Drop in income means drop in maintenence- or aibu?

[goldensquaresofjoy]

Name changed recently as I posted on style and beauty and someone might recognise the outfit!

Anyway. DH works contracts- he always has. His pay increases or stays the same with each contract. It lasts about 2-3 years per contract. He increases his maintenence payments in line with the cms calculator each time.

He is struggling to find the next contract- demand has fallen and competition for the roles has increased. So he's started looking into permanent positions. These all seem to come with a lower salary.

He's started applying and gave the ex a heads up that in 3 months he's going to have to look at the maintenance and as he's looking for a permanent position for stability it will probably go down.

All hell has broken loose - she claims maintenance should stay the same even if I have to subsidise it.

For info as I know everyone hates a drip feed. he and I both have well paid jobs. We have one shared DC. We have mortgage. Ex works term time only (not a teacher) and has no mortgage or rental commitments. DSC are all at secondary school.

Aibu to think its ridiculous for her to expect him to keep a career decision made 15+ years ago when they were together and she'll just have to accept the drop on maintenance?

It's very hard to say exactly what it costs to raise a child. In divorced families it's harder because both parents have to pay for housing that accommodates the children and housing is most people's biggest expense.
Mum doesn't have that expense so that is a big cost she doesn't have to meet. But obviously it's not cheap to feed, clothe and generally house 3 teens. And she does it the majority of the time.
For young kids I'd think it fair for the nrp to pay half the childcare costs unless they were able to do the childcare themselves every day. The rp shouldn't have to absorb all those costs.
But numbers are going to be different for each family.
I think the people financially subsidising their ex's second family are crazy though.

Absolutely- I just think where people are running figures it’s important to note that the entire cost shouldn’t fall with NRP.

I agree about childcare too. I have two in nursery and so can totally appreciate that.

No, you don’t subsidise. Where do these idiots come from?

At the end of the day, your expenditure isn’t factored in for child maintenance. For either parent.
It’s based on a percentage of your income but is considered to be the bare minimum.
If he was paying £250 per month and then it’s going to go down by £100 you can see why she’d be annoyed. £2k a month and then yeah she’s a CF.

you haven’t included any proper figures to help people give their opinions. You just sound bitter that he is paying maintenance for the care of his children.

DH’s friend’s ex said she needed more money for their teenagers as she couldn’t work as she’d had another baby (with her new boyfriend who didn’t contribute).

Jaw-dropping.

Yup. Exactly the same here except DH only has one child, the teenager and Ex and her DH have 3.

Amazing, isn’t it? Always the guilt-ridden sob stories as well.

Yes - sorry to derail. DH tries to buy things that benefit DSS rather than give extra cash (notwithstanding his regular maintenance payments which are unaffected) as inevitably the cash doesn’t reach his child, but as I’ve said is spread across the household.

It’s really difficult for him as he has no desire to support everyone else in their house, felt he set his ex up well with the financial settlement with divorce - i.e left with v small
mortgage and didn’t take money out the house, with the intention to remove financial pressure from his ex and his maintenance is generous anyway (and I have my own kids so feel qualified to comment) but ultimately he doesn’t want to see his son go without. It’s like she’s undone his efforts to set up home for her and his child, borrowed to sustain their lifestyle and new husband is benefiting whilst simultaneously asking for more money. It feels exhausting sometimes.

@RedRosette2023 he really ought to put a stop to that. As it is, the money your dh left in the house for his child's benefit is likely to be diluted by her having other children. That's galling for your husband but kind of normal at the same time because it's now her house and it's not right to ask her to treat her children differently to each other. But further subsidising her life, hell no. Definitely put money for his son in savings that he can't access until he's at university or something, continue buying him things directly that he needs. This will still benefit his mum's family by freeing up her remaining cash for her younger kids but ensures dss doesn't lose out and mum doesn't redirect the cash for something she considers more of a priority!

Definitely @LadyBird1973

I think ex doesn’t see that, that’s another dynamic that’s difficult. If you’re maxing yourself out day to day, like the scenario OP sets out you can’t prepare for the future.

When DH’s ex’s outgoings were low (see low housing costs etc) he suggested diverting some maintenance to savings for DSS. She was enraged 😂

It would kill my husband to contribute less. If he couldn’t manage to continue his contribution I’d contribute because of the effect on him. Nobody could make me. But I would not let him be devestated like that.

However he has never just contributed the bare minimum required by law. He’s a father, not the lowest common denominator.

@MissTrip82
What saints you are 🙄

would you do that even if it meant your younger children going without…?

You can't really ask a parent which of their kids they'd prioritise. Obviously a step mum will put her own child ahead of a child who doesn't live with her, and who has another parent to contribute, but the biological parent will (should) consider all the kids to be equally their priority. And where dc live with you full time and no other parent is in the mix, all the kids should be raised as equal imo.

Yes, and what of the money the NRP spends on the child directly?
I don't know about you, but the bedroom and bigger car and food and clothes and activities and trips and gifts and so on we provide for DSD were not magically free just because her legal address is at her mother's.
The maintenance DH sends his ex is the thin end of the wedge and she also has a responsibility to provide for her child.

That's very noble of you MissTrip. So hypothetically, if your DH lost his job or was on long term sick, you would be prepared to make maintenance payments to his ex at the previous level, even if it meant the child/ren in your household going without?

Precisely. The bedroom sits empty the rest of the time but isn’t some sort of deductible expense.

Theoretically I don’t disagree with the maintenance going down if income has decreased (although do think the CMS calculator tends to be low) but you mention her working more hours and I have two issues with this. Firstly, is your husband going to collect them from school if they can’t walk and run them to any clubs? Will he cover the holidays when holiday clubs run silly short days? Will he cover half the cost for holiday clubs? Secondly what did the wife do pre children? Did she step away from her career to support her now ex husband’s?

And what would the ex do if she was still married to him and her husband had a loss in income.

She'd have to cope with it, or look how she could increase the household income. Like every other couple.

But it's fine because she's no longer with him and his income goes down? It's not for him to pay her extra money because his work has dried up?! That's life. I'm sure he's thrilled at having to take a lower paid job as well. She sounds grabby and entitled, exacerbated by the ridiculous statement that OP should cover the extra.

Exactly! A ‘together’ couple just have to adjust if DH’s income decreases, it sure why it should be any be any different if they are apart?

I suppose the difference is that couples who are together make decisions as a unit and plan childcare/finances accordingly. They can rely on each other to cover what the other can not.
In separate families, each person is acting unilaterally but their choices still affect the other, even though there's no agreement or ability to rely on each other.

@LadyBird1973
Agreed but that’s part of being separated

But at times like here it's not a decision. The OPs husband is not choosing to reduce hours or stop working he is taking the contract available to him. His contract has ended and he cannot find one in the same pay bracket. I have been in this position myself and you take the pay you can get.

And therfore the belt has to tighten a bit both in the OPs household and the step kids house.

But none of the above changes the harsh reality that there’s now less money to go round? You can’t pretend nothing nothing has changed, just because that change doesn’t suit you.

In this case he can't help that he will be earning less money. But we don't know that he genuinely cannot afford to give more than the minimum CSA calculation. Maybe the ex in this situation also doesn't know - or maybe she thinks he's made other spending or life decisions that have now impacted her, but she didn't get a say in the discussion around it. I guess the point I'm making is that it's easier to accept the change when you feel it is something you were part of and harder when it affects you but you weren't present for any of the decisions leading up to it.

Agreed.