work. Assuming there is a nominal spousal maintenance order in play, going to court could be dangerous! The relationship broke down some time ago, you can’t know that things are the same as they were.

You are also assuming there are luxuries to be given up. But the fact remains the same, why should the ex be giving up her luxuries when it is her ex who is changing the parameters? Why should she fund her children’s activities more because of his choices? What if she has no slack in her budget? The ex having additional children is not her choice and she has no say in it. Why should she fill any financial gap his choices make?

Can,

Why shouldn’t she give up some of her luxuries and work a bit?

Why is her lifestyle an immutable right but the OP’s husbands constrained by circumstance. If her circumstances changed (another baby, loss of investments etc) I am sure the OP’s partner would step up (within his ability) to help his children.

It is what parents do, or at least decent ones.

why should the ex be giving up her luxuries when it is her ex who is changing the parameters?

Because that is what the official guidance says should happen so that subsequent children are not treated unfairly compared to existing children.

How is she not doing when she is living off investments? If she won the lottery would you say the same

So if she can afford to look after her kids without getting off her arse, whatd the problem?

If shed won the lottery and was complaining about maintenance id tell het to get a grip and have some perspective!

I haven’t received any maintenance for 3 children in over 11 years. He’s self employed. Like many women in my situation, I grin and bear it and my children enjoy a good quality relationship with their father. Your point is?

My point is nrps make other decisions that affect their exs maintenance and yet we dont question it.

Also the "doesnt cost half of what it costs to bring a child up" is bullshit. Theres no set cost of bringing a child up. You live to your means. Anyone becoming accustomed to a lifestyle paid for by maintenance is an utter fool. Imo.

They are probably paying for private schools - the 2/3 salary bit. Or else she feeds them caviar for tea.

She is working - investing her money! Nice job, oh jealous new partners.

She also appears to be spending the money on the kids, and the ex has sight of the bank statements. I do the same. An account just for kids. It's pretty easy then to adjust when they leave - as you were never living off the exs money to fund your own lifestyle.

Still think it is outrageous to decide to buy a bigger house/car/have more kids and expect your ex to pick up the slack. Fund yourselves, new partners.

Maya ... do you really think only mothers should get to live with their kids??I am more a believer in shared care and fathers equal rights, as well as responsibilities. Kids have a parent looking after them - what's the issue which one it is? I do think it is sexist actually to think mothers rights trump fathers rights to have kids over. We do 50:50, it doesn't kill kids.

They are not using cms, Dippy

The number of people (and I have had this argument before on mn) who seem to think the cms calculator is some kind of divine force. It's the bare minimum that can be enforced. If you negotiate a better deal, good for you both for putting kids first. The number of bitter posters who are just annoyed they only get statutory minimum, so everyone else should!

2/3 of salary is beyond ridiculous. And he’s effectively getting his new partner to subsidise that.

Yes, I agree on that part, but that's her lookout.

It really depends on salary. 100k still leaves 33k to live on and would pay for public school secondary for two kids. Who knows what the financial details are? Just that £200 month drop is considered small. Who knows why it was agreed ... but at the time the two parties considered it fair.

If shed won the lottery and was complaining about maintenance id tell het to get a grip and have some perspective!

She hasn’t had the opportunity to complain about anything. She is unaware of the changes her ex and the OP are considering making.

lso the "doesnt cost half of what it costs to bring a child up" is bullshit. Theres no set cost of bringing a child up. You live to your means

Well, there’s a minimum cost. You can’t shift the cost of childcare to be able to work, for example.

And the nrp paying £7 a week ... I think we can be pretty sure it doesn't cost £14 a week to raise a teenager, for instance.

All the posters jumping on the EW saying she needs to get a job... she doesn't even know yet! Give the poor woman a chance.

They also need to go tell a whole load of the non working upper classes where they are going wrong. Fancy not working and living off investments! The very thought.

Fund yourselves, new partners

Well, they generally do. Its not like the ex wives give them anything is it?

Well, there’s a minimum cost. You can’t shift the cost of childcare to be able to work, for example

Not everyone uses or needs paid child care. Plenty of people have family who help so i dont think you can really say minimum cost.

She hasn’t had the opportunity to complain about anything. She is unaware of the changes her ex and the OP are considering making

A pp asked what id say if shed won the lottery. I was just replying to that