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?

So if neither parent was the primary carer, who was? a grandparent ? Foster carer?

So he pays cms and on top of that he pays for school trips clothes etc? That's a much better deal than I get -cms only while I'm on stat maternity pay, living off and draining my savings (which mean I can't get universal credit, and now won't be able to move as I won't be able to pay stamp duty on somewhere new) and I have to somehow fund nursery off cms when I go back to work.
He's being very fair to her.

They were both parents who both shared the load. I've no idea of the exact split or who did what but DH was very involved and did want to be primary carer or even 50/50 care but she wasn't having it. I guess he could ask again.

Nanny?

although if the ex was term time only with children, not sure how she wasnt…

Well that’s very impressive, if he took half the family leave when his kids were born, went part time when they were pre schoolers and did half the school holidays , sick days , INSET days and half of all out of school activities, dental and medical appointments etc, birthday parties, school trips, organised their clothes and toys.

That would make him one of the top 1% of dads. Which is quite a coincidence.

or he could be one of the 99% of non resident fathers who tells his new
partner that he did everything for his kids but it’s in all his head.

I think yabu. Her children won't cost less to bring up because their dad wants to pay the absolute minimum he can get away with according to the calculator!
If you, as a household, have enough money to keep support at its current level then I think you ought to do so.

It's quite judgy to say she only works term time - she is presumably responsible for majority childcare when the dc are off school. So maybe she cannot "earn more" as you put it. Unless your husband did absolutely 50/50 childcare with her, in which case I'll take that back!

Once again the absolute searing hatred of step mums shows through on this thread.

YANBU OP.

It's fucking insane to suggest that OP has more of a financial responsibility to her step children than their own mother - who has a mortgage/rent free home and a term time only job but apparently shouldn't be expected to dip into her inheritance or take more work as wraparound care for teenagers is hard to find. Give me a goddamn break.

And yes, of course she has to pay from her own funds to house them. Getting a divorce doesn't absolve the resident parent of every single responsibility. And I don't understand the relevance of 'she has no parental support'. So what?

It's not meant as a judgement. She only works term time. Fact.

The choice to cut maintenance for his children is starting to sound a bit vindictive towards the ex now.

When you say he has them 50% in the holidays, it's not quite the same as being the default parent. Could he have done the wraparound care or collected them at short notice if they were ill at school? Was the childcare available good quality and affordable, enabling her to wft? Could he have honestly done a full 50/50? And do this now with his new job? If the answer to that is yes, then you could legitimately make a case for saying she should work more than term time. If it isn't though, then she's born the brunt of the child rearing and your criticism is unfair.
I mean, she could say to you that her ex had no business having other children if he's unable to support the existing ones properly.

This. If we have a recession some jobs might go. If your DH contract ends and he doesn't have a job to go into shell get next to nothing. Your income is none of her business. It's not calculated in CSM payments.

It's not just a 'fact' though OP, it's laden with judgements. But she is the primary caree to children whose dad lives elsewhere and has had a second family. Possibly she felt her children needed her to be around more, idk. Women usually have reasons for working reduced hours and those reasons are usually to do with looking after children.
You are fortunate to still have the support of the father of your child (and I don't mean just financial).

Idk, I'd get the serious ick if my husband wanted to cut child support - I'd expect that to be a last resort tbh, what you do when all other avenues are exhausted. It's not only about his ex wife, it's the messaging it gives to the children.

I don't understand and man in a well paid job who only pays the minimum he possibly can for his kids. It's such a stingy fucking scummy thing to do.

You keep saying you've got a mortgage, whoop de do. Maybe he shouldn't have got that big of a mortgage if it meant he could properly support his children.

People like your husband are those that give all men a bad reputation.

I do agree that she cannot demand your personal money to pay cs. Or expect you to take on additional work to pay it! It's just that in our house (where money is pooled) we would see it as a household cost and a priority cost.

Idk, I'd get the serious ick if my husband wanted to cut child support - I'd expect that to be a last resort tbh, what you do when all other avenues are exhausted. It's not only about his ex wife, it's the messaging it gives to the children.

This is how I feel too. The CMS amount is already so low.

He pays the legal minimum and has a well paid dual income household, no mortgage and 13 weeks off a year. Do you think that’s ok? You say the mum should be increasing her earnings but presumably she’s doing the bill of actually looking after the children so it’s much more difficult for her. She also has to provide a lot more resource for them if they’re living there. Personally no I don’t think you should be supplementing but I do think he should be maximising his earnings and definitely not working term time only

My nephew pays what CMS calculator says but he buys his kids shoes and winter coats, pays for school lunches, school trips and one hobby each which one is dancing and one is piano lessons. He started off giving his ex more to cover the extras but she said she couldn't afford piano or dancing lessons and cancelled them without telling him so he cut her back to CMS calculation and now pays extras for children directly to dance school and piano teacher and also pays any school trip money straight to school. His ex works 16 hours a week but both children at school and in September both in secondary school.

No judgements on my part. I have previously worked part time hours myself. I am not a stuck in the mud "if you don't work full time you aren't working hard enough" type. And I am upset if that is how I have come across. It was simply that there is potential for her to work year round and increase her earnings if it's deemed necessary by her. It isn't or she would have. What she does is up to her.

Not necessarily get a better quality of life. Whereas most Mums would spend money on DC a few won't and spend on themselves. I know this is a minority.

Whay are you on about. We have a mortgage and he doesn't work term time only. I'm not saying mum should increase her earnings I'm saying if she needs more money there's that option there.

Fair enough. In this house we don't.

That's because some posters seem to think we don't!

And where would the kids live if we had a smaller house? In a cupboard?

If they need more she can earn more

Urgh. I don't disagree maintenance should reduce in the circumstances you describe but the comment above is vile. She has brought up her children on her own working term time only to facilitate that. And presumably she is home esrly enough to not be leaving teens to themselves for too long as well as being around during holidays. All positive and all something your partner hasn't managed Sure, she has spare capacity to work more but finding the right role in the moment you need it isn't as easy as shrugging your shoulders and particularly it can mean that the positives of term time working are lost. Your dismissal of her mortgage free status due to the loss of her parents is also really unpleasant, especially as it signifies the loss of parental support whilst single.

There is nothing the ex can do as long as maintenance is paid at the legal rate. Why make such a big deal of it?

Anyway I'm off now. @Unexpectedlysinglemum has given really useful advice here. If we do it this way then it becomes not my issue at all.