Split costs on different incomes

[Depolo]

Household A: Income of £30000 per annum

Household B: Income of £128000 per annum (before tax/NI)

3 x children. 50/50 joint care between homes. No maintenance paid, but all joint costs split 50/50 ie uniform, school trips, dinner money. Children have two wardrobes provided at each household, costs are not shared for activities booked and organised at individual homes.

My question. Should joint costs be split 50/50 as per shared care agreement OR should costs be split on an income ratio.

Your solicitor can give you the position in law.

I think this depends on each parents individual income rather than household. I wouldn’t expect parent’s partners income to be factored in.

Position in law is 50/50 in line with shared care.

Household income isn’t able to be split between partners (joint company & wage/dividends)

Genuinely joint costs 50/50.
How the respective parents then spend on the child when with them is up to them.

50/50

Another one for 50/50

50/50 from me too.

50/50 here too

It’s fifty fifty, of course once a couple have split one can’t continue to want the other to support based on how much they earn in comparison. They are equal parents and should pay for their children equally.

50/50 for standard things. If the higher income household wants them to go on the £2k ski trip to USA or something like that though, they have to be sensitive that the lower income household might not have half. Or if they want Private School as another example

50/50, although if there was something essential needed that the lower income parent wasn’t able to pay for I’d expect the other parent to pay rather than see the children go without.

Personally, with such a huge disparity, if I was the higher earner id probably be paying a higher proportion of the costs.
Said it before and I'll say it again - children get one life, not bits of lives that can be allocated as suits their parents.
Really depends on loads of factors though so j cannot argue with the official legal position on it. Too messy to legislate for everything.

Who are you in this op?

I’d worry the lowe earning family was thinking they shouldn’t have to pay for their own kids and that the other parent should do it as they habe more money. That’s quite unpleasant. When couples are no longer together and split is fifty fifty they both have an equal responsibility, financially, emotionally the lot snd can’t just duck their responsibilities.

On the face of it 50/50, but that could mean that sometimes the child couldn’t do something presumably. Eg a school trip that the more wealthy family could afford but the less wealthy could not. Then I think it’s the wealthy family to decide if they are happy to pay more than 50% or all - but it’s their choice.

50/50

But if there’s a relevant reason why household A has a much lower income - eg if A gave up their career to look after the dc when small, and this enabled B to reach their current much higher income - then I would be making an argument for spousal maintenance in addition to the child cost arrangements. No idea how likely this would be to succeed these days though

50/50, they have two parents who should pay equally not based on their salary, both have a responsibility to provide.

50/50

Any differentials that had a bearing should have been disclosed and discussed before the Consent Order/Financial Agreement was drawn up.

Answers to this question usually depend on which one the OP is. If she's the higher earner then the answer is usually that the ex needs to step up, work more hours etc. If she's the lower earner then the ex is usually expected to be more generous than 50/50.

You need to look at each parent's income not household as what partners earn is irrelevant.

After that I'd say 50/50 unless the wealthier parent wants the child to join clubs/activities that the less wealthy parent couldn't afford. And I'd hope they would want to.

@minipie

50/50

But if there’s a relevant reason why household A has a much lower income - eg if A gave up their career to look after the dc when small, and this enabled B to reach their current much higher income - then I would be making an argument for spousal maintenance in addition to the child cost arrangements. No idea how likely this would be to succeed these days though

That’s done at the time of a divorce ans spousal maintenance is very rare these days, the op isn’t asking about spousal maintenance she’s (of he) is asking if the lower earning family have to pay for their own kids.

should costs be split on an income ratio?
That's the question, straight from OP.
Not "whether the lower earning family have to lay for their own kids"

50/50 is fair, but if I was the higher earning parent in this situation I certainly wouldn’t see dc going without.

50/50

Can't say until we know who is A and who is B.

@NannyAndJohn

Can't say until we know who is A and who is B.

Why does that make a difference