Ex disputing CMS and making rival Child Benefit claim in 50/50 care

You want to hope ex doesnt claim against you for the elder child or puts in an appeal on the grounds of 50:50

I'm sorry for your bad experience, but no-one is responsible for the lifestyle of another adult. Both parents have equal responsibility for the child. If the care is 50/50 then the father is already fulfilling his half and based on what the OP says is spending more than she is. Which is fine, the children are not deprived any of the time.

And the Law is on the father's side in this instance so 🤔

The OP has had 4.5yrs to improve her career and income and earning status. In what way is she affected 4.5yrs later by her ex? Her ex husband isn't yours (I should hope).

How is it a breach of contract.. he is looking after his children just as equally as her?

The OP has never mentioned domestic violence... you are trying to change the narrative now. They have successfully co-parented for 4.5 years and now the OP has gotten greedy because she wants lavish holidays.

The OP and her exes assets were already split, and that is where she got the benefit to "level the playing field" by getting 70% of the marital assets versus his 30%. She was also allowed to keep the children benefit for both children even though they should have been claiming one child each.

Obviously if there was a change in circumstances whereby the OP had majority custody or whereby the ex wasn't paying his share of extra costs (which is not the case at all here) then the correct thing to do would be follow up with CMS.

CMS has set parameters, and cannot override the system without a court order. However, assuming the divorce decree was signed off in court, this should actually be enough for the ex to dispute the CMS charge. Instead he's now having to go to a tribunal to get it extinguished (which it will be most likely) and the unfortunate thing for the OP is that she may well be likely to.repay the money she's taking from him in CMS up til that point.

All because she wants a lavish holiday at her exes expense...

Law is interpreted and applied. It's really not black and white. That's why we have judges to assess context and past precedence and processes are often long and drawn out.

The law is black-and-white. That’s literally why we have the Law. It is the line in the sand.

Not all men abusers not all women are saints.

Some mothers use their kids to go after money that isn't fair or just or even legal.
Some women alienate their children against the fathers.
Some women would be happy to see the father unable to own a home, unable to take their children on holidays. They would bleed the father dry.

Not all but it happens so what we have is a legal system that tries to ensure no party is totally screwed. It generally is more generous to the mother but obviously no system is perfect.

However, in OP case (and in the OP in the previous system) the father wasn't being underhand, he wasn't making it impossible for the mother to provide for the children.
There was a small disparity in income which had been addressed on financial settlement.

In both cases prior to 50/50 being in place the father had also been paying far more maintenance than required
When 50/50 was in place the father continued to pay maintenance despite it not being required, covered the children's expenses that were his responsibility and contributed to other expenses on too. In OP case he offered to fully cover joint expenses.

When women get greedy and behave underhand - such as in both these cases - they not only ruin the co-parenting relationship, cause unbelievable stress to to father (and his wider family), cause unnecessary and unneeded distress to the children. They fundamentally damage society view of women and make it harder for women who actually are being financially abused by ex and therefore it makes it easier for men who do not financially support the children they produce to get away with it. If these women are able to exercise their legal rights they system is slower due to time being taken up on unjust cases such as this..meaning those women and children in financial distress will be waiting longer and longer.

Your inability to see the difference and to recognise that things are never black and white is why true equality is so hard to achieve.

Nobody suggested he would beholden for the rest of his life just until the children leave full-time education.
Which is what he agreed to when he came in her to be blunt.

It ought to be breach of contract.
People ought to be able to sue for it.

But we’re working with what we have for now and we’re not even enforcing that.
And that’s preventing women from being independent and able to make their own money. I could give you example after example as to how my ex-husband sabotaged my ability to earn at all nevermind equally.

And it was all completely acceptable to the family court, positively encouraged by his solicitor for their monetary gain.
And whilst obviously I can’t blame them because the ex had to sign off on it however he wouldn’t have had the brains to think of it himself. That’s how well the system is serving women.
There is a well trodden path and playbook that we see every day on Mumsnet depleting women’s ability to access the legal system by arguing over the children 50/50 even when there’s been domestic violence.
Ensuring that the playing field isn’t level and the money to continue litigation to divide assets has been spent.

And then other women gleefully condone it

I could understand if op was on minimum wage and he was earning 100k’s that would be a huge gap to try and fill.

But the argument isn’t poverty vs millions.
It’s high wage vs higher wage. With someone who appears to of been openly willing to bridge a lot of gaps between nice and luxury.

It’s not no holidays vs private yachts. It’s nice holidays vs luxury holidays.

And as fickle as some children can be the secret is sometimes the children love the “poor” holidays best.

They often when younger would rather be at Butlins than in Dubai.

Making friends at an all inclusive, in Spain vs just dad on a yacht.

Not saying the yacht isn’t fun but it’s not always going to be their best holiday.

I'm with him. You have the kids 50/50. You shouldn't be entitled to his money.

Apologies, misread. Deleted.

I quite honestly, swear to heaven, do not understand how you took any of that from what I said, especially in context with the thread I was talking about. (I don't know how you know what generation I am, either, but by this point that feels like nitpicking.)

It's ok, I don't think the explanation will improve things. I'll just add it to the list of ways I've inadvertently offended people on here this week. Yesterday it was describing myself as a plain woman. Nothing yet beats the time I suggested fish, blood and bone in the garden rather than menstrual blood. That was insane.

Didn’t she also get 50% of his pension?

Progress was getting to a place where women can make their own money and having children isn't a bar to employment, and where both parents and expected to contribute equally to a child's upbringing. We are not going to "progress" to a place where a man is beholden to pay for the lifestyle of his ex-wife for her whole life, because that's ridiculous.

I'll bet my house that if her ex had to stop working because of ill health, and his income dropped drastically, OP wouldn't be happy to give HIM a monthly sum to make their incomes equitable !!

Oh sorry! I also forgot the £800 per month voluntary child support payment from the father to the OP

Why are you deliberately ignoring all of the facts here?

OP took 70% of the marital assets in the divorce
Care is shared 50/50
Shared and additional costs are paid by the Father
CB has been paid for both children to the OP
The OP is a higher earner. £60k being about £20k more than the national average.

This wasn't enough for the OP and she wants more.

What does 'fair' look like to you, haystackhunting?

This generation is so cooked.
Imagine if previous generations are just thrown their hands up in the air and said it could always get worse. Let’s not ask for our legal position to be upheld. Having had laws changed at great sacrifice.
There could be fairness, commenting to the OP learn from it that you should’ve given up earlier is a defeatist attitude thankfully not everybody has and you’ll all benefit from other people’s bravery.

Whether you deserve to or not.

I've just spent far too long reading that thread someone linked to earlier, and its predecessor, and oh my God. That is an absolutely awful situation. Learn from it, OP... it seems there is never going to be absolute fairness (perhaps there never is with any parenting) but it's always possible to make things much, much worse.

Worth it OP? Silly move on your part.

What obligations does he have to support her then?

OP I commend you for coming back and updating the thread as it will help people moving forward.

He isn't the crown prince of Brunei so I don't think your argument hold weight in this situation

The problem with people like the OP and yourself targeting and going after involved and responsible parents is that it does not benefit the RP and children from situations where a NRP skirts and avoids their responsibilities. It only causes people to think that some mothers are unreasonable and gready
It creates sympathy towards the fathers

We know in reality some fathers are freckles and some are excellent and everything in-between

And the same is true for mothers