... to question the split of childcare cost with XP ?

[Gster]

Should start of by saying I'm a guy. Not that I think it makes any difference here.

Split with XP recently, still trying to sort out access times and money amicably.

Although I currently give her £630pm + cost of shoes, half of DDs holiday costs, family meals out etc, I'm going to suggest I reduce it to the CSA calculation ( £350 ) and split any other DD costs 50:50 including nursery costs from September.

However, my XP, who is pretty well sorted financially with no mortgage and a hundred grand in the bank, want's me to split the childcare costs for when she's working.

She has a mothers dream job in media. Gets around £200ph and works anywhere betweene 2 - 10 hours a week. But if she has a one hour job for an hour in the morning she'll get childcare ( if granny can't do it ) in for the morning to cover.

She'd like me to pay 50% of this. Am I being unreasonable to think I should offer less than 50% of this ? She keeps telling me she's doing me a favour by looking after DD in the week and thus saving full time nursery costs.

I'm really surprised at this!

How is it fair that two parents get to work but only one has to bear the cost? That may be the way the law works, but it's hardly fair, or morally right.

If the op wants to work, he has the ex to sort out childcare so he gets it for free basically. But if the op ex wants to work, she has to pay all the cost of that. That is so wrong!

The fact that she earns £200 an hour is irrelevant.

Is it right that the bigger earner pays out less for the child? Yes it is.

A child cost nothing to practically feed or clothe when they are young, the only major cost of a child at a young age is child care, if someone earns 20 an hour and the other 200 an hour who should bear the majority of the cost? The major earner should matters not who that is.

OP go with the CSA calculation and then you can compromise on other things along the way, I personally do not feel you should pay 50% childcare, why should our ex be living the life or riley whilst you have to be poor? How can you then give your child what she needs when she is with you? YOu cannot.

Your ex sounds greedy.

Curly - it isnt just the law but it is morally right. In fact the only thing you got right is that her earnings are irrelevant.

The point of CM is to support the RP in the costs of bringing up the child.

If the OP wants to work and was the RP then yes he should pay childcare. By logical extension, should the exW pay the OP for the things he spends on his DD when in his care? Should she pay half his heating costs? his mortgage? Perhaps the cost of his dry cleaning to enable him to wear a suit to work?

Answer: No. Ergo, he shouldn't have to pay the costs she incurs if she wishes to work whilst she is the RP.

He may not have to pay for childcare, but the downside is his own daughter is living elsewhere. So its all win win for him then?

It has nothing to do with who earns however much otherwise you create incentives for inappropriate behaviours. (Fiddling incomes, creating everso expensive childminders and over claiming). The law is the law the way it is because it is how it should work.

Swing this around - if she was saying he wanted to see receipts and invoices for monies spent the MN harpies would be baying for blood.

Maintenance is paid to the RP. End of. The figures are based on NRP income. They are quite separate from RP income and utterly separate.

OP - Why not suggest you be the RP, give up work and raise your DD? Would your exW offer to pay childcare to let you work? Nope didn't think so.

I so love how it's said that RP's choose to work as if they didn't have bills, such as rent/mortgage, utility bills to pay (I'm talking in general here btw).

OP I agree with ChippingIn I think you should go for 50/50, your ex could have Sun - Wed and you could have Thurs - Sat, for example, not an exact split but close enough. That way you both get a weekend day with your dd and you don't have to worry about childcare costs because you'll both be responsible for them.

Chaotic, with a paid mortgage and 100k in bank I think rp is def choosing to work.

Op, as for this meals out n holidays being for dd benefit I'm not buying it. Great u can be friends with ex, but when new partners come along r they gonna be happy with either of u going for meals etc? More unsettling for dd to get used to that then feel new partner has caused the rift than not doing it to begin with, no reason to as dd is so young. And this will make me even more unpopular but r u sure the meals out ain't one sided when ex clicks cos she's bored?

I pay/paid for all 5 children who lived with me 100% on my own and our consent order says I bear all school fees and univesrity costs for 5 (as I earned a lot more than he does).

So what is fair? It might be fairer in terms of burden of looking after the child if she spent a week with you and one with her mother and then you split the cost of a nanny or nursery 50/50 in order words you pay the cost when the chidl is with you but you get the child 50% of the time. I have the joys of chidlren 365 days a year and trying to arrnage child care when I am on business trips abroad etc. Not easy so the more the other parent can do to look after the child, arrange the nannies etc the better and it makes it fairer. I think it can help to pay costs direct too rather than to the other parent who might spend it on shoes and makes it easier as the person paying to accept it.

Responding to OP only- Logically you should pay half of what it costs to keep your daughter, including childcare. The childcare is looking after your daughter for both of you, not for your ex only. The same applies as if the parents are together still imo- childcare should never be viewed entirely as the mother's responsibility- this is what puts women at a disadvantage in the jobs market, when men view childcare as the woman's problem to sort out- psychologically that means that the woman is somehow more responsible for the child or children than the father. How is that fair?

Flojo, really, are you for real? Are you suggesting (as a woman I'm presuming?) that women should only work if they have to?

Because in most cases women r more responsible, we r usually the ones who r up in the night, cleaning up puke! Rightly or wrongly. And if u ask most mothers, they might complain about getting up in the night, but then they'd tell u they actually want that role. As clearly the op ex has decided to reduce working hrs and be the rp.

Getting up in the night to clean up puke does not stop a person from going to work in the morning. Both I and my husband have done it many a time. Although since I work from home I do not technically need to "go out". I do not understand how cleaning up puke means you can't also have a job.

duchese as for the first comment, i didnt say they should only work if they have to, quite the opposite, that op ex is working as a choice not a financial neccessity as chaotic said. As for the puke thing, totally unrelated to work, was responding to your comment about psychologically feeling responsible, most women do feel predominantly responsible for their children and when u delve deeper they r because they actually want to be.

totally agree

Ah, ok. So if the parents are still together, and both work full-time, it's reasonable to share childcare costs, but if they are separated and both work full-time, it's not? Doesn't seem excessively logical to me. So the RP gets to do the bulk of the childcare anyway, and if they go out to work (which these days they doubtlessly need to), then that's for their convenience as they ought to be able to manage on their kept-woman wage of £650/month? Riiiight...

And yes I'm talking as a woman, with 2 DCs, 1 i get maintenance for, the other i dont. And i pay for both of their childcare costs as it is in my time, while kids r looked after i can go work or on days off go have some me time. I dont expect ex to foot the bill for when its in my time.

Duchesse, op ex doesnt need to work for financial reasons. Hes paying child maintenance that covers the cost. Whether ex decides to stay home and spend it on herself or go to work and spend it on childcare is up to her. OP is paying maintenance and thats that. I bet if u broke it all down, ie additional gas, food, nappies etc there would be more than 50% of childcare fees left over.

Well you should expect him to Flojo! It is not "you" time unless he is giving you at least 2 grand a month or enough to cover all your housing costs, bills, food, clothing, plus DCs' expenses. You presumably need to go out to work? How does that make it "you" time? You are looking after his children while he goes out to work and not benefiting from the fact that he has no childcare problems.

How much the OP's ex earns is pretty much irrelevant. She could choose to let him off, but as the resident parent earning more than him that would imo be the thin end of the wedge as regards his psychological feelings of responsibility towards his child. I will never cease to marvel how many blokes feel that their earnings are theirs and why should they share any of it with anybody else. I could never have had children with a selfish prick who could not widen his vision to accommodate the children he has created. It's positively Dickensian, this image of the little kept woman making do in a hovel with the charitable donations from her child's father.

2k!! Try 2 hundred, but that more than covers what my DS uses in utilities n food etc. I'm happy to pay childcare so 'I' can go to work, it my ex decides he wants to work wkends then theres no way i'll be paying for his childcare then!

If you have very big expenses like a nanny costing £30k so your 3 under 5s are cared for by both chidlren whilst you work or you have 5 sets of school fees as we had etc which is £50k or university costs then those are not something which are really properly addressed by CSA etc rules so most court orders will address them separately either by agreement between the couple or addressed by the court in any divorce settlement.

Presuambly a non resident fatherw ho has a full time working ex wife is pretty glad she works because it means he pays less to the child and it benefits the child to have a mother working full time and providing that good example and she is less of a leech etc. The childcare cost should be shared or borne by the much higher earner surely because if the low earning couldn't work because they were doing child care the higher earner would be shelling out a huge lot more in payments to the ex. Therefore in a sdense you benefit yourself by paying your half of teh childc are.

Only very very sexist couples would regard child care as sdmoething a mother would pay. If the 80s we cuyld regard is as 50% a cost for each of us I don't see why in 2001 either (a) people should see chidlcare as a mother's expense or (b) except women to be kept by ex husbands for life and not work.

Well quite, duchesse and xenia. I find this acceptance by women that mothers who have split up from their partners are responsible for the entire cost of childcare so that they are not living on state benefits absolutely jaw-dropping.

Gster - In my opinion you will confuse your DD more by continuing to go for meals/days out etc. All you need to do for her is to be nice to each other and speak nicely about each other. She is very little, she will accept that Mum lives in one house and Dad lives in another and they both love her, but have separate lives. If you keep going on days out/meals out etc she is really, really going to resent one of you getting a new partner and that stopping. It isn't a realistic long term plan and by making her think it is, you really are setting her up for a fall :(

Why don't you want to have 50/50?

Generally speaking I feel the CSA is a shite way to determine how much should be paid, but there's never going to be a 'one size fits all' solution that works for everyone and it cannot be done on a case by case basis in law.

I think if what you want to do is to be fair to both of you, you have to look at a number of things - without knowing all of your personal details and decisions you have made together it's hard to advise you what you 'should be offering' to pay for. So, some things that you might like to think about to help you decide... (no need to answer here)...

• Ex is she living in a mortgage free place, are you? If not, why is she but you aren't? (How is that her place is mortgage free? Was it hers before you? Have you contributed to the mortgage?).

• Did you both agree she would be the SAHP?

• Do you want DD in childcare? If not can you reduce your work hours and have DD 1 day a week so Ex can work?

• Do you want 50/50 shared care if DD is going to be in childcare anyway (at least you would get evenings/mornings with her).

• What is DD actually costing your XP? All expenses - is your contribution fair to this to maintain the lifestyle DD had before you moved out? If not how much more can you contribute whilst still making a home for you (and DD)?

• What position are you in once the CSA amount is paid? Are you equally comfortable to your ex or are you struggling while she is relatively comfortable?

• Why is she working? Because she wants to or because she needs the money? Would you paying a bit more enable her to stay at home if that is what you both want?

There really is so much to consider if you want to be 'fair' - but you have to be fair to yourself as well as you ex and start to build a home for yourself and DD as well.

• Holidays/treats etc - you do not need to contribute towards at all - she provides what she can and you do with DD what you can, you can't pay for ex to take DD on treats - that way madness lies.

Good list by Chipping. Everyone differs and it's hard to generalise. All works much much better if it's agreed not set by CSA or whatever.

I suppsoe I have the easiest deal as I pay for everythign 100% have the children 100% whether I like it or not and paid to ex. So nothing to argue over now. I alwys look on the bright side.

Bear in mind that the RP will also be the one recieving any benefits, etc, as she has care of the child. She will definately recieve child benefit, doesn't sound like she will get tax credits but you never know! Surely if they are going 50/50 they should split ALL the benefits of having the child- i.e. actually HAVING the child half of the time?

Maintenence is worked out due to NRPs income, he is already paying above and beyond that so why should he pay more? If hes paying for childcare does that mean he gets a say in when that childcare is for? And what it is used for? He says RP pays foor a mornings childcare for 1 hrs work, so he would be paying however much extra for his ex to have a bit of 'me' time?

RP has def got an excellent deal going on here, and good for you OP for making sure your daughter is having an excellent standard of life. Just don't forget you matter too.

I say all this as a single parent who has recieved nothing for the last 7 years in maintenence, and currently recieve £5pw from my exes unemployment benefit.