Ex is stopping maintenance payments when DD2 leaves junior school

[Carrie370]

I have 2 DDs, 13 and 11. Both have been to private schools since reception, and my younger DD starts senior school in September. Their father and I separated 5 years ago (never married, and he has no parental rights in law as they were both born after Dec 2003) and have had a private financial arrangement up until now. He now maintains that the £400 a month he has been paying me was his contribution to DD2's fees until she left junior school, and that since he didn't agree to sending them to private senior school, these payments will stop in July. We have always had shared care 50/50, although on top of paying the school fees, I have paid for everything else too (music lessons, school trips, uniform, holiday childcare, etc, etc).

My DD2 has organisational issues, and is on the learning support radar; both current and future schools have suggested that this is not helped by the constant change of house during the week, and so I have decided to have them with me on 4 school nights. My ex does not accept that this means he will be liable for maintenance, thinks I am doing this just to try to get more money out of him (he has never read DD's ed psych report or been to any parent's meetings) and still states that he owes me nothing. He earns a good salary (as do I), but he and his new wife appear to have saddled themselves with a massive mortgage, such that he says he cannot afford to pay towards any of the girls' 'extras' (never mind the fees, which I have long-accepted I will have to pay).

I am bristling with fury (and before anyone calls me a privileged rich bitch, yes I am aware that my question may seem trivial to those really struggling). Does anyone know if I can pursue him via a solicitor, or do I have to go via the CSA (or whatever it is called now)?

Sorry for the long, ranting post!

[MyFairyKing]

By the way, I am condoning his now refusal to pay. It's wrong but the OP is behaving very badly towards her ex. Those girls will be caught in the crossfire and the OP will hold equal responsibility for that. The way OP talks about her ex is horrid.

[Lucked]

You are better than me OP because I would expect him to contribute to the school fees. You made a joint division to privately school your children and from the OP he has given no good reason why he no longer thinks it is a good idea. Presumably you haven't moved to a better schooling area and he clearly hasn't lost earnings but because he decided to increase his outgoings he now can't afford it. Prick.

It is surely very rare that when parents decide to part educate their children they choose private primary rather than secondary. Everyone I know who can't afford both choose secondary so this sounds ludicrous to me. Private education is a massive commitment but it is one he made!!

If you can get the money from the CSA do it, he may fight it and who knows what the outcome will be but as you are facing zero contribution it is worth it.

[TheCraicDealer]

How's it bad form to think that maybe, just maybe, he should contribute to some of the miscellaneous costs associated with having kids? We're talking about-

• School uniform; even for state schools it's still not cheap
• School trips, even the ones to the panto that are 'only a tenner'. Residential trips can be a few hundred, easily, plus spending money.
• Petrol/wear and tear on car ferrying children to after school clubs/play dates.
• Kit for activities.
• Tuition, if required.
• Presents for friends' birthdays, teachers at the end of the year, Christmas, etc.
• Clothes.
• Phone credit for the older one.
• Costs associated with getting passports, driving licences (when they're older), etc.
• ....and the peace of mind knowing you don't have to give a shiny shite about all that? Priceless.

No-one's pretending that £400 isn't a lot of money here, but this guy is getting all the peace of mind and social cache of saying his girls go to x school (clearly important to him at least at primary school age), do y activities, doing So Well, with zero of the outlay. That's pretty bad.

[fifi669]

I think paying more than the essentials is up to them, their money, they choose how to spend it. Some want to give their children everything, some want them to earn everything they get, it's just different parenting styles.

OP had said ex expects the DC to do extra curricular activities, if he genuinely does want them to do whatever, he should contribute towards them.

[fifi669]

OP and ex agreed to send DC to one school which after they split he honoured. Secondary school he was given no choice over. OP has said to put this aside as she knows she wants them there so will pay the fees.

Passports should be paid by whoever needs to renew to go on holiday. Drivers licence? Pretty far off but they'll be old enough to pay for themselves. Petrol and car wear and tear? That's just petty. Uniform/clothes/school trips and any lessons/tuition they've agreed to yes, yes, yes and yes.

Maybe he pays for one child, you pay for the other? I can't imagine he'd want to look tight to his daughter if one has new shoes and the other doesn't?

[MyFairyKing]

Reading again;

Neither of you have any 'rights' over the children, no such thing. They have rights though. Wonder what they think about you deciding to change contact, it would be interesting if a completely neutral person asked their views. They are not small babies, after all.

[TheCraicDealer]

It might be petty to you, but that's what maintenance is for; costs which the RP has to bear but which are difficult or impossible to quantify month on month. There's a lot of chat about 'necessitates' and cutting costs, but why should the DDs' quality of life and school experience (in terms of being able to have a hot lunch, go on school trips, have pocket money) suffer because their parents have split up? They should have the same, or as close to it, as if their mum and dad were still a couple. Him denying costs doesn't make them disappear.

Also the eldest DD has been at that secondary school for a number of years, without complaint from OP's XH. He's effectively calling her bluff now that the second one is about to go because he knows OP will want them to be treated fairly and have the same opportunities. He's played a blinder there.

[fifi669]

OP says he didn't agree to private secondary.

If they were still together would he have agreed to all these additional costs? We don't know. He may have thought they were extravagant expenses.

[maddening]

If it is 50/50 then whilst no maintenance is due purchasing of clothes and shoes, extra curricular activities, trips, uniforms etc should be split - school fees are a different matter as it is difference of opinion but the rest are required wherever the dc goes to school

[Seventy6]

A court can enforce payment of school fees, I'm not sure if CSA is that sophisticated. If the children have been in private school till now I would think that a court would support that continuing , particularly as he has the income to contribute.

[TensionWheelsCoolHeels]

The time to object to private secondary would have been when the eldest started, not when the youngest is about to start. If his £400 was linked to only private primary fees, why did he not half them 2 years ago when the eldest moved up to private secondary school?

The OP's ex doesn't seem to have a reasonable explanation as to why he feels it reasonable to withdraw this contribution, and why now instead of 2 years ago. If this is all down to the big mortgage he has now, I think it's a shitty stunt to pull. The extras the OP incurs out with the school fees should be shared equally. That's what 50/50 is about after all.

[SuperSnowWoman]

Pastperfect, on the other hand nothing makes me more dick than an individual claiming they are 'entitled' to money and 'they have decided' what is best for their child who actually has two parents.

50% of the time surely means he has costs when the children are with him, as the mother does when they are with her. Why should he pay for his 'expenses' (excuse the term) when the children are with him, plus some of the expenses when they are with their mother?

[OwlCapone]

Why should he pay for his 'expenses' (excuse the term) when the children are with him, plus some of the expenses when they are with their mother?

Because some expenses are incurred whether the child is with parent A or parent B and it appears that the OP is paying for all of these. (I'm not talking about school fees)

[OwlCapone]

My ex works abroad during the week, and devolves childcare to the new wife.

So, he isn't actually losing any contact at all by you keeping them during the week?

He expects his children to do extracurricular activities, but de facto isn't willing to pay for them.

This is exactly the sort of expense which doesn't relate to where the child lives that I was talking about

[utterlyconflicted]

Because, super snow, the school costs are outside resident costs.

[Inthedarkaboutfashion]

Because super snow the OP has already stated that she pays for all clothing, shoes etc for both girls. The ex H only pays for food that the girls eat when he has them. He isn't covering his share of the 50% cost of raising the girls even when he has them. Growing girls cost more than food.

I can't help but think that if the OP had come on here and said that she only earned £10k a year and was really struggling to afford clothes and shoes and school dinner monies and that one of the girls had an upcoming school trip costing £20 that she can't afford to pay but her ex won't help because he has 50% shared care and thinks he only has to pay for food when he has them that the responses might have been different.

[unrealhousewife]

Surely he does have PR automatically due to being father? The law was changed in 2003 to make fathers more responsible not less?

Your DDs welfare is more important than your money issues. Do what you need to do, maintenance will increase for the extra day and if he behaves like a twat then so be it. If he can't afford it then girls can leave the private school.

It might be better if you take them off his hands full time if it's best for them.

[OwlCapone]

The law was changed in 2003 to make fathers more responsible not less

They were born prior to 2003. He may not have it automatically but he would get it if it went to court so it's irrelevant really.

[ElizaDolittle2]

Because super snow the OP has already stated that she pays for all clothing, shoes etc for both girls. The ex H only pays for food that the girls eat when he has them. He isn't covering his share of the 50% cost of raising the girls even when he has them. Growing girls cost more than food.

He has been paying £400 per month extra on top.

A court can enforce payment of school fees, I'm not sure if CSA is that sophisticated. If the children have been in private school till now I would think that a court would support that continuing , particularly as he has the income to contribute.

Not sure this is the case when he has no PR, so no choice on where they go.

[Carrie370]

Yes, he has been paying £400 on top, but is stopping these payments next month. I considered this fair, and about 50% of their extra costs. Now he has unilaterally withdrawn this money, I am paying for everything. That cannot be fair, however you look at things.

[unrealhousewife]

Owl, OP states in OP that they were born after 2003.

[unrealhousewife]

I think OP should see a solicitor, she may be entitled to more. If she doesn't know the basics about PR she needs legal advice.