Should it be included?

Why do you think such a normal run of the mill question is contentious?

OP please don't ever feel forced to apologise or pander to those who say 'well I don't get anything, be grateful' brigade. People who fail to pay for their children are low lives.

In answer to your question, no my ex resents paying anything towards his children and is actively trying to reduce his payments by quitting his job. Morally I think they should, legally they don't have to if they pay CMS!

@NewUsername124
How much does he pay? Is it generous or the bare minimum?

Absolutely they should, morally. My ex and I earn similar. He pays me cms. If I could ring fence the same amount and keep all the rest of my wage for me I'd be rolling in it. He only has them stay about times a year so is a bedroom short. Crap, tiny garden. Nowhere near their school. So even his basic costs are less than mine. The closest CMS gets to defining what its for is a 'contribution to essentials', with no definitive list. The numerous 'extras' incurred by just having them with me 99% of the time is huge. Its outrageous.

This thread will no doubt go the way of all the rest with pages of whatabouttery, but you arent wrong.

I think people paying should pay for the extras if they are paying basic CMS. If they are paying more then they are already paying it.

So it depends

My ex used to pay half of extras like uniforms and extra curriculars, but then he only paid £200 a month for 2 children which is next to nothing.

It might be more than some people get, but then other people get benefits if they need them.

XH gives me slightly over CMS amount. He has not done any overnights for over a year. I don’t ask for extras for stuff like uniform. I save a certain amount each month to cover that cost. I’ve only asked him for extra money twice in 4 years. Once for a school trip (he contributed exactly 1/4 🙄) and once, more recently, about braces - going private cos she doesn’t meet NHS criteria. He has not bothered to reply 🙄🙄🙄

My Dh not only paid well over what the CSA said he should be paying, but we paid their flights to stay with us, paid shoes and coats, school trips , and a few outfits a year and spending money for when they went on holiday with mum

He wasnt a saint. I was devestated when I found out when we first got together he was not paying regular payments. I got him a standing order for the cost of his rent when he moved in with me and then I changed it as we got wealthier - we paid more

Im no saint, there was a few years where we were trying to get ourselves sorted, but never had the spare money because we were sending it to the kids, and I resented it. But hey, the kids had to be supported , weren't their fault mum and dad had divorced

I think it probably covers stuff like uniform and extra curriculars — the big factor it excludes which it absolutely should not is childcare fees. I pay almost £2k per month childcare fees so my ex’s contribution having left for OW doesn’t even come close to covering his half of those fees let alone anything else for the kids.

Just because a dad does EOW should not mean the weekdays aren’t his days and therefore childcare costs are mum’s problem unless there specifically factored in to the calculation of maintenance

I think they should if they can. Opportunities and issues come up and money often needs to be found. It shouldn't be up to just one parent to figure it out. Especially if there is a disproportionate care set up I.e. 5 nights with Parent 1 and 2 nights with Parent 2. Parent 1 who has them the most is already disadvantaged in terms of hours they can work and overtime they can do (not to mention extracurricular opportunities!) so it feels a bit much to also tell them they have to figure out one-offs and disasters without support too!

Unless they’re thick, then no non-residential parent would assume their basic maintenance payment would cover 50% of children’s costs.

All you can do is ask for extra as and when needed and work on the assumption, if you don’t ask you don’t get!

CMS is reduced due to the number of days that the non resident parent has them. This is because nrp is expected to cover the costs of the children on their time. Imo this means they should be covering that proportion of clothes, toiletries, trips, birthday gifts for friends, uniform etc etc as a bare minimum.

Though agree that nrp not being expected to cover half of childcare is appaling.

But realistically, depending on the contact pattern, a lot if activities would fall on the RPs days solely, so they apparently have to fund them. My ex reasonably, said that it made no sense to have shoes at his that hardly got worn so he relied on them bringing them from.mine, plus wellies etc if needed. I can totally see tje sense in that BUT he never offered to buy them once in a while . As mine have got older and their needs are more expensive (Im excluding childcare in this discussion) he has never contributed to laptops, phone contracts, appropriate pocket money, school trips, much more expensive clothes (not designer, just not supermarket), braces, other private medical issues that I have stretched to for their benefit and health, tutoring.

Like I said, we earn similar, though he has more potential since he has no childcare limitations. If I paid him what he paid me and that was it I'd be SO much better off.

My ex seems to expect thanks for paying for Cubs in addition to the small amount he sends each month. Never mind that cubs is much cheaper than the swimming lessons I pay for (and then add on music lessons and wrap around childcare and uniform and ALL THE FOOD and haircuts and clothes...)