A friend of mine has 50/50 shared care for her two kids. This is supposed to include the costs for them aswell. Both parents earn the same and have roughly equivalent circumstances otherwise (neither has a new partner so one income per household). The way their schedule works means that they aren’t allocated set days, so you couldn’t say that judo always happens on Dad’s day for instance. They claim child benefit for one child each. Neither is entitled to any benefits (salaries £40k plus).
My friend thinks she shouldn’t have to contribute to any of the usual running costs for the kids - clothes, shoes, uniforms, out of school activities, school trips, school dinners, mobile phones, travel etc. She thinks her ex should pay for everything. Her reasons aren’t that clear aside from feeling that it’s very unreasonable because she is their mother, and the only reason he wants 50/50 was so he wouldn’t have to pay any maintenance to her. TBH if she did have majority care, I think she would expect him to pay for everything else aswell as maintenance anyway. She just doesnt pay for anything, so he has to or the kids go without. She keeps going on about how he is forcing her to pay for uniforms.
She doesn’t understand that what I see is someone who refuses to pay for their children, the same as if a NRP goes out of their way not to pay maintenance. She thinks she is entitled to not pay for anything.
Of cours she is BU. But her ex has taken out an expensive smartphone contract for one kid (11) and expects her to pay towards it, when she would have got him a bogstandard PAYG. Ex prefers the kids to have school lunches whereas she would rather spend less and give them a packed lunch.
If this was a man refusing to pay for his kids’ upkeep in the same situation we’d all be up in arms.... so what’s the smart way to agree shared costs? Surely also it is unreasonable for one party to take on a cost without consultation and expect the other to pay for it?
PS no this isn’t a reverse, and no I am neither the friend or the ex!