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.

@Hrpuffnstuff1

£30K WTF. Could've bought a Porsche Cayman for that, are you mad.

£15k per parent is the standard rate for a contested divorce - it's obscene. The family courts are completely out of reach for most people.

I didn't feel I had a choice though. I thought I had as good a chance as any of getting equal care, and wanted to be able to tell the children if they ask (when they are adults) that I tried everything I could.

@girlmom21

So you can't say no, you don't want to go to court, you don't want to pay maintenance?

You need to do at least one of the three.

Agreed, doesn't stop me venting though.

Also doesn't stop me wondering what a fairer system would look like and wondering what I could do to get this fairer system brought in. It won't help me but might help families in future.

The current maintenance system promotes arguments, encourages parents to fight against shared care (which in the very rare cases that other things are equal should be the norm). Yet it doesn't provide for children in cases of real need either.

As the responses show it's really hard to even raise concerns about the current system. Either I'm too numbers focussed - well it's a soulless computer system that makes the decisions so it is numbers based - or I'm bitter.

There seems to be no sane voice representing non-resident parents.
Gingerbread specifically excludes them, mum's net is … shock horror … predominantly mums who normally are the "resident parent".
Fathers4justice / Families Need Fathers, etc appear full of bitter MRAs.

Yeah I'm unhappy about aspects of my divorce, but day to day I get on happily with my life wrangling 3 happy children, loading and unloading the dishwasher 3 times a day while despairing at the endless laundry. I'm not climbing any buildings dressed as spiderman.

The system is unfair and should be changed to better support children who need it and to avoid sowing discord among separated families who'd otherwise get along ok.

[quote Moonbabysmum]@LampLighter414

I totally agree it's mad. He has actually said thst he splits most of the bits you mention anyway (but not music lessons - but clearly they aren't in the hundreds of pounds a week category)

*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.*

He also said that he'd like to go 50-50. He gets criticised fir him mentioning how much childcare his ex uses, but actually that would be annoying if you are seeing your kids less than you like, and they are spending that extra time in childcare, rather than with the other parent, enough to tip it over, so that he has to pay considerable maintenance.

I think theres a huge anti dad sentiment on here 😞 with the starting default position being that he must be a dick.[/quote]
I agree with you. I'd be pissed off too if I wanted to have 50/50 but my ex said no as she wouldn't see the children as much, and yet then is spending on childcare because she's working when she has them. All while I was willing and wanted to have them!

I don't think this situation is very fair at all. Also agree with your anti-dad sentiment comment. Here you have a dad who literally wants to have his children equally yet it's fine for mum to say no to that because she doesn't want to have them less, even though her work doesn't permit her to - but it's fine for him to have them less to suit her preference, and also to have to continue to pay her several hundred a month to accommodate that.

Who was the primary carer when you were together? The priority of the court should be continuity for the children, rather than "fairness" between the parents. I realise there are cases where this does not happen.

You spent 20k arguing in court that a 12 month old (only just out of the 4th trimester) should be taken away from its primary carer 50% of the time?
You didn't do your research then about what's considered best for a child that age? You didn't suggest an ongoing slow build up of contact. Just all guns blazing into court to demand your rights???
I despair.
Cafcass listened to your kids a year ago but only went up by 1 day - but you go half the hols.
You're still banging on about your rights. Put the kids first.
Put the kids first
Put the kids first

@DropOfffArtiste

Who was the primary carer when you were together? The priority of the court should be continuity for the children, rather than "fairness" between the parents. I realise there are cases where this does not happen.

Ex says it was her. I'd say it was joint.

We had a nanny 4 flexible days a week to cover the times both my (ex) wife and I were working. My ex worked / works shifts and I work flexi around 10am-3pm core hours in the office which was 15 minutes away then.

If ex was working an early then I'd get the kids up and feed them breakfast and then hand them over to the nanny when I went out. My ex would then be back around lunchtime.

If my ex was working a late than the nanny would come in before lunch and cover the afternoon and I'd come home early to give the kids their tea and get them to bed.

Weekends when ex was working I'd obviously care for them on my own - and when I was out I'd bite my tongue and try not to growl at the patronising sexist comments of "oooh are you giving mum a break? Good boy.".
Then I'd be asked "are they twins" - "yes".
"Boy and girl" - "yes"
"are they identical" - "um ??? I may I refer you to my previous answer?"

We had a nanny 4 flexible days a week to cover the times both my (ex) wife and I were working.

Oh so you could use a nanny when you were together but she's being slated for using childcare now?

I get your frustrations but come on...

@PicaK

You spent 20k arguing in court that a 12 month old (only just out of the 4th trimester) should be taken away from its primary carer 50% of the time? You didn't do your research then about what's considered best for a child that age? You didn't suggest an ongoing slow build up of contact. Just all guns blazing into court to demand your rights??? I despair. Cafcass listened to your kids a year ago but only went up by 1 day - but you go half the hols. You're still banging on about your rights. Put the kids first. Put the kids first Put the kids first

Um no by the time it got to court they were nearly 3. There was no clear cut primary carer.

The marriage failed when she moved another man into the house when the kids were 14 months old, but court took a long time. I spent ~£15k - I'm sure she spent similar.

Their mum was in work (she'd briefly switched to working 4 days a week) and she was sending them to nursery all day, 4 days a week.

I'd had to fight to be allowed to take them to nursery and was criticised in court for not respecting her routine by giving them breakfast before I took them. Their mother wanted them to be fed breakfast lunch and tea at nursery.

By the time kids are no longer breast fed and mum's maternity leave has finished there may not be a primary carer, and if there is it's not always the mother.

Please reconsider your sexist attitude. I don't want bigots like you insisting my daughter should give up on a career and bear the brunt of childcare if she decides to have kids. Nor do I want my sons thinking they've a right to concentrate on their careers and leave responsibility for children to their future partners.

Stop being a dinosaur.

@girlmom21

We had a nanny 4 flexible days a week to cover the times both my (ex) wife and I were working.

Oh so you could use a nanny when you were together but she's being slated for using childcare now?

I get your frustrations but come on...

She’s being slated for childcare instead of letting their father have them, out of spite.

I missed that they were so young when you split up. So your ex has managed to hold down a demanding (presumably senior medical?) role with tricky shift patterns whilst caring for very young twins.

That's impressive and can't have been easy doing all that whilst going through a contentious divorce.

I wonder why she doesn't want you having more contact, if as you say, you get on well? Sounds like money isn't an issue and she can't relish shelling out for anti-social childcare.

@sanbeiji is it out of spite though? Or is it because if she didn't use childcare to cover school pick ups she couldn't see her kids for days on end?

Say she works 8-6. She can do drop off to breakfast club and be home for tea. She'll just need wraparound care.

If OP picks them up every day she might only get to see them at a weekend because it's too much for the kids being dragged from pillar to post every day.

@girlmom21

We had a nanny 4 flexible days a week to cover the times both my (ex) wife and I were working.

Oh so you could use a nanny when you were together but she's being slated for using childcare now?

I get your frustrations but come on...

Some childcare's fine - it's healthy and may even stop the kids being too clingy.

I object to being denied time with my kids, when they are asking me for more time and the children then being in childcare.

I object to hearing from village childminders that my ex is telling them she needs help looking after the kids, and my ex is saying I'm not willing to look after my children more. As an aside I also really object to the village being given the impression my new wife was the cause of the divorce (I met her 2 years after the marriage failed). Step mum's get such a bad press and it's such a hard job being a step parent.

And yes I object to having to pay my ex, "because the children are with her more" when the children are actually in unnecessary childcare.

[quote girlmom21]@sanbeiji is it out of spite though? Or is it because if she didn't use childcare to cover school pick ups she couldn't see her kids for days on end?

Say she works 8-6. She can do drop off to breakfast club and be home for tea. She'll just need wraparound care.

If OP picks them up every day she might only get to see them at a weekend because it's too much for the kids being dragged from pillar to post every day. [/quote]
Why would that be wrong? If the father can provide more consistent care during the week, isn't it better they be with him? If this were a woman explaining her ex husbands shifts and saying she was available to look after them before and after school/nursery, wouldn't people on here say it makes sense for the mother to have primary residency?

@madisonbridges he doesn't want primary residency. He hasn't been to court for primary residency.

If he had I might be inclined to agree.

You really come across that you see your children as a possession. No thought for what is best for them just something to be haggled over.

@DropOfffArtiste
"I wonder why she doesn't want you having more contact, if as you say, you get on well? Sounds like money isn't an issue and she can't relish shelling out for anti-social childcare."

I don't think she currently spends that much on childcare now, as she tends to use an elderly neighbour for the overnights, and uses another mum for some of the evening / early morning bits.

We get on fine, day to day, talking about the kid's latest antics, her telling me about some sport etc, but I can't raise the issue of time without conflict - so I avoid the topic.

My ex has previously said I'm an incompetent parent, but after the divorce my current wife saw how I was as a single dad and married me and had a son with me. I'm perfectly happy wrangling 3 kids on my own and various friends trust me with theirs.

I think my ex's problem may have been partly that she was controlling and because I didn't want confrontation then she thought I was incapable of making decisions. Then (after 13 years) when it finally came to something I cared about, we as a couple had no way to deal with the disagreement. She couldn't handle me not respecting her authority, and I knew no way to explain that "this thing does matter to me, and I have to say no".

Being charitable, as a loving parent she will always want more time with the kids and is worried that if she gives up time the because of her shifts she'll go for days without seeing them. There's some merit in that but it then does highlight a flaw in the system if just losing a couple of nights transforms me into the "non-resident parent"

Rasing children is hard - twins more so (for the first year at least), and in hindsight our marriage wasn't good. She had no ill intent but was abusive and controlling (learnt from her mother). When the marriage failed, lawyers were brought in and the relationship got worse. It was a long drawn out miserable time but is in the past and is mostly irrelevant.

Hopefully she's happier now and I certainly am, but the history and CMS's rules don't help coming to amicable agreements.

Again I'm not asking for pity - just saying the CMA's rules are unreasonable at times. I know it's a really hard problem to solve and that getting money to children who need it is a more critical issue than avoiding harm to families who share care.

@Hapoydayz

You really come across that you see your children as a possession. No thought for what is best for them just something to be haggled over.

It's in the children's best interest to have a good standard of living in both households. How does less money in their father's household (who by all accounts pulls his weight) benefit them?

@Hapoydayz

You really come across that you see your children as a possession. No thought for what is best for them just something to be haggled over.

Exactly this, like the baby in the Solomon story I mentioned. Everything is bargains, trade-offs, little victories and losses. Poor kids. I remember being that kid and what a relief it finally was to go NC with my dad.

[quote girlmom21]@madisonbridges he doesn't want primary residency. He hasn't been to court for primary residency.

If he had I might be inclined to agree. [/quote]
Obviously I want primary residency, but I don't think that'd be in the children's best interest, they love both homes, they need to see both sets of parents, having two sets of parents cooperating is surely better for them… and we do co-operate, swap nights / weekends etc when needed.

I don't want to stop them seeing their mum, I just want to be treated as an equal party, with equal rights and an equal responsibility to trail all round the countryside delivering them to clubs, parties, doctors etc., and to try to harass them into doing their homework and eat in a half civilised fashion, brush their hair, turn their lights off occasionally. Being consulted about their schools would be nice too - that sort of thing.

Harmfully the CMS currently doesn't recognise the concept of equal shared care unless that's completely equal nights.

But most of those things you mention have nothing to do with CMS calculations or money. You do have parental responsibility (parental rights are not a thing) and have equal say in their schooling, medical decisons etc.

@Hapoydayz

You really come across that you see your children as a possession. No thought for what is best for them just something to be haggled over.

Hey there's a good reason I don't work in PR.

Like any decent parent I love my kids, and want to see them.

We've shielded them from any conflict for 9 years, sadly now they are finally aware there's some discussion about more time. They understand that both Mum and Dad love them and want to see them more, but can't agree on the time so are having to ask a Judge to help decide. That's not a terrible thing for them to know. They've no concept about money - if they had I think they'd be appalled I pay so much and would have asked for an officially even split of time - even if they then spent the odd unofficial extra night at their mum's around shifts.

I'm not pleased that Cafcass asked my 10 year olds who they wanted to spend more time with. I argued against Cafcass bothering the children and I'd been assured Cafcass would just be checking how happy they were at each house and if they had any concerns, not putting them on the spot and asking them to choose between parents. But both children said they wanted a little more time with me, one of them adding "but not at the expense of time with Mum", they love both of us and don't want to seem disloyal. I've reassured them there were no wrong answers and that although they'd be listened to they were not responsible for making the final decision.

None of that has any relevance to my original point that the CMS rules seem unfair and harmful for families with shared care.
£5,000+ per year hurts.
£175 per night for bed, breakfast, packed lunch and laundry for 2, seems unreasonable when other costs are split evenly and when the receiving parent is not in need.

OP, now that you’ve explained this better, I just want to say, I understands it makes more sense.
I don’t think your narrative and choice of words did you any favours, but all things considered as you’ve now reported them mean I think it looks like you’ve had a tricky time of it l, not least because you do want to see your kids, are happy to support them and would like for it to be fairer!

I get it.

I hope it works out for you, and at the very least, no matter what decision is reached, they will someday know you did what you thought was best for them.

Sorry for typos, am on phone.

But I wish you well and I’m sorry for giving you a hard time!

So you have a family court case ongoing at the moment? Your argument is that you want to have equal shared care and their mum's argument is that she doesn't want to separated from the kids for several days due to her shift patterns?

Is there a reason you can't cover to match her shift patterns? Have you been through mediation?

I can’t understand the argument about not wanting to pay CM because the RP earns more at all. Unless you have 50:50 care, you pay CM and that’s precisely how it should remain. You’re paying her for the time they’re not with you which, from what I gather, is most of the time… You may want 50:50 access but she doesn’t and a judge decided you shouldn’t either so you have to pay CM as a result. It wouldn’t matter if she were a millionaire and you were on min wage. CM is legally binding and you should just pay it and stop whinging about it. It’s all so petty.

Reading this I actually thought you’d recently separated but no, it was a decade ago yet you’re still squabbling over money. Just move on and drop the tension, it will be much better for your health. When they’re teenagers they will be able to travel to yours and spend as much time as they want with you provided you haven’t moved miles and miles away anyway.