AIBU to think contribution to child should be proportional to income?

[Ulltiger]

Hello all, I'm looking for advice and thoughts on the following scenario, me and my ex share care of our son 50/50. Despite her earning at least 3 times what I do (£75k last I knew and she's got another job since then, so likely more) she expects everything split 50/50 cost wise. The latest thing being school meals when he starts back in September. Am I unreasonable to think a more equitable solution would be for it to be even losely proportionate to income?

Not that im counting it into anything but for context she has a partner and I don't, so household incomes are vastly different. Also if relevant a little background, when we were together at one point we had a similar wage, she then did a degree, which I supported her in, running the household, looking after our son (feeding, getting ready, dropping off/picking up from nursery, bathing etc) so she could focus on that. After that her career took off, she worked away a lot, so again I was doing all of the above.
Even now I'm the one who regularly reads with him and helps him do his homework.
I also administer the childcare account, his swimming lessons etc and she's proposing I also administer the school meal account, which I feel almost obliged to do because if I don't our child will probably not eat! That's not sour grapes on my part, just a fact :-)

My ex husband has paid 0% and chosen not to have the children over night, indeed not to see most of them just about ever. he had more than 50% of our assets and my life savings etc (we each kept our own pensions as they were equal) on our divorce.

Here the poster needs to start by reading the divorce financial consent order or the judge's order on finances. If there is not one yet then he and the wife need to agree one ASAP if in England.

YANBU and this is from a single parent who has 95% care.

ExH earns more than me as I'm part time in order to take care of DD. If his percentage increased to take into account his earnings I could afford to use more childcare for DD and therefore increase my contribution, if that makes sense?

As it is ExH contributes less than 5% of his income (This is done through CMS who refuse to get more out of him) and while DD doesn't suffer I do because I go without to provide for her - I have literally walked round with holes in my shoes so she can go on a school trip.

So no YANBU at all.

I do think it’s unfair if one parent is earning a lot more than the other in a 50/50 set up. My DP still paid his ex an amount of maintenance even though he has the DC more than her because he earns more. But it usually happens as part of a more amicable set up rather than something that one partner guilts the other one into. Any decent person would already be thinking that way if the other parent isn’t likely to spend the money on drugs or gambling etc instead.

I don't think that 50:50 is the way to go actually.

Not all children have the same level of affluence, comfort and luxury in their lives obviously. Kids who are from a minimum-wage-only household will have a minimal (though hopefully adequate) level of these things. Children who are from a household where both parents earn £75kpa will have a lot more of the nicer things in life and will have a better quality of the essentials for things like school shoes, rather than the cheapest available. That being the case, if all costs are 50:50 then either the child is losing out because the budget is pegged to what the less wealthy parent can afford, or alternatively the less wealthy parent is forced to spend beyond their means. Neither of these is fair.

The fact that the ex has a new partner is irrelevant and the income of said partner is immaterial. However the budget for the child that is shared between the op and his ex should be set at a half-way point between what would be afforded if both parents were earning £25k and what would be afforded if both parents were earning £75k. Each parent most certainly should contribute according to their means, otherwise the child is having the natural resources and benefits that are reasonable for them to be given as the child of an affluent person, being unreasonably withheld from them due to their parents breakup. That isn't right.

One thing that that is clear to me reading some of the comments on here is that there’s a large proportion of people for whom 'the system' just does not work and does not protect the most vulnerable

If by ‘most vulnerable’ you mean children, I agree. However, as an adult I accept I made less than sensible long term decisions in marriage which benefitted the children and my ex more than me. Since separation, however, I have worked hard to build both a life and career and although my ex pays nothing, I have made sure my children want for nothing. I am lucky to have been able to do that and it certainly isn’t something every single parent is able to achieve, but I hate the notion that single parents are somehow vulnerable just by virtue of being a single parent.

Children get one childhood. It can't be split in two for their parents convenience, nor can it be down over if fucked up the first time.
That's it really.
YANBU OP, although I can understand why CMS is likely to remain a blunt instrument and rely on parents to be fair to their own children.