Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

CMS

164 replies

Runto · 02/05/2025 14:45

I live same building with my kids and ex.
We have a big flat , where the kids are, and a small flat, where I stay.

I see the kids and support every day for homework music food and we go out to play sport every day.

Only thing
The kids don't sleep as mine , because the flat is a bit small. It is possible for them to sleep in my flat but is is just less comfortable than their own bed , one couple of stairs up.

The mother is claiming child maintenance because she says the kids don't sleep at mine.

The mother had a job, is from a wealthy family ( inheritocratie

Given the fact that I am involved 100% in there life I

OP posts:
Original poster
Runto · 03/05/2025 19:25

@ HaddyAbrams .

Apologies—I may have overlooked your question. So yes, the father does take time off work and even wakes up in the middle of the night when the kids are staying with him.
You're the only one in this whole "status quo bias" festival who seems to acknowledge that the CMS approach isn’t one-size-fits-all. And that matters.

As for your comparison—I don’t think your best friend’s child, niece, or nephew can just raid your flat whenever they like, unless they live directly above you. And if they did, you'd absolutely be acting as a third parent. No question about that !

OP posts:
Theunamedcat · 03/05/2025 19:25

Runto · 03/05/2025 19:12

Alright, let’s move on and look at a different example. Imagine a super-wealthy royal claiming unemployment benefits—legally, they might be entitled to it, but morally, it would be a complete misuse of the system. That’s the kind of disconnect I’m talking about.

let's go back to the original case. with more information.
For context: in this case, the mother doesn’t want the children sleeping at the father, saying it wouldn’t be very comfortable for them.

Legally they will be entitled to 6 months contribution based job seekers only if they had paid taxes although I'm not sure if the savings portion kicks in on contribution based or not

Also it doesn't matter if one parent isn't comfortable with the children sleeping over the other parent simply needs a suitable home and a couple of hundred pounds for court unless there are extreme factors they will get overnight access

MmeChoufleur · 03/05/2025 19:20

Runto · 03/05/2025 19:12

Alright, let’s move on and look at a different example. Imagine a super-wealthy royal claiming unemployment benefits—legally, they might be entitled to it, but morally, it would be a complete misuse of the system. That’s the kind of disconnect I’m talking about.

let's go back to the original case. with more information.
For context: in this case, the mother doesn’t want the children sleeping at the father, saying it wouldn’t be very comfortable for them.

It’s nothing like that. A child is 50% a mother’s responsibility and 50% a father’s. The mother is covering her 50% and the father should cover his, regardless of the mother’s situation.

You’re happy to sponge off your ex? Have you no dignity?

And CM is nothing like benefits! You stuck your dick in and sired these children, now you need to follow through on YOUR RESPONSIBILITY. The money is for your children, not your ex.

As an aside, I assume you work full time or you wouldn’t have to pay CMS beyond a few pennies. How are you at your children’s disposal 24/7 if you work?

HaddyAbrams · 03/05/2025 19:17

And the father could take the mother to court for overnight access if he genuinely wanted it.

Bestfadeplans · 03/05/2025 19:17

Runto · 03/05/2025 19:12

Alright, let’s move on and look at a different example. Imagine a super-wealthy royal claiming unemployment benefits—legally, they might be entitled to it, but morally, it would be a complete misuse of the system. That’s the kind of disconnect I’m talking about.

let's go back to the original case. with more information.
For context: in this case, the mother doesn’t want the children sleeping at the father, saying it wouldn’t be very comfortable for them.

Well it won't be if they don't have their own bedroom and beds

HaddyAbrams · 03/05/2025 19:16

I'm not sure that a super wealthy royal can claim any form of benefits tbh.
And its not comparable.
Tax payer paying benefits to super wealthy royal is nothing like father paying for his own children.

vodkaredbullgirl · 03/05/2025 19:14

You are definitely on the wind up.

Original poster
Runto · 03/05/2025 19:12

Alright, let’s move on and look at a different example. Imagine a super-wealthy royal claiming unemployment benefits—legally, they might be entitled to it, but morally, it would be a complete misuse of the system. That’s the kind of disconnect I’m talking about.

let's go back to the original case. with more information.
For context: in this case, the mother doesn’t want the children sleeping at the father, saying it wouldn’t be very comfortable for them.

OP posts:
HaddyAbrams · 03/05/2025 19:10

No life isn't fair. Once again a you seem to struggle to understand, that's why the CMS one size fits all approach doesn't always work. No because your ex is rich, bit because you could technically be feeding them 3 means a day, paying for all extra curriculars etc and still be liable to pay purely on where they sleep.

However. It's clear that isn't the case here. You've said you don't pay for 50% of costs. So that's why you need to pay. Paying for a pay out and letting the DC raid the biscuit tin doesn't count ffs. Otherwise I'm the third parent to my nieces, nephews and best friends child.

Any chance you could answer who takes time off from work when needed? Gets up in the night when DC are sick etc?

oviraptor21 · 03/05/2025 18:59

The wealth of the mother is entirely irrelevant. You really do have to stop banging that drum OP.
As others have said, if you want to avoid paying child maintenance, you either need to move back in to the jointly owned home, or you need to get yourself a place that is big enough to have the children overnight for at least 50% of the time. You should be able to do this if you finalise the divorce and get the equity out of the big flat. Sounds like your ex will be able to buy you out.

ArminTamzerian · 03/05/2025 18:56

OP you use a lot of words to say you're a deadbeat who won't pay for his children

MmeChoufleur · 03/05/2025 18:55

For fucks sake, you’re just trying to wind us up now. MN invented the word cocklodger just for you. I suppose you expected your wealthy in-laws to keep you when you were married, too? Your wages (assuming you work) were kept by you as recompense for playing with your own children?

HopscotchBanana · 03/05/2025 18:55

Runto · 03/05/2025 18:49

@Wahsingday

Thank you for rating the cases. That last vote wasn't one of the original options, but fair enough—I'm sure that type exists. It just wasn’t included in the choices I offered. Thank you, I really appreciate it. (let me think about your rating, I will come back to you)
I’d like to make a point: when a mother with no financial need—present or future (thanks to inheritocray)—seeks CMS from a father who is fully present and actively involved in the children’s lives, that may be legally justified, but it’s family irresponsible. You could also call it:

  • Using legal entitlement without family consideration,
  • Prioritising legal rights over family harmony, or as I’ve previously said,
  • Weaponising legality at the expense of family peace.
What I find especially interesting is how many people in this group seem to believe that the wealth of the resident parent is irrelevant. Honestly, when someone says “money doesn’t matter” in a discussion like this (or any discussion for that matter), they often lose credibility in my eyes somewhat. That’s just "desirability bias". I also think some people here are reacting based on the usual “default narrative,” rather than actually engaging with the specific details of the case. So I’ll repeat a key point: These kids have open, easy access to their dad. They can go to his house anytime, raid his fridge, dig into the biscuit jar, and argue with him about anything, whenever they like. That’s not your standard absent-parent scenario. @HaddyAbrams—I don’t really understand the argument being made in response. But let me break it to you gently: life isn’t fair. That’s exactly why a super-wealthy mother can legally demand child support from a less wealthy father who is already giving his all—just not in pure cash (That the mother doesn't need). To me, it is the blatant corruption of the CMS.

@Spirallingdownwards Thanks. it is ongoing.

So in a nutshell

Anyone who thinks I can't use this piss poor excuse not to provide financially for my children, is "family irresponsible."

Pay for the children you made you absolute entitled cheapskate.

vodkaredbullgirl · 03/05/2025 18:53

We will repeat again, just because she has money doesn't mean that you don't pay for your kids.

Original poster
Runto · 03/05/2025 18:49

@Wahsingday

Thank you for rating the cases. That last vote wasn't one of the original options, but fair enough—I'm sure that type exists. It just wasn’t included in the choices I offered. Thank you, I really appreciate it. (let me think about your rating, I will come back to you)
I’d like to make a point: when a mother with no financial need—present or future (thanks to inheritocray)—seeks CMS from a father who is fully present and actively involved in the children’s lives, that may be legally justified, but it’s family irresponsible. You could also call it:

  • Using legal entitlement without family consideration,
  • Prioritising legal rights over family harmony, or as I’ve previously said,
  • Weaponising legality at the expense of family peace.
What I find especially interesting is how many people in this group seem to believe that the wealth of the resident parent is irrelevant. Honestly, when someone says “money doesn’t matter” in a discussion like this (or any discussion for that matter), they often lose credibility in my eyes somewhat. That’s just "desirability bias". I also think some people here are reacting based on the usual “default narrative,” rather than actually engaging with the specific details of the case. So I’ll repeat a key point: These kids have open, easy access to their dad. They can go to his house anytime, raid his fridge, dig into the biscuit jar, and argue with him about anything, whenever they like. That’s not your standard absent-parent scenario. @HaddyAbrams—I don’t really understand the argument being made in response. But let me break it to you gently: life isn’t fair. That’s exactly why a super-wealthy mother can legally demand child support from a less wealthy father who is already giving his all—just not in pure cash (That the mother doesn't need). To me, it is the blatant corruption of the CMS.

@Spirallingdownwards Thanks. it is ongoing.

OP posts:
Wahsingday · 03/05/2025 15:05
  1. A father who provides both time and financial support for his kids but gives a fair bit of drama.
  2. A father who is always present, deeply involved, but doesn’t contribute financially, no drama.
  3. A father who sends money when needed, but is not involved in his kids' daily lives, no drama.

Can I vote for a father who provides both time and financial support, but isn’t a dick so doesn’t cause drama.

Id also suggest that any man refusing to contribute towards his kids is by that very fact causing drama and discord.

HopscotchBanana · 03/05/2025 14:09

Bigfatsunandclouds · 03/05/2025 11:09

Just pay your ex or have the kids 50/50. All this 90/10 outside bollocks is confusing. Yes, you see your kids sometimes and giving them fresh air but that's not going to keep them fed sheltered, clothed is it? Just pay your way and stop going on.

Absolutely this.

What moron thinks playing outside has got anything to do with making sure each child has been bought new school shoes? Or fed. Or all the other costs of thousands and thousands each year that a child brings.

The same moron, presumably that thinks it matters that his ex's parents have worked hard and become successful so should be paying his own children's expenses... so he doesn't have too.

No wonder this hero is an ex.

Florabella · 03/05/2025 12:40

The father should accept his responsibilities and pay to help support his children. Everything else is irrelevant.

Spirallingdownwards · 03/05/2025 12:38

Are you divorced yet? If not then get divorced and sort out finances and ownership of the properties. It may well be that you can afford a larger place where they can comfortably stay if you split the capital according to what assets you both have.

At the same time apply for an order that your children spend 50% of their time with you if you really can't see why child maintenance is paid to the resident parent based on how many nights they need to house them.

If they don't want to do that then you have to accept that you need to pay the CMS rate to their mother towards their living expenses there and 100% expenses for the time they spend with you.

Wahsingday · 03/05/2025 12:33

I thought some of the stories about men on mumsnet were pretty poor. But this behaviour really is the dregs. Pay for your bloody kids, it doesn’t matter how wealthy the grandparents are.

ArtTheClownIsNotAMime · 03/05/2025 12:28

Runto · 03/05/2025 09:50

@cadburyegg That was quite a long email for such an early morning—was it a bit therapeutic, maybe? It honestly read like a copy-paste from a conversation you’ve had with your ex.
Anyway, to answer your question: the father is not paying for half of the things listed in your very detailed breakdown. He covers phones and some clothing. Let’s be generous and say he pays for 25%—or even just 10% if that helps make your point. But remember, I did mention that the mother is significantly wealthier than the father due to inheritance—generational wealth.
Also, when the kids are with the father, he pays for everything during that time. So yes, I’ve answered your question.
Now please answer mine.
Let’s set aside the above situation for a moment. I’m asking you, @Cadburyegg:
Which of the following cases would you rather deal with—purely in principle?
Please rank them in order of your preference.
after that Now imagine you’re in a position where you’re under no financial stress—present or future—thanks to inheritance.
Here are the three cases:

  1. A father who provides both time and financial support for his kids but gives a fair bit of drama.
  2. A father who is always present, deeply involved, but doesn’t contribute financially, no drama.
  3. A father who sends money when needed, but is not involved in his kids' daily lives, no drama.
(And please—don’t tell me you don’t have time for this after sending me a midnight essay. ) Disclaimer: none of these cases relate to the generic case. This is just a separate, yet relevant question, which helps me to understand what is going on.

The drama is a choice you're making, so take that out of the equation.

Hoppinggreen · 03/05/2025 12:19

Stop saying that The Mother doesn't need the money, its irrelevant and CMS will not look at that
The point is you should contribute towards your children financially as much as you are able to and spending time with them doesn't absolve you of that.

MmeChoufleur · 03/05/2025 12:10

Why would you paying towards your children’s upbringing “disturb the peace” unless you’re a raging arsehole who causes trouble just to control your ex into dropping a CMS claim, and causes pain to your children in doing so?

It’s not an either/or, you can pay and still be a decent father and not make a fuss about doing your moral duty to your kids.

SoMauveMonty · 03/05/2025 11:55

ToKittyornottoKitty · 03/05/2025 10:16

So who are you in this situation? Are you the father or not?

Show quote history

It reads more like the father's new partner.
If that's the case my advice would be to stop interfering. It's for the parents to sort out.
If it is the father writing about himself in the 3rd person, that's just plain odd. But tbf all the OPs posts are odd, and getting odder.

HaddyAbrams · 03/05/2025 11:41

@Runto I could almost see your point about you doing a lot, but having to pay purely on overnights.
But you're sounding less and less genuine here. Your ex is paying most of the children's costs. That's why you have to pay CM.

You know, none of your 3 options are fair. You could be present and pay towards your DC. Like their Mum does.