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!

[unrealhousewife]

Carrie did you know the law has changed significantly recently regarding maintenance and residence?

[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 Now he has unilaterally withdrawn this money, I am paying for everything.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.

[fifi669]

How can each child cost £400pm in extras?

[JohnnyBarthes]

It was a typo, unreal. The girls are 11 and 13, born before the law changed, in December 2003.

[TwinkleTwinkleStarlight]

I'm not saying he is right, but in his eyes you are unilaterally changing his contact.

[OwlCapone]

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

She later apologises for the typo but the very first thing she says in her OP is that they are 13 and 11 and therefore can't have been born after 2003.

[HaroldLloyd]

It's simple to me, he was paying 400 towards costs even though he was 50/50 not for extras but as an agreed sum towards the school fees, which presumably he was involved in the decision to send the children to a private school.

Now he has decided that he doesn't want to continue private into secondary and it's going to pay a bean, despite no longer having 50/50.

It's NOT fair.

So all clothes, books, presents, personal items, more than 50 percent of living costs will come from OP

Has he dug his heels in totally OP? If you sat down and worked out a contribution based on your costs excluding the school fees which you have agreed to pay would he take a look?

[HaroldLloyd]

Like owl says, not sure what the PR aspect is going to have to do anything as this could be obtained through a court?

[nooka]

When dh and I separated one of the reasons why we went for 50:50 care is so that there would be no financial issues (arguing about money was one of the reasons we split). I paid for activities organised on my days and he paid for activities on his days. When the children were on holiday we organised/paid for care on our days. I guess we sorted something out about clothes, but that wasn't a huge amount of cash to worry about really.

Part of the time dh wasn't working and I earned a good income, but that didn't mean that I felt obliged to give him any money, and if he had started to make unilateral decisions about our children I would have been very angry indeed. I can see that 'constant' changes might well be problematic, but there is no real reason for more than one change in the week is there? We swopped care on a Wednesday and at the weekend, no big deal.

The OP's ex might be very unreasonable, but it doesn't sound as if she is very reasonable either. I suspect that there is a fair bit of mutual animosity which can't be great for the children. Mediation may well be the way to go.

[HaroldLloyd]

Even with a true 50/50 split you can't expect to only pay for food when they are there and the odd packet of pants.

[Inthedarkaboutfashion]

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

Yes and the OP was fine with that. However he now wants to stop paying £400 and wants to pay nothing. He wants the girls to be at his house 50% of the time despite the fact that he himself is often out of the country. I am inclined to think that he only wants the girls to be at his house 50% of the time so that he can avoid paying any maintenance. Why else would he want them there when he isn't there himself?
The OP and her ex agreed on the private primary school and I don't think that his contribution of £400 per month would have covered half of the school fees plus half of the girls clothing, shoes and other essentials. The OP has probably been paying for more than her fair share of the girls costs for a long time.
Ultimately the child's father is not bothered about helping provide his girls with clothes, shoes and enrichment activities. He doesn't use any of his time to attend appointments with his girls. He just wants his access arrangements to be sufficient to nullify his child maintenance financial responsibilities.

[Inthedarkaboutfashion]

It the children are 11 and 13 then they will have been born prior to 1st December 2013 which is when the rules regarding PR changed. If the OP and her ex were married when the children were born then he automatically has PR. If they were not married before the children were born then he won't have PR even if he is named in the birth certificate. He could apply for PR and the court would most likely grant him PR especially given the 50/50 care arrangement. However, he would have to be bothered enough about having PR to make the application to have it.

[unrealhousewife]

Carrie, simple question. Money apart, what do think would be best for your girls regarding access?

[Carrie370]

Unreal, there's no doubt in my mind that they need continuity during the school week. They need to see their father (whatever I may think of him) regularly. They do not need to stay in a house at any time when their father is not there. They need holiday time with both parents.

They haven't expressed a view themselves, as they haven't got wind of the problem (yet).

[GrannyOnTheSchoolRun]

Its obvious you've supported your children, including paying their private school fees alone, whilst using the 400 pounds per month from your ex to pay for bits and pieces for them. The unfortunate thing is that as soon as you mentioned the girls went to a private school some of the posters here lost sight of the bigger picture, then lost sight of a whole lot more once it became obvious you are a woman who earns enough to educate your daughters privately. The green eyes monster came out to play and that was it. The reality is there's many a woman who is only happy if another woman is in dire straights when they're on their own. How dare you have it easier than them.

I think the 400 pounds per month wasn't really that much considering going to a private school comes with a whole lot more needing to be shelled out by way of activities, and exposure to different things in general.

Your children have every right to live at the standard the would be living at if you and their dad were still together and in my mind 400 pounds a month just doesn't cover it.

If you can afford to say to him go and get stuffed its probably the best course of action to take because you obviously have a very good salary and with a bit of financial tweaking you could probably come up with the 4,800 per year he is trying to not pay.

[Inthedarkaboutfashion]

Your children have every right to live at the standard the would be living at if you and their dad were still together and in my mind 400 pounds a month just doesn't cover it.

This is spot on ^

[Viviennemary]

The OP is calling the shots. She alone has decided to change the residential agreement. This should have been discussed and a mutual decision made. She is wanting everything her way. And that only leads to trouble.

[StanleyLambchop]

Your children have every right to live at the standard the would be living at if you and their dad were still together

I am not sure that is necessarily achievable though, once you go from having to maintain one household together, to each maintaining your own. The ex has presumably had to get a house which will accommodate four people as he has the girls 50/50 of the time. That is a big cost, if the girls did not live with him then he could have bought a smaller property. So some of his earnings will have gone into providing them with a home too.

My DH is lovely, but he does not agree with too many extra activities, he would prefer the DC picked one each and then entirely focused on that. I want them to try different things though, so I just go ahead and take them to different clubs etc , the money comes from our joint funds. If we separated, I would end up paying for them. I don't necessarily think that is unfair. It is just different parenting styles.

[OwlCapone]

She is wanting everything her way

No, she wants what is best for the children. Two schools have suggested the 50/50 isn't in he best interests of the youngest and the father is not actually there when the children are at his house.

[ChiefBillyNacho]

She's not calling the shots. If she's the only parent who reads and takes on board reports and attends school meetings then she's just doing what is in her children's best interest. And she's making informed decisions about their futures based on being involved with the school. It doesn't sound like Dad is interested beyond how much money he can save.

[nooka]

It's so incredibly boring when someone suggests that the only reason for disagreement is jealousy. It's quite possible to disagree with someone from a neutral position. I went to private school and would have sent my children private if we had stayed in London and earn a similar income to the OP's dh (as does dh). And yet I still see more than one side to the story. Fundamentally that is the issue with separated parents. They don't always see eye to eye, and it is difficult to tell from many threads who is being reasonable, or perhaps more accurately who is being more unreasonable.

Personally I think parenting by diktat is always a problem, but perhaps the ex is an arse, who knows. I still think that mediation is the best way ahead to try and find some sort of agreement between the OP and ex without causing too much stress on the children. I also think that if the OP had said her dh was away during the week she would have got a very different response from the start of the thread.

[Carrie370]

The OP is calling the shots. She alone has decided to change the residential agreement. This should have been discussed and a mutual decision made. She is wanting everything her way. And that only leads to trouble

And he alone decided to change the payments. This should have been discussed and a mutual decision made. He is wanting everything his way. And that only leads to trouble