EW and CMS

[kitchen123]

NC for this as could be outing.

DH has two children. One in junior and one in senior school. I get along really well with them and exchange pleasantries every time I've seen his EW.

Things has got bad between DH and his EW and they haven't spoke for months, only email.

EW went to CMS to recalculate the CM as she wanted more. DH provided documents and CMS reduced his payment significantly. Turns out he was massively overpaying and they told him to reduce. He decided to reduce as EW was being extremely difficult and was threatening him with all sorts of legal action / reporting him to HMRC (false allegations). He asked her to stop, she didn't so got the solicitor involved.

EW is now preventing DH from taking children away on holiday but still allows contact EOWend. EW tells children they could go away with EH but then changed her mind when he went to double check with her. EW tells kids EX isn't paying the right amount of CM (he is, but it's not the high amount she wants). FYI no access order in place.

EW now threatening she will lose house as can't afford it but has somehow managed to book two week villa holiday and tickets to an expensive event, all in the space of the last few weeks.

I will support DH but want to be fair too.

EW works and EH wants to actively
have DSC more, without the threat of reducing the CM she would receive.

What advice would you give? He does listen to my opinion.

Thanks

In this scenario, somebody’s disposable income is going to up and somebody’s disposable income is go down

Why assume it is disposable income? Many people's budgets are down to the wire in the current climate. Few households could manage a drop of £200 a month without some serious re-jigging. In many cases, it would be enough to cause serious problems.

The OP hasn't suggested that they needed the income. Of course, £200 extra a month is welcome in any household. But it may have tipped the balance in the other household.

Sotiredofthislife I was responding to someone else’s comments about disposable income. I know you can read.

The OP hasn't suggested that they needed the income. Of course, £200 extra a month is welcome in any household. But it may have tipped the balance in the other household.

And her going for more could have tipped the balance in the op’s household. Nobody thinks about that though do they?
Someone is going to lose out when a recalculation is done. It’s just not the person you’d prefer it to be.

RP is actually allowed to have some disposal income too, for holidays etc. This idea that she's cheeky for having a holiday, or anything non essential suggests that rps should use 100% of their income on the household
What about if the NRP decides to spend his money on luxuries and not pay for essentials for his child - like a roof over their head - then ask the other parent for money to cover it? All of a sudden that’s not an acceptable attitude.
She’s allowed luxuries, but she’s got to pay her bills first just the same as everyone else. And if she cannot afford luxuries after paying her bills, she doesn’t get them just the same as everyone else. Her ex already pays a lot of money towards the children, it’s not up to him to pay more just because she’s financially incompetent.

Many people's budgets are down to the wire in the current climate. Few households could manage a drop of £200 a month without some serious re-jigging. In many cases, it would be enough to cause serious problems.

Again, this could happen in the nrp’s household too. A sudden extra £200 paid in maintenance could definitely tip the balance and cause serious problems. This is not all just a one sided problem where it just affects rps.

I have said that both are allowed disposable income but the RP, assuming nrp has the kids eow and maybe one night a week, bears a fraction of the cost that they RP does on a day to day basis. When my kids are with their dad for a week in the hols, I spend about £20 on food, run the dishwasher and washing machine once only etc. My costs go down hugely. Other than hols I have them 26 out if 30 days a month and way way more than 20% of my income goes on them. I work full time 40 hrs p/w. The op has said clearly that the £200 drop in this case is due to attitude, not affordability, so in this case, it seems wrong. Of course there are many circumstances and many situations in which this would not be the case, but in this one, the payment should stay the same.

I should add that DH continues to pay half of all school trips and related leisure activities, buys most of their clothes which are kept at his EW house as that makes sense being they're there more than they are with us. Pays for both mobile phones, makes monthly pocket money payments to both children directly and paying into a monthly saving account

The man is clearly paying over 20% of his income towards the children, and this is before you take into account running a house/car big enough to accommodate them, plus everything else they need while in his care.
If he was previously paying £700, match with £700 from the mother plus child benefit, that’s over £1500 to keep two children BEFORE almost all their clothes are bought, activities and phones paid for and the dads expenses at his house. Let’s get real here.

I can't understand why people are posting in defence of the dreadful, spiteful ex.

She sounds totally unreasonable and is using the poor DCs as weapons.

I'm not sure mediation with such a person is possible but he should reduce what he pays her to the absolute minimum because his legal bills are going to be very high trying to get what's right for the DCs.

@WeHaveSnowdrops mediation is a must (unless there's mitigation circumstances and there aren't in this case) in terms of the legal process so it has to be done. I'll wait to see how this process is received my DH's EW.
As I understand it she is under no legal obligation to attend or pay for mediation however I would expect the court to take a dim view on any parent who refuses to engage in due process.

He could have them an extra night per week but not every week as he's often not back until very late because of work.

maybe he should have the DC and arrange childcare in the meantime but that would cost money. cheaper to leave them with the ex when it's convenient..

tbh, even though he pays what CMS are saying, it is it is very little if you consider the day to day coats of bringing up 2 DC.

I have said that both are allowed disposable income but the RP, assuming nrp has the kids eow and maybe one night a week, bears a fraction of the cost that they RP does on a day to day basis.

So what you’re saying is that the rp deserves more disposable income as some sort of compo for everything they do. I don’t really think that’s how parenting works.

The ex sounds like a bitter, vindictive fucking idiot. No wonder she’s an ex.

You have my full sympathy

fun yes my ex thought the same. Said 'I'm not paying you to be their mum'. Thing is, I'm also their dad 26 days a month so frankly yes, I wouldn't mind a bit of recognition, financial or otherwise that he hadn't done a school run in 5 years, or a parents evening, or taken time off cos they're sick, or had to find childcare due to evening work commitments, or say no to his employer for extra duties, or dealt with mid-night wet beds or sickness or nightmares and then got up and gone to work, or taken them to medical appointments. Yes this is absolutely what parenting is, but we chose to make these children together, they weren't accidents, but he decided not to be involved anymore beyond eow and holidays, so yes, I'd like to be 'compensated' for the childcare I am effectively providing for him on the 13 days a month they should be in his care but aren't.

There’s no need to give me a patronising list of what you do on your own like I don’t have a clue.

It is still quite early days for me on my own compared to you but I doubt 5 years down the line I will feel more deserving of my ex’s money and more entitled to it than he is no matter how difficult things get. It’s called self respect.

Bollocks to that. Why should wanting their father to make a fair contribution mean I lack self respect? I do and can cope alone. I am actually in a stronger financial position overall than my ex, though he earns more than me. I do however (as you can probably tell) absolutely believe that my children are entitled to be properly supported by both their parents and if he won't do that by actually being there, he could at least acknowledge that by coming close to covering 50% of costs. Anyway, we are far from the OPs question about mediation. Sorry, op, I'll go away and stop derailing. I hope you get things sorted.

Bollocks to that. Why should wanting their father to make a fair contribution mean I lack self respect?

That’s not what we were talking about though We were talking something along the lines of who deserves to have more disposable income after maintenance has been paid. I think they are both entitled to it, but apparently rps should have more. Nah, don’t get that logic sorry.

Anyway I agree, sorry to derail your thread op.

@funinthesun19 hi, no worries. Am interested to understand more though, do you / others think both RP and NRPs should both have the same amount of disposable income once essential kids needs are met? Eg I mean here things such as (but not limited to); food, childcare, clothes, school activities etc etc.
So if NRP were, for examples sakes to have £800 pcm disposable income and RP had £400, NRP should give the RP another £100 pcm?

Not necessarily no, though it's hard to draw a definitive line between kids and parents expenses.. If the two houses differ wildly it's difficult for the kids to understand why one parent can give them x but not the other. Also my ex doesn't value hobbies and activities and does not contribute anything extra for them. I do see them as important and I am the one fielding requests to do them so I fund them.
It's unlikely that both parents have similar earning capacity either through qualifications or opportunity. In my case ex and I earn similar, him slightly more, but as I said upthread, he could go for a higher role earning 20-30k more but chooses not to. I simply can't take on the extra responsibilities because I have to be there for the kids every single work day. I do think that should be recognised somehow. Its not about greed, it really isn't, but it is about fairness. If I was dicking about on part time hours with older kids and choosing to rely on maintenance rather than work I could see the NRPs point about not subsidising that, but every single case is different and no matter what I say, someone will come on with a counter example.

It would be very messy indeed, and require quite an intrusive amount of transparency from both sides in order to sort out equal fun money. That’s the kind of thing actual couples do, not ex’s.

It should be that CMS money provides the children with the lifestyle they would have if the parents were together - for the DC costs only. No he shouldn’t be paying for her to get her hair done, yes he should for half of the petrol money running them around.

£500 per month plus extras is a decent amount of money. I would estimate that I spend:
£80 on food
£120 on fuel
£20 on ballet
£25 on swimming
Per month on my DD... that’s £250 ish... so her dad should cover 50% of that plus a bit more for hair cuts, school trips and clothing etc between us. £500 per month should mean that the two DC are needing £1k a month spending on them for him to not be subbing her a little as it is.

@funinthesun19 hi, no worries. Am interested to understand more though, do you / others think both RP and NRPs should both have the same amount of disposable income once essential kids needs are met? Eg I mean here things such as (but not limited to); food, childcare, clothes, school activities etc etc.

So if NRP were, for examples sakes to have £800 pcm disposable income and RP had £400, NRP should give the RP another £100 pcm?

I think the nrp should have £800 and the rp £400.
People say the children should have the same standard of living in both households, but when the rp is the higher earner that rule doesn’t apply. That’s one of the reasons why I find this subject so frustrating.
So I think fuck it, of course the nrp should have more and not share it if the same doesn’t apply the other way round.

So he was paying £8.33 per child per day for half of the cost of food rent/mortgage heat and light and has now reduced it to £5 per child per day.
Do you honestly think that £5 is enough to even feed a child for half a day let alone anything else?
As for her income at £500 per week for a family of 3 that's a joke oh sorry I forgot his poxy £75 per week

Her ex already pays a lot of money towards the children, it’s not up to him to pay more just because she’s financially incompetent

FFS. Not having enough money to pay for everything doesn’t make someone ‘incompetent’.

does the ex work? if so, who pays for childcare whilst she is in work?

It is still quite early days for me on my own compared to you but I doubt 5 years down the line I will feel more deserving of my ex’s money and more entitled to it than he is no matter how difficult things get. It’s called self respect

Then you’d better hope he never decides to go self employed, work cash in hand, go freelance, or gets himself a new partner who persuades him that you work so you shouldn’t get a penny.

As for respect, no, never going to respect my ex. And absolutely my children are deserving of his money. Shame that in 10 years they’ve never seen any.,