Ex spent money to go on holiday

[coplings]

Ex rang dh crying she had no money for their child. He pays weekly maintenance as well as as extras.

Dh gave ex a lump sum of money (she asks for a certain amount)

A few weeks later ex goes on a drinking holiday without telling us - not that she needs to but obviously dh needs to know where step child is while she is gone

Dh then finds out through a mutual friend of both of theirs that the money has been used to go on this holiday and not spent on the child. He knows this because the woman that booked the holiday (it's a group of women who went) did it on the same day as the money was transferred for the exact amount she asked for (well she asked for £400 and the holiday was £394)

What should he do?

people asking to borrow £400 out of the blue probably aren't the same type of people you would loan money to and expect to get it back

He doesn't have to ask for it back though does he! According to OP he pays a lot more than he is require to so he could (and still can) just pay less extra in future. I don't think whether she went on holiday comes into it.

There's no point. You'd tell me the sky way green if it meant admitting a mother could be wrong.

He does pay a fair share as has been explained and shown numerous times but you choose to ignore because it doesn't fit your argument.

If she can't afford Christmas without crying to her ex for an extra £400.00 she certainly shouldn't be booking holidays. Quite clearly she has funded this holiday by lying to her ex and saying the money was for their child.

Still the "mother can do no wrong" posters whinge on. Defying logic but that's par for the course.

Still the "mother can do no wrong" posters whinge on. Defying logic but that's par for the course.

I haven't said that she has done nothing wrong actually. I just don't think it is right for non resident parents to have an opinion on what resident parents spend their money on. They should just work out what the costs are and pay their share. If their resident parent then asks for more they should loan it.
Also, I would say the same thing if it was a father who was the resident parent.

right so dungeons what is a "fair share"

go on, explain.

because saying "half of what it costs to bring up a child" is bullshit

1. everyone brings their child up differently, what is a must have expense for my child, might be something another child will never need / have and vice versa.
2. most people live to their means, so what is mums means might be well above dads means or vice versa.
3. mum might choose to use childcare, should dad be responsible for that and vice versa? same goes for dance lessons / horse riding / football / whatever else

its not something you can calculate and as such you'll never really know if maintenance is a "fair share" or not. Hence CMS existing so for arguments sake CMS calculation is the "fair share".

He pays more than CMS therefore he pays his "fair share"

Listen it simple can rp remember it's not a chore having you dc live with you most the time, you cant request to have them more, prevent a father having the same then request money because you get the extra time with them that you want.

You wouldn't work part time and request full time pay,

I have my dc 90% from my exh, he managed to pay nothing for 7 years, the dc won't stay over even though I want them too and he's not fuss about. I'm an ex wife, 1st married, first two dc and still I can clearly see how wrong the ex is so what is wrong with you lot.
My dc are no way more important than the others and in noway would I con my ex, and like most parents plan for Christmas ahead of time with help from my partner ( though like the op it isn't her responsible)

Maybe from now on I should dusty off my golden uterus and play NUMBERS One ex wife who is entitled. I couldn't lower myself but mainly I would want to cause issues with my ex, because co parenting is the point!

its not something you can calculate and as such you'll never really know if maintenance is a "fair share" or not.

You can make an attempt to calculate it in advance and halve those costs. It would be better than paying for extras as seems to be happening in this case.

Hence CMS existing so for arguments sake CMS calculation is the "fair share".

I think that the CMS exist to make non resident parents pay and considering the costs are based on the fathers salary rather than the actual costs I don't think they are anything to do with paying a "fair share". I know DH was amazed when a colleague was complaining about he "had" to pay and told him he wished bringing up his children actually was so bloody cheap.

and what happens when mum says that expensive school dinners, horse riding lessons and new clothes every Saturday are essentials and get added to the total, when dad thinks none of that is necessary?

who wins?

the only 100% fair way to do it would be to each have the child 50% of the time, pay for your own set of clothes / school uniform / horse riding lessons.

a lot of mothers do not want that.

the cms cant really base it on anything else though for the reasons I have stated above and probably a thousand more!

how would you suggest CMS calculate it since youre clearly an expert?

and what happens when mum says that expensive school dinners, horse riding lessons and new clothes every Saturday are essentials and get added to the total, when dad thinks none of that is necessary?

Then there should be a compromise just as there is in any family even if their parents are together. If there is not agreement then it seems that the non resident parent doesn't have to pay much so I suppose they just wouldn't.

the cms cant really base it on anything else though for the reasons I have stated above and probably a thousand more!

I'm not saying that the cms should do anything different but that doesn't mean that they make people pay their fair share. Often they only make parents pay the bare minimum. I wouldn't pay only what I was forced to because I actually want my children to have a good quality of life whether they live with me or their father.

people who have gone through acrimonious divorces and bad break ups are usually not going to compromise on things like this are they.

do you live in the real world?!

It is actually painful to watch how much these threads end up completely in the other direction to the original question being asked.

None of what you have said has any relevance to the OPs situation or removes any form of blame from the ex for lying to her childs father to get him to pay for her holiday.

Any time you mention a step child/maintenance/ex wife the thread will take a turn (where the father is wrong even when he isn't) and be impossible to bring back to the real question. It's so annoying!

as well who pays for the rent / gas / electric etc etc in the childs main home?

because I would argue that the parents home who it is should pay those entire bills because they would be whether the child lived there or not, but other would argue that the other parent to contribute to that.

asking people who (usually) dislike each other to agree on shit like this is an absolute recipe for disaster!

The whole who pays what why wherefore, take it all out of the equation.

Someone rings you desperately in tears, they need money, not a loan, but extra money they don't have for something so important. You think it's important too so you transfer it over right away and think you've done the right thing.

You then find out it wasn't for an important thing at all, it was for a boozy piss up holiday.

That's what it boils down to, and it's not right. But yes OP all DH can do is tell her she's been caught out, it won't happen again and anything extra she needs for DC you will buy it directly.

Oh it gets complicated when you have children with different people. I’m glad I haven’t gone through this, I take my hat off to people who manage it well. I would be so upset if more finances was going to the ex especially if she spent it on a holiday, I would've made a terrible stepmother.

As I keep saying he has only funded it if he has paid more than his fair share. Otherwise he has arguable just paid his fair share which meant that she was able to use her own money to pay for the holiday.

He pays more CMS than required given he has the child at least 50%.

He also pays for extra. Then he gave money so that the mother could give the son a present she promised him......and spent it on the holiday.

Op says he had already got the son presents from them. It's not his responsibility to fund Christmas presents from her or her holiday.

If she could afford Christmas, but not the holiday. She should have gone without the holiday. Or not promised an expensive present.

That's what normal people do, regardless. They don't lie so they can fund both.