AIBU to think £175 is an excessive amount to pay for breakfast for 2?

[WafflesnBlueberries]

Or AIBU to think child maintenance system needs reform for shared care arrangements?

If there is exactly 50-50 shared care no party pays, but as soon there's a day a year different the non-resident party has to pay four-sevenths of what they'd pay if they never saw the kids.

My ex is suggesting I should have our 2 children for 5 nights + 2 evenings a fortnight, in term time (equal holidays)
If we did this then I'd have them 39 nights a year less than equal so would be liable to pay maintenance with a two-sevenths reduction.
Plugging this into the calculator I'm told I should pay:
£132.50 a week
or £574 a month
or £6,886 a year
which seems a smidge excessive for 39 breakfasts for 2 children, one of whom doesn't do breakfast. (£175 per breakfast)

The proposal from Cafcass was I should have them 6 nights a fortnight instead of ex's suggestion of 5 nights + 2 teatimes. That would mean the children would have 19-20 nights a year fewer with me and would increase my maintenance reduction to three-seveths. I'd then only have to pay
£106 a week
or £459 a month
or £5507 a year
which still seems a trifle much for 20 nights for 2. That's £275 a night and while they do both eat a terrifying amount for dinner it still seems…

To be fair if they're with my ex on a school morning they are sent in with packed lunches or my ex pays for school lunch, but I'm still not convinced the cost is justified.

Can anyone point me at the law where they devised these calculations? So I can trawl Hansard and see how it was discussed and how the government decided this was reasonable.

But the money isn't just for the meals

And if this is indicative of your general approach to child-tearing/shared responsibility, I can see why you are an ‘ex’

@WafflesnBlueberries why is your ex trying to get you to have them less?
Do you WANT to have them less?

Normally I despair at the pittance child maintenance is and the fact that men seemingly can’t grasp that they are meant to be contributing to all the costs involved in bringing a child up

However - in this case it’s just short of a 50 / 50 split so am assuming you also feed / clothe / pay for hobbies / school stuff etc on an equal par to your ex ? If you don’t then you should be . If you do then yes it seems excessive

Are you unhappy about paying maintenance for your kids?
They will remember that when they grow up, and would love you for it. Guaranteed!

As asked, do you share all other costs equally?

2/10 yawn

@qualitygirl oddly enough I love my children and I want them with me the whole time, but I accept they also need to see the other parent as they love us both.

My ex does shift work so claims that a 50-50 split would be unfair as my ex wouldn't see them as much.

As a judge once said "Were you better at literacy than numeracy, Secretary of State?"

Oh so you pay for half of everything else right? Like clothes, after school clubs, school trips, presents for their friends’ parties, their utilities, uniforms, haircuts, medicines and so on?

So you’re paying 50% of school uniform, casual clothes, shoes, transport to school, hobbies, activities, tutoring if needed, you’re taking equal time off for medical appointments, school appointments, parents evenings, sickness, taking them to play dates and friends parties?

If so, fair enough but I doubt that’s the case. Maintenance covers much more than breakfast and reflects that as primary carer she will carry more incidental costs than you will. If you want 50/50 with no maintenance payment due, are you happy to carry the financial, emotional and support load 50% of the time?

No maintenance when it’s 50-50 is desperately unfair when there is a big discrepancy in incomes.

The £175 isn’t just for breakfast, as you very well know.

Who is buying the clothes, the toys, the christmas presents? Who takes main responsibility for all of that? If it’s her, then pay without complaining otherwise what’s the option? You quibble every time they buy the kids something? Who pays for any clubs, any childcare?

You must earn a decent amount to be coming out with figures like that, and technically they will have them more so I’m not sure what the issue is.

@WafflesnBlueberries I wasn't for a second suggesting you didn't want to be with them...I was meaning it as why is your ex wanting you to have them less, is that what you want? If not then stay 50/50...

Unless you tell us more about who is paying for what, we can't comment.

@Fere yes I am unhappy about paying my ex money - wouldn't you be, after a "clean break divorce"?

Wouldn't it hurt you if your ex effectively had £1000 per month greater spending power for the children, than you - even before their larger salary was counted?

When I pay for the children's clothes, clubs, etc when they are with me, and 50-50 of school trips and there's such a small difference in time, why should I pay that much?

To be fair I don't pay for music lessons but obviously would split them 50-50 if I stopped paying hundreds a month in maintenance.

As the non-resident parent I don't know precisely how much my ex earns but it's at least £25,000 more than me.

I'm also unhappy I don't get as much time with my children as I'd like, and that my ex has used so much childcare (Lockdown was good from that point of view as I saw more of them).

So say no to her! Have them 50/50 no extra money needed.
Your OP implies she’s asking you to change it so she gets them more, not that that’s how is is now.
Just say no!

Well worded as to not reveal gender

Sadly on this site the assumption will be you are a man and your view will be disregarded if you are covering 50% of all costs. If you were a woman however there would be uproar about your ex refusing you 50:50 to their own benefit

I hope you're prepared

So are you paying maintenance now( which your last post says) or not, which your first post implies.

Can't you just fight for 50/50 care?

Assumption of sex (not gender), is neither here nor there!
The financial situation behind it is.

Definitely could be a woman posting. But I’m going to hazard a guess that most women, not all, don’t just think the cost of child rearing is based on how much a child eats, when CSA calculations come into play!

I could of course be wrong!

@LampLighter414

Well worded as to not reveal gender

Sadly on this site the assumption will be you are a man and your view will be disregarded if you are covering 50% of all costs. If you were a woman however there would be uproar about your ex refusing you 50:50 to their own benefit

I hope you're prepared

Utter tosh! No parent should have to sacrifice their own time with a child, solely to benefit the other parent!

You're allowed to say no to her proposal and go for 7 nights a fortnight.

CM is based on overnight stays not hours during the day . If Dad feeds the kids dinner but the kids sleep at mum's house that night then mum gets maintenance in the same way that she would have if she'd fed the kids dinner and they'd sleep there.