Would court make her get a better paid job?

[ebadame]

I have two DSC. They are D so don't come at me with "poor kids etc".

Anyway, DH has moved jobs recently and is paid less. This wasnt his choice. He was made redundant. This job employed him. He is looking for a better paid job. I work full time. We have 1 shared DC

Ex-wife is making fuss over the reduced maintenance and is threatening court. I don't know why as he pays the legally owed amount. Yes in an ideal world he'd voluntarily pay more. However the ex has chosen to work extremely part time hours at minimum wage. She's well trained. The kids are at secondary school. She has more earning potential. Would a court tell her to look for more work if she took it to court. I suspect she's after my income but I understand that is untouchable is that right?

I get £375 a month- I can tell you that does not touch the sides of raising a child. Though I'm lucky he pays on time and regularly.
I have her 100% of the time. His choice.

You may be quite wealthy, have a low mortgage, subbed by your family etc but for most of us we have very little little left once essential living costs are paid so it is a huge portion for us and will be for many families. However we accept that our own children have a much lower standard of living so his existing children don’t miss out. To say that the CMS amount is woeful is ridiculous, as are the expectations of RP that when they separate they are entitled to maintain the same standard of living at huge expense to the NRP. It’s a bonus if you’ve got a partner or NRP who can supplement your children to have more than the basics. I’ve been a RP who received absolutely nothing for many years and my children didn’t starve so that’s not going to happen. The CMS rate is designed to prevent the NRP living a lavish lifestyle while their non resident children go woefully without, not pay for all the extras the RP could wish for

I’m a RP so very aware of the costs associated with having children. Unless very wealthy then can’t see how any NRP could begin to 50% pay for all the costs associated with maintaining a child if you include typical housing costs etc so that is a rather pie in the sky expectation. Many coupled up families are unable to do that which is why we have universal credit, childcare help etc.
The purpose of the CMS calculation was never to ensure that the NRP pays 50% of a child’s expenses, just to ensure that the NRP was paying a fair contribution based on their income and not living it up while their child unreasonably goes without.If your CMS calculation is right then £375 is probably a significant amount of money for your ex if he has average essential living expenses. If you are really on the breadline then there is a lot you will be entitled to and that £375 is disregarded so a huge bonus to your disposable income (I say that having been a parent on benefits who received absolutely no maintenance so £375 a month extra would of been amazing) If you have a good paying job then jolly for you but it isn’t your ex’s responsibility to match your expected standard of living.
Many families like our own are above the threshold for help but still struggle, however we choose to live in a less expensive area of the country, go without things many RP on here complain about etc.
BTW, I agree it is completely unreasonable that your ex leave you with 100% of the childcare plus obviously unfair on your child that he chooses to have no input

I certainly don't spend even close to twice that on my child each month. It's individual isn't it.

So she's probably entitled to benefits and therefore not financially providing for her children either

Erm...be careful with this. Plenty of people are entitled to benefits whilst also working full time. Please do not suggest that someone working 40+ hours a week isn't 'financially providing' for their children.

And before anyone jumps on me, I realise that isn't what we're looking at here. I do think it is important, however, to challenge this kind of statement - I have done 15 years as a full time teacher whilst also exam marking and tutoring and still having a small entitlement to tax credits. People like this telling me I'm not providing when my ex pays sod all in maintenance and is seemingly a hero because I 'claim all the benefits'.

Are they divorced with a financial order or clean break?

If so then the only route is CMS. If they didn't divorce or have a financial settlement then she could go back to court (subject to wording in the financial order)

It’s always open to him to pay the absolute bare minimum. She can’t change that. She also can’t change that he chose to have another child whilst paying the bare minimum for existing children.

Has her threat been made via her lawyer or is it just verbal from her?

He got made redundant. He hasn't reduced it because he's got another child?

Also the bare minimum could be £7 or £700 a month. The use of "bare minimum" in this scenario always is and continues to be, ridiculous.

Op said she works "extremely part time"

I am aware that people working ft can be entitled to benefits and rightly so, that isn't what's happening here.

No he can't

I have forbidden DH from discussing my income with her. I earn a fair whack.

Clean break

He was paying quite a large sum as "bare minimum" plus half school trips and uniform and extra curricular activities. All this while our shared DC was born and the last few years. She's been getting annual increases and shares of any bonus etc. It's only now he's had to get a new job she is unhappy.

Would be interesting to know what application she's planning on making - from your previous posts there's nothing she can apply for in the family court. She could apply for a mandatory reconsideration via CMS (which needs evidence) and then appeal to the first tier tribunal, all of that takes a long time. None of it can compel anyone to earn more or to take into account anyone else's income.

Why not?

It seems unfair to judge the ex when your DH doesn't do his fair share of parenting and pays the legal minimum child maintenance. If your DH stepped up, the ex would have more time to work. I'd imagine she took the career hit when having DC to enable his career.

We don't know how much the dh has the kids. The kids are secondary age. She can work. We have no idea if she's "sacrificed" her career.

Less than 50/50 as he pays the CMS minimum. She is well trained but works in a minimum wage job.

Well yes clearly less than 50/50 but we don't know how much. I'll say it again, they're in secondary school. Unless they have significant additional needs she could work more. If she is trained presumably her job is a choice.

Can she not take any responsibility for her own career or must it all be the evil ex husbands fault?

Can her husband not take responsibility for his own DC, why must it all fall on the evil ex wife?

Noone is saying her husband is evil but the intention is clearly to give the children the bare minimum possible and that is sad.

Whereas their mother is providing for them massively with her very pt min wage job? Ah OK.

We don't know what the "bare minimum" actually is it could be quite a lot.

Also. He was made redundant. What would you have him do? Tell his workplace they can't make him redundant because his grabby ex wife needs her maintenance to be kept at the same level?

What do you think happens when someone's made redundant in a relationship? Everything magically stays the same?

Why are you finding out about this and not him?

No they can’t take your wages into account. Which I agree with in this case. However, and I know not relevant to the post, but if a non resident parent gives up work to support their partners career, and then CM goes down to nothing as he is earning nothing, in that case I think the partners (the family’s) income should be taken into account.

I'd expect them to discuss as a family what they can do to provide for everyone in their family. Not 'what can we take from the children so I can hang onto my pot?' I get it, it is not OPs responsibility to provide for her husbands DC. But when you marry and have a child together, finances are combined. So when OP nd her DH likely agreed they can manage with her husband taking the job he is now in, you keep up previous commitments to your children.