Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Ex not paying a weeks child maintenance taking kids on holiday for the week?

89 replies

Shooshybobs · 07/05/2021 16:11

Is this reasonable? He's taken them Mon-Fri on holiday, should he have a week off paying maintenance for this? Thanks

OP posts:
FTEngineerM · 07/05/2021 20:09

Honestly if it was me then I wouldn’t ask for maintenance that week anyway as that money can be spent on them during their holiday.

But that doesn’t work though @toocold54, if the RP needs that money to keep the roof over their heads whilst the dad can’t do his 50% then.. no amount of ice creams and beach towels will pay the rent

BusyLizzie61 · 07/05/2021 20:17

Child maintenance is based on the whole year divided by the timescale it's paid. So in effect, it's already including his holiday weeks.

However, if this is an informal agreement he can do as he pleases.

Are you sure he's paying at least above the minimum set by cms?

toocold54 · 07/05/2021 20:28

if the RP needs that money to keep the roof over their heads whilst the dad can’t do his 50% then.. no amount of ice creams and beach towels will pay the rent

It’s not about the rent though it’s about food, electricity, water etc that the DC use at the RP house. If both parents share custody or the NRP has them more they pay considerably less because they’re using all those things at their house. Maintenance isn’t about having the rent paid.

FTEngineerM · 07/05/2021 20:34

I used rent as an example.. I’m aware there more than one bill to running a houseWink

The fact still remains that if OP needs the money to actually live, then ‘allowing the dad to keep it to enjoy the holzzz’ isn’t actually possible or helpful.

SnowdaySewday · 07/05/2021 20:49

If he’s taking them out of school, is he going to pay your fine?

RandomMess · 07/05/2021 20:52

Urgh just go to CMS it's based on nights over a year and his previous earnings and they can do an attachment to earnings order if need be.

Ring up and put a claim in as they will only back date it to the day you phone up.

Cleverpolly3 · 07/05/2021 21:10

@SnowdaySewday

If he’s taking them out of school, is he going to pay your fine?
Very good point
toocold54 · 07/05/2021 21:26

The fact still remains that if OP needs the money to actually live, then ‘allowing the dad to keep it to enjoy the holzzz’ isn’t actually possible or helpful.

Yes I get that but maintenance isn’t for HER to live it’s for the children and she won’t need to feed them, bath them etc as that’s what he’ll be doing. So she’ll be saving money whilst he’s losing money. Isn’t that why CMS works it out depending on the number of days the NRP has them.

But more than that if I was OP I’d know I was saving myself money and the dad was paying out twice, so I’d want to know that the children are having a good time which is harder to do when you’ve got less money.

AnneLovesGilbert · 07/05/2021 21:32

How are people defending him?! He’s taking the piss OP. It sounds like this isn’t new behaviour. Time to ditch the private arrangement so he stops acting like he’s got something over you. Do you know he’s even paying the right amount? Have you put the numbers through the CMS site?

Open a claim with them over the weekend.

WhatWouldPhyllisCraneDo · 07/05/2021 21:35

@AnneLovesGilbert

How are people defending him?! He’s taking the piss OP. It sounds like this isn’t new behaviour. Time to ditch the private arrangement so he stops acting like he’s got something over you. Do you know he’s even paying the right amount? Have you put the numbers through the CMS site?

Open a claim with them over the weekend.

Some women will always defend men. Its part of the reason why they'll continue getting away with it.
Jellybabiesforbreakfast · 07/05/2021 21:46

Yes I get that but maintenance isn’t for HER to live it’s for the children and she won’t need to feed them, bath them etc as that’s what he’ll be doing. So she’ll be saving money whilst he’s losing money. Isn’t that why CMS works it out depending on the number of days the NRP has them.

One of the biggest child-related expenses is childcare (or the lost opportunity cost of not being able to work). The non-resident parent can work since they don't have to care for the children, the RP has to work school hours/arrange childcare. CM is meant to take this into account.

The OP can't exactly arrange a job/extra hours just for the single week her ex has the kids. CM should only really be reduced if contact is consistent and regular so the RP can make plans based on the NRP having the kids. Ad hoc arrangements aren't that useful in terms of reducing the kids' expenses.

BlackDaffodil · 07/05/2021 21:47

@FTEngineerM

It depends on what you use the money for I suppose?

If you use it to put a roof over their head and all the costs encompassed in that because he can’t do 50:50 then yes you should still get money.

If you use it to feed/clothe and treats for them or what ever then maybe not.

what rubbish

Cleverpolly3 · 07/05/2021 21:50

@toocold54

The fact still remains that if OP needs the money to actually live, then ‘allowing the dad to keep it to enjoy the holzzz’ isn’t actually possible or helpful.

Yes I get that but maintenance isn’t for HER to live it’s for the children and she won’t need to feed them, bath them etc as that’s what he’ll be doing. So she’ll be saving money whilst he’s losing money. Isn’t that why CMS works it out depending on the number of days the NRP has them.

But more than that if I was OP I’d know I was saving myself money and the dad was paying out twice, so I’d want to know that the children are having a good time which is harder to do when you’ve got less money.

I don’t know where to start with this asinine claptrap
SaltAndVinegarSandwiches · 07/05/2021 21:52

Food and entertainment is a small fraction of the cost of raising a child. They need a roof over their head, clothes, equipment for school, clubs etc which are payed for by the resident parent and don't suddenly disappear if they're away for the week.

toocold54 · 07/05/2021 22:29

One of the biggest child-related expenses is childcare (or the lost opportunity cost of not being able to work). The non-resident parent can work since they don't have to care for the children, the RP has to work school hours/arrange childcare. CM is meant to take this into account.

I’m a single parent, never received maintenance money and have worked the entire time so I understand that and I’m not saying the NRP shouldn’t pay but the children are having a holiday and obviously are going to have less money to spend as the dad is paying out twice so ultimately the kids are the ones who suffer. As a parent knowing that I’m saving money on food and electricity etc that week I’d want that extra money to go to my DCs to make sure they have a better time.

getyourfreakon · 07/05/2021 22:47

CMS time, though it's very poor service. Also to the PP making a point about what you spend it on - that is not the point. It never has been. Get a grip. No parent is required to itemise what they pay out for general day to day living expenses regarding their child because an NRP pays maintenance. This will never be a thing, nor should it be. If you think that way then that's pretty much your issue.

Jellybabiesforbreakfast · 07/05/2021 22:48

@toocold54. What complete rubbish! Most NRPs aren't paying out twice unless it costs less than a couple of hundred pounds a month to raise a child. Most CM payments by NRPs barely scratch the surface of what it costs to bring up a child. Most NRPs aren't even paying once!!! Instead, they're making a derisory contribution to their children's upbringing and then have the temerity to claim they "pay" for their children.

Yes, if your ex makes a fair contribution, you might say he "pays for" his children. But he would be in the minority.

toocold54 · 07/05/2021 23:01

@Jellybabiesforbreakfast as I said my ex doesn’t pay maintenance but OPs ex is paying out twice because the payment is for the DCs food etc at RPs house but as they won’t be there so he’ll be paying maintenance to OP and paying for food etc that they use that week with him on top.
I feel like this situation is more to do with OP vs the ex, rather than being about the children.

timeisnotaline · 07/05/2021 23:05

Hi ex, childcare support is calculated on an annual average so your taking them away for a week doesn’t change what you owe me to fund the rest of their lives. You haven’t cancelled the rent/mortgage because you aren’t sleeping in your house this week, I’m now going to go through cms for childcare support so I don’t have to have this conversation again, it’s not fair on me as the primary parent. Have a good holiday.

Starlightstarbright1 · 07/05/2021 23:07

@toocold54

One of the biggest child-related expenses is childcare (or the lost opportunity cost of not being able to work). The non-resident parent can work since they don't have to care for the children, the RP has to work school hours/arrange childcare. CM is meant to take this into account.

I’m a single parent, never received maintenance money and have worked the entire time so I understand that and I’m not saying the NRP shouldn’t pay but the children are having a holiday and obviously are going to have less money to spend as the dad is paying out twice so ultimately the kids are the ones who suffer. As a parent knowing that I’m saving money on food and electricity etc that week I’d want that extra money to go to my DCs to make sure they have a better time.

But there are lots of ongoing expenses , childcare, any clubs, clothing, gifts, lots of things are covered over the year.

This is irrelevant, because payment is over the year.

Also op has said time wise he isn't having dd as normal the week after holiday. He won't be paying extra that week no doubt

Jellybabiesforbreakfast · 07/05/2021 23:09

@toocold54. I suspect the ex's maintenance doesn't scratch the surface of 50% of what it costs to bring up his DC. So he can take his "I'm paying twice" argument and choke on it. Chances are he's not even paying once.

The OP should stop all this faffing about and go through the CMS.

timeisnotaline · 07/05/2021 23:10

@toocold54

One of the biggest child-related expenses is childcare (or the lost opportunity cost of not being able to work). The non-resident parent can work since they don't have to care for the children, the RP has to work school hours/arrange childcare. CM is meant to take this into account.

I’m a single parent, never received maintenance money and have worked the entire time so I understand that and I’m not saying the NRP shouldn’t pay but the children are having a holiday and obviously are going to have less money to spend as the dad is paying out twice so ultimately the kids are the ones who suffer. As a parent knowing that I’m saving money on food and electricity etc that week I’d want that extra money to go to my DCs to make sure they have a better time.

I bet he’s still paying his rent even though he’s sleeping somewhere else and his car finance even if he’s flying so leaving the car at home and his netflix / sky / Internet / water fees etc etc etc.
Blowingagale · 07/05/2021 23:19

PP have set out the CMS position and you can definitely use it as a guide.

As this is not under a formal arrangement you can decide between yourselves what actually happens. What are his finances like? Does he pay you the bare minimum as it is? Could you actually get by without the maintenance or is it covering essentials? Do you think he would put that money towards a nicer holiday for the children, or is he just tight?

Viviennemary · 07/05/2021 23:23

He sounds a bit mean but I suppose he shouldn't be paying that week if he's taking them away.

00100001 · 07/05/2021 23:24

[quote toocold54]@Jellybabiesforbreakfast as I said my ex doesn’t pay maintenance but OPs ex is paying out twice because the payment is for the DCs food etc at RPs house but as they won’t be there so he’ll be paying maintenance to OP and paying for food etc that they use that week with him on top.
I feel like this situation is more to do with OP vs the ex, rather than being about the children.[/quote]
You're misunderstanding what Cms is for.

Let's assume it costs the following per YEAR to raise a child for 5 days out of 7.

And let's assume both parents have house of equal size and rent/mortgage and their utility bills are equal. etc

For 5 days a week over one year, let pretend it costs this much per child:

Food: £1500
Clothes: £200
Clubs/childcare: £6000
School expenses (trips, lunches, equipment, uniform etc) :£300
TOTAL: £9000

so, over 12 months ,each child costs £750 per month, so let's just say £190 a week. So let's say partner pays £80 a week.
(Numbers are figurative, obviously)

Now, EX partner wants to pay £80 less in the year.. okay, fine, OP is "saving" £16 that year on food that week. But she still has to pay £64 for everything else...

So it is costing OP £64 for her kids to go on holiday with Dad... Because she now has to find an extra £64 that year to cover the payment that Dad has refused.

So, why should dad not pay his maintenance?? Why should OP effectively pay for her kids to go on holiday with their Dad?
Confused