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.

@DropOfffArtiste

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?

We've mediation on going, we may come to a conclusion before burning more money in court.

I've always stressed my flexibility but her issue is that even if she is working an evening shift - she'll see the children in the morning or vice versa.

We'll see - and either way - I've tried and I get to see them and get to be far more involved than separated dads in our fathers' generation. I'm probably lucky enough to be more involved than most non-separated dads to be fair :-)

I can see her point. What would be your preferred arrangement? Week on/week off?

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

It's clean break from your spouse, not from your kids!

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 you are not doing yourself any favours when you

keep not mentioning the other things this covers like music lessons, shoes (unlikely to be as little as £40 per child over a year) and hair cuts. You might consider these costs irrelevant but they clearly are not. If you want to get people on board then you need to be honest. This isn't and is suggestive, fairly or not, of someone who is dismissive of other people's views.

Fairness will always be an impossible dream in this kind of situation. For me, I can see your frustration but I am more riled about the number of NRP, often men, who pay nothing. It's not a fine on the NRP either. That is q pretty PA thing to say and again does not engender sympathy.

Why are people seemingly not reading what this guy is saying ?

He does have his kids. A lot. But because over the space of a year she has the kids 20 more than he does - CMS says he needs to pay maintenance.

Given that it's only 39 nights a year less and given that he pays for clothes, toys, food, pays for lunches, haircuts, swimming lessons and fucking egg boxes when the kids are with him (which is only 39 days a year less than him) why should he then have to pay support on top?

Sorry she has the kids 39 more nights than he does.

I'd go as far to say that seeing as you are basically only having the kids -one month a year that you only pay support once a year.

@TurtleBackUp

Why are people seemingly not reading what this guy is saying ?

He does have his kids. A lot. But because over the space of a year she has the kids 20 more than he does - CMS says he needs to pay maintenance.

Given that it's only 39 nights a year less and given that he pays for clothes, toys, food, pays for lunches, haircuts, swimming lessons and fucking egg boxes when the kids are with him (which is only 39 days a year less than him) why should he then have to pay support on top?

Because the cms work a reduction for the nights he has the dc into the calculation. They assume that each parent pays for those things on "their time".

Reading your updates OP, which were more balanced and coherent than earlier posts, I can see where you are coming from.

I used to work shifts. A combination of earlys and lates, very rarely nights.
The dc went to my mums when I was working as their 'd'f wouldn't even dream of having them if he thought it made my life easier.

I was very lucky that I worked for a very sympathetic boss who did his best to work everyone's shifts to suit them. (Admittedly we only had about 7 support workers to consider). So I preferred to work a late followed by an early so Mum could do school pick up one day and drop off the next without me/the dc feeling like we'd missed any time together.

Is that something her company would consider? Then you can work around her shifts, dc get equal time with both of you.

The cms is a very very blunt tool. Which doesn't work for anyone it seems.

@Hemingwayzcatz

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.

Stating that CM is the law doesn't make it a good or just law.

The law stated that my mother's first tax rebate had to be paid to her husband, that was the law then, it was wrong and fortunately has now changed so a woman is allowed to have her own finances.

The current rules state that if I have our children 5 days fewer than my ex then she can demand I pay her ~£5000 per year. If however I had them 5 days more than her then I could demand she pays me ~£7500 per year. To me this seems insane when we share other costs, and saying it's the law does nothing to justify it.

If you think the law as it is makes sense when it can actually push children into poverty rather than helping them (obviously not my current circumstances) then we'll have to agree to disagree.

We've not been feuding this last 9 years, I've not rocked the boat for nearly 6 years, but I have had the children consistently asking me for more time. The recent threat of her moving them away is what's brought this to the surface, hopefully in a weeks time this can die down again.

Unless you are running a B&B, adopting a ‘cost price for breakfast’ approach seems a bit ridiculous. They are your children. You don’t rent them by the hour.

^ that’s a criticism of the system, not you, btw in case that’s unclear.

Let the csa decide who pays what. I'm sure the money isn't just for breakfast you are being ridiculous there. Do what the authorities say and stop whinging about paying for your kids for gods sake

*@Whatiswrongwithmyknee

OP you are not doing yourself any favours when you keep not mentioning the other things this covers like music lessons, shoes (unlikely to be as little as £40 per child over a year) and hair cuts. You might consider these costs irrelevant but they clearly are not. If you want to get people on board then you need to be honest. This isn't and is suggestive, fairly or not, of someone who is dismissive of other people's views. *

A quick check on the Clarks website suggests £40-£50 is reasonable for a pair of school shoes. I'd expect them to last at least September to July - they have so far for all 3 of my children. Other shoes/ trainers / wellies/ beach shoes etc I obviously buy.

Music lessons are actually pretty significant I'll accept - it turns out the total for their 3 sets of lessons and instrument hire is £250 per term.

Haircuts - last time we sorted them my ex got angry at the kids about it, so yes she does it now, the cost is pretty low as someone comes to the house and does the kids with their mum perhaps once a term (DS1 gets very shaggy between cuts) so £30 a term?

Honestly, where do you people find the time to argue over this shit?

I’m 10 years on from splitting with my ex who cheated on me when our DDs were 3/6 months old.

There is some serious bitterness and high conflict from the pair of you and if you think you’ve shielded your DCs from that, let me tell you, you’re wrong.

They’re in Y6.

Cafcass and likely the Judge would want to speak to them this time due to their ages.

Why would you put them through that?!

I’d expect them to last at least September to July - they have so far for all 3 of my children

Ha! Now you are talking rubbish.

The only shows my DCs have had that have lasted an entire school year without falling apart are Docs. They’re twice the price of Clark’s.

@Sowhatifiam

I’d expect them to last at least September to July - they have so far for all 3 of my children

Ha! Now you are talking rubbish.

I only ever had to buy new shoes in September. My dc had very well behaved feet that grew in the summer holidays.

Actually that's a lie. Ds2 wore a pair for an entire year and then until the Easter holidays of the 2nd year before he needed new shoes.

[quote WafflesnBlueberries]*@Whatiswrongwithmyknee

OP you are not doing yourself any favours when you keep not mentioning the other things this covers like music lessons, shoes (unlikely to be as little as £40 per child over a year) and hair cuts. You might consider these costs irrelevant but they clearly are not. If you want to get people on board then you need to be honest. This isn't and is suggestive, fairly or not, of someone who is dismissive of other people's views. *

A quick check on the Clarks website suggests £40-£50 is reasonable for a pair of school shoes. I'd expect them to last at least September to July - they have so far for all 3 of my children. Other shoes/ trainers / wellies/ beach shoes etc I obviously buy.

Music lessons are actually pretty significant I'll accept - it turns out the total for their 3 sets of lessons and instrument hire is £250 per term.

Haircuts - last time we sorted them my ex got angry at the kids about it, so yes she does it now, the cost is pretty low as someone comes to the house and does the kids with their mum perhaps once a term (DS1 gets very shaggy between cuts) so £30 a term?[/quote]
The actual amounts are not really the issue, the fact that you brush over them is the problem. There's nothing obvious BTW about the fact that you buy wellies and beach shoes.

Ok, hold on. There is a threat of her moving them away? That is a very different issue to child maintenance.

Why are you arguing about the number of nights when there are bigger issues at stake?

You just can't stand your ex can you. That's what this boils down to.

She 'moved another man into the house'. I can't quite get whether this is when you were still there, after split, anything. The wording though is hardly neutral it signals bitterness and anger that you still express. What, a decade later? When you've remarried, had a baby with your new partner...

When you were together bringing in childcare for your children, who were babies at the time, was fine.

Now-
She's using various help to cover her shifts. You've said she's only adult in her home.
You say she uses too much childcare.
That the are they are now, overnights with older woman are implied to be not right in some way.
Something about various people looking after them.

She has early starts, overnights etc wtf do you expect her to do?
She works I imagine. To bring in MONEY to support her and the kids.

Finding childcare out of standard hours is a total sod and costs £££.

Having it all piecemeal is a huge effort to manage.

Been there, done that. Working out in advance. These shifts coming. Ask those people. If can't then... ? Call in favour, find someone else... It's a nightmare.

IF she's minted, ski holidays, expensive area £££ house etc.

I find it VERY hard to believe that she's juggling au pairs, neighbours, child minders etc rather than getting a nanny. Esp given when you were together had nanny.

Your posts just do not come across as neutral.

You have new wife and child. It was a decade ago.

Get over it. And behave like a grown up. Help her out, she will be more inclined to help you out. Communicate and work together as it's best for the kids.

And stop doing maths about fucking breakfasts, warbling on about looking at Hansard to see who involved in the calcs (WHY???), posting online to strangers about it, drop the resentment and get on with life.

What you're doing is tbh not healthy.

''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.'

But you have been bitching on about your ex using 'too much childcare' and saying oh overnight older woman, looking for help childminders etc.

Which she needs so SHE CAN WORK. And covering shifts is a nightmare. I'm not surprised she asking around. She needs overnights and v early morning etc.

So whose the dinosaur here again?

Bit the OP has said he’d arrange contact to support her shift working, he’s not criticising her for working. From what I’m reading he would like to see the kids more, they want to spend more time with him too, she won’t agree to more time because it reduces her CMS. Given they appear to have an amicable, friendly relationship it’s not that she thinks he’s unable to care for the kids.

OP in your shoes (having read your subsequent replies explaining things more clearly), I’d be bloody livid.

@CheeseMmmm

''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.'

But you have been bitching on about your ex using 'too much childcare' and saying oh overnight older woman, looking for help childminders etc.

Which she needs so SHE CAN WORK. And covering shifts is a nightmare. I'm not surprised she asking around. She needs overnights and v early morning etc.

So whose the dinosaur here again?

I'm sorry, maybe she should consider a job which fits in more with family life instead of passing the children from pillar to post. She did have someone to cover the shifts, a husband but she quite obviously wasn't 'Happee'.

50/50 should be the starting point. No monies exchange hands.
However, his ex-wife doesn't want 50/50 she wants £5000 and she uses the legal system to aid her in getting the money.
It has cost this poster £30,000 to see his kids and then upwards of £5000 a yr subsidy.
It's wrong.
His ex-wife has been playing a game of manipulation for 10yrs, it's wicked.

It has cost this poster £30,000 to see his kids and then upwards of £5000 a yr subsidy.

Not it hasn't. It's cost him 15K and he's guessing (not unreasonably) that it cost his ex the same.

and I had to take a crippling mortgage to follow the children so housing costs eat at least half my salary. Then there are utility bills + food + transport and children's clothes, presents, clubs etc. I don't go out, my car is > 10 years old, I rarely buy myself clothes

AKA being a parent.