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.

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'.

Nice world you live in whereit's easy to get new job in a role which can be shift working. Not sure what the 'happee' means - you're suggesting people should just stay with their partners no matter how unhappy it's making them? Seems a bit 1950s tbh.

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

Just want to check OP. If there are 39 school weeks and your ex has 2 kids for 2 extra nights each of those 39 weeks, then do you not actually have the kids for 78 nights a year less per child or combined 156 fewer nights a year? (39x2x2)?

So the £6886 is for 156 nights, music lesson, hair cuts and shoes (at the very least). You said school dinners are £2.75 each but it seems that only one of the extra nights your ex has them in term time are before a school day and music lessons are £750 a year. So assuming hair cuts are £120 a year for both kids and that shoes really are £80 a year for both. Also assuming that music lessons are the only costs (i.e. no music/ exam fees), then you need to take £1057 off the £6886 to find what is left per night. That leaves £5828 which is £37 per child per night for breakfast and the other costs associated with them staying with your ex more than with you. Quite different from the £175 headline figure? Or £76 if you are quoting for 2 children. Have I misunderstood?

@Whatiswrongwithmyknee

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.

No, it hasn't cost his ex anything, because he's effectively paid for her court costs via his maintenance. He wants his children 50/50. There should be zero subsidies for either party.

And we haven’t heard the wife’s version of events here, it’s very easy to say that she’s doing this for five grand but let’s be honest if you were earning the kind of money that a consultant earns and you had somebody competent available he was able to make your life easier and let you get on with the job in hand five Grand is peanuts to her.

Do we actually believe that she’s doing this out of pure spite ?

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

Not guaranteed at all. When you’re the nrp there is so much that affects the relationship. When you only see your kids part of the time you simply cannot build the same quality of relationship. Then there’s step parents and parental alienation- even little comments can be detrimental.

To reduce a parent- child relationship to “pay and they will love you” is ridiculous.

He wants his children 50/50.There should be zero subsidies for either party

He doesn't have his children 50/50, therefore legally, maintenance is due.

[quote Socialcarenope]**@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![/quote]
This

I agree with WafflesnBlueberries that the system should be fairer. However the CMS percentages are one of the few areas of divorce law with at least some clarity so at least people can look at x% of net salary. Even then there are complications for people who are paid via rent from homes they own or low wages deliberately from family companies their parents own or people who go abroad deliberately or give up work and let the new girl friend/wife do the work so the ex gets less.

Divorce division of capital is very hard to assess as the test to be fair is in my view far too complicated given most people cannot afford lawyers. If we had complex well written internet tools that gave couples their starting point with say 100 variables you could type in that might be better for starters and perhaps a decision instead of court based on the papers only that could be cheaper.

The bottom line is in the bible with Solomon - you cannot cut children in half and give each parent half. Also most teenagers do not want two homes. They want one base where their stuff is. The idea the children stay in the one house and the parents take turns living there puts children first but is not at all popular with parents of course.

In a sense I was lucky as my children's father chose not to have them one night a year and paid and pays nothing. At least there is no dispute over that and we had our court order on finances without any court hearings and "just" £20k of solicitors' fees (that was paid entirely by me as the higher earner -I paid both sides' fees)

@Xenia

I agree with WafflesnBlueberries that the system should be fairer. However the CMS percentages are one of the few areas of divorce law with at least some clarity so at least people can look at x% of net salary. Even then there are complications for people who are paid via rent from homes they own or low wages deliberately from family companies their parents own or people who go abroad deliberately or give up work and let the new girl friend/wife do the work so the ex gets less.

Divorce division of capital is very hard to assess as the test to be fair is in my view far too complicated given most people cannot afford lawyers. If we had complex well written internet tools that gave couples their starting point with say 100 variables you could type in that might be better for starters and perhaps a decision instead of court based on the papers only that could be cheaper.

The bottom line is in the bible with Solomon - you cannot cut children in half and give each parent half. Also most teenagers do not want two homes. They want one base where their stuff is. The idea the children stay in the one house and the parents take turns living there puts children first but is not at all popular with parents of course.

In a sense I was lucky as my children's father chose not to have them one night a year and paid and pays nothing. At least there is no dispute over that and we had our court order on finances without any court hearings and "just" £20k of solicitors' fees (that was paid entirely by me as the higher earner -I paid both sides' fees)

We have shared custody it works very well, in fact over the Xmas period they stopped at mine for 10 days straight, went back to mums, and then they came back for a further 5 days.

They have 2 homes, fully equipped for their needs.
I cannot fathom why if the other has no parental issues, why the default is not 50/50 shared custody.
The legal system has a vested interest in whipping up business by having both parties at each other throats.
We didn't even have mediation, we agreed between ourselves, although in the beginning, she attempted via the solicitors to turn the whole event into a battle.
However, I snuffed it out pretty quickly.

Thanks @39VodselForDinner for pulling the OP on his lack of logic.
He presented his case in such way that he gets his ego stroked for being badly treated as his ex.
He's having them 2.5 days per week on school weeks.

Wow. You've done your homework.

No, it hasn't cost his ex anything, because he's effectively paid for her court costs via his maintenance.

But if that's the case then he can't say that the maintenance he's paying is just for breakfast which is the argument he wanted to make.

@Whatiswrongwithmyknee re how many nights "extra".
(excuse me those who find any numbers distasteful but I'm answering a point about numbers in a thread that started about finance.)

It depends how you define extra, I mean "extra over 50-50".

Equal time over a fortnight is 7 days.
If the kids are only with me 5 days a fortnight then I'd say they are with her 2 extra nights a fortnight or one extra a week.
So they are with her 1 night extra over 50-50, but she has them 2 nights more than me.

Similarly if two people each have £1000 pounds and Alice pays Bob £100, then Bob now has £1100 pounds so has an extra £100. Bob does now have £200 more than Alice though.

However you look at the numbers, I think it's too much but I accept I have to pay, and so unless she or the courts say otherwise I'll continue to pay.

Thanks for the messages of support from many of you.

Obviously as expected I took a lot of flak for complaining about maintenance in this predominantly female sphere, where I know many mums will have been abandoned and will not be being paid the money they need to care for their children. The tone/coherence of my vent, was probably not helped by its nocturnal nature and having shared a bottle of wine before hand :-) - also Mum's net - where's the edit function???

I got criticised for caring about numbers instead of the children's needs - I don't care about money but I do care about what I can and cannot buy - and I generally spend on my children because… what else would I spend the money on?… I have children.

I also care about injustice, and yes like most people who've been divorced I'm scarred by the experience. However I know justice is often a pointless destructive goal, and the experience of my first marriage has made me a stronger person and a better more appreciative and more diligent husband.

I'm not consumed by bitterness, my ex is not evil, she too is scarred, both by the divorce and, I believe, by her upbringing which has left her thinking being controlling and abusive is normal and needed to deal with useless men.

I do not want her to change her work so she can care for the children - she worked hard for her job and I want her to continue setting the example to both DS1 & DD that women can have good demanding jobs that they shouldn't have to give up when they have kids. Some childcare is fine, but the quantity feels wrong when it's at the expense of time with me and their brother and step mum.

Most importantly yes we have shielded and continue to shield our children from any conflict pretty effectively. Until the age of 8 they were still pestering us to all move in together - mum, dad and step-mum - they do now know that's not how most families work. I don't know how normal it is, but it is possible to have disagreements with your ex and to switch off those thought processes when you're around the children. I wasn't seething and biting my tongue when I last saw them with their mum. I know children (and animals) can pick up on moods even if your words are polite - I was happily dropping something round, chatting about the pandemic and admiring DD's latest creation.

Here's an attempt at a clearer explanation of my views on how Child Maintenance should work - trying to remove the personal from it, and not mentioning breakfast.

I can think of three reasonable possible starting points for maintenance. With the aim of meeting the children's financial requirements. (yes I'll agree that sometimes calculating their financial requirements is tricky.)

a) Both pay equally
b) Both pay according to ability, (so if Alice has twice as much money as Bob she pays twice as much)
c) Pay according to the child's need. (Where the would the money benefit the children most?)

To me c) seems the most important. If no maintenance was paid my children would not be in need so I'd say a) or b) should then be considered. On balance I'd then think that a) made sense - both parents can pay their share of the children's financial needs without hardship, so although my ex earns more than I do - and I have greater outgoings (another child), I wouldn't think it fair to ask her to pay more, I'm equally responsible so should pay for half of their financial requirements.

Other views expressed in this thread seem to be:

d) Absent fathers should pay. Any parent who has a day less than equal time is an absent father. If there's exactly 50-50 care then dad is a "good parent" so no maintenance needs to be paid, even if mum is penniless.

e) There is no such thing as shared care. All children have a primary carer. If the children spend one night a month less with the secondary parent he'll no concept of the cost of childcare and cannot share costs 50-50. He should pay, it's not just food.

f) The law is the law. It's perfect and always has been. We should never question it or suggest changes.

The current law seems to be d), it does not take into account the vital point c) - "where the would the money benefit the children most?", it seems solely to be targeted as a simple way to make "absent fathers" pay. It's also unfair with respect to a) and b) and by its nature works to inflame tensions and discourage parents from working together in amicable shared care. It forces people to "count nights".

I don't think I'm "some sort of free thinking anarchist," but I can't understand point f). Yes I understand the law and will follow it, but if I think it's wrong I'll argue for change even if I know that change won't help my family.

Changing the law would help families in future. It would help children who need more support from their fathers. It would help not hinder, parents who even after divorce want to share responsibility and work together on the best and most important task in their lives, raising their children.

I actually think that the children's financial needs are in many ways irrelevant.

The point is that you pay according to your means. Now in practise I pay >50% of my salary out in child-related things, and my ex pays

You have missed the current state which is paying a percentage of YOUR income.

The calculation of nights is a blunt instrument, but then so is the income calculation which is not varied unless income changes by +/- 25%. Annual reviews of income are rarely accurate or timely.

The percentage of income owed is net of pension contributions and can be further reduced due to additional children in the household of the paying parent, even if those children receive maintenance from elsewhere. These could also be considered unfair.

Why should your children receive reduced maintenance because you have chosen to have another child?

That is without addressing the issues of CM avoidance through fraud, working cash in hand and lack of enforcement.

If you are looking to change the law to benefit families in future, these changes would certainly benefit many.

I cannot fathom why if the other has no parental issues, why the default is not 50/50 shared custody

50/50 is about the parents. What is ‘right’ and ‘just’ for them. It rarely has anything to do with the wants and needs of the children concerned. One of my children wasn’t even born when my ex walked. The suggestion that he should have had 50/50 is abhorrent in those circumstances. Ditto small children who have been mainly in the care of a sahp suddenly expected to be half their time with a parent they barely know and who knows nothing of their routines, Other children don’t cope well with the constant chopping and changing and some parents refuse to do things like play dates and parties which leaves a child outside of their friendship group. I am not sure a default 50/50 is the right way to go at all

if you are looking to change the law to benefit families in future, these changes would certainly benefit many

Yep. I am all for fairness but whilst we have a system where thousands of children have no support from one of their parents - my children are now 12 years and counting - I can’t get worked up about perceived unfairness because the ex earns more (which is what this is about when it comes down to it) when payments are within the law. There are way bigger issues with the system than this.

@Sowhatifiam

I cannot fathom why if the other has no parental issues, why the default is not 50/50 shared custody

50/50 is about the parents. What is ‘right’ and ‘just’ for them. It rarely has anything to do with the wants and needs of the children concerned. One of my children wasn’t even born when my ex walked. The suggestion that he should have had 50/50 is abhorrent in those circumstances. Ditto small children who have been mainly in the care of a sahp suddenly expected to be half their time with a parent they barely know and who knows nothing of their routines, Other children don’t cope well with the constant chopping and changing and some parents refuse to do things like play dates and parties which leaves a child outside of their friendship group. I am not sure a default 50/50 is the right way to go at all

timtab.com/50-50-custody-not-working-negative-co-parenting-effects/

Here's an interesting which discusses shared parenting and debunks some myths.
I think it's quite balanced.

[quote WafflesnBlueberries]@Whatiswrongwithmyknee re how many nights "extra".
(excuse me those who find any numbers distasteful but I'm answering a point about numbers in a thread that started about finance.)

It depends how you define extra, I mean "extra over 50-50".

Equal time over a fortnight is 7 days.
If the kids are only with me 5 days a fortnight then I'd say they are with her 2 extra nights a fortnight or one extra a week.
So they are with her 1 night extra over 50-50, but she has them 2 nights more than me.

Similarly if two people each have £1000 pounds and Alice pays Bob £100, then Bob now has £1100 pounds so has an extra £100. Bob does now have £200 more than Alice though.

However you look at the numbers, I think it's too much but I accept I have to pay, and so unless she or the courts say otherwise I'll continue to pay.[/quote]
I'm not sure what you mean here but you don't mention the word 'extra' in your first post so this doesn't really answer the question. You said that My ex is suggesting I should have our 2 children for 5 nights + 2 evenings a fortnight, in term time (equal holidays).

This appears to mean that you have them for 5 nights a fortnight. Your ex then has them 9. Never mind 'extras' which is not really relevant for CM which is about actual time with parents, not relative to a 50/50 standard.

If so, even if we ignored everything else your ex is paying for from the maintenance, can you explain how this makes £175 per breakfast?

Your ideas about how to make the system 'fairer' don't seem fair to me.
a) Both pay equally
Most mums do much more than 50% of care so entirely unfair just to expect each parent to pay half. Also does not recognise the career hit many mums take when they are the primary carer . These issues equally apply when the father is or has been the primary carer .

b) Both pay according to ability, (so if Alice has twice as much money as Bob she pays twice as much)
This fails to separate our money needed for basic living costs so will unfairly burden lower earners.

c) Pay according to the child's need. (Where the would the money benefit the children most?)
Not workable at all not least because who on earth would decide where the money will benefit the child the most?

To me c) seems the most important. If no maintenance was paid my children would not be in need so I'd say a) or b) should then be considered
Parents should be paying because they chose to have children not just when the children are in need. That would be a devolvement of responsibility.

On balance I'd then think that a) made sense - both parents can pay their share of the children's financial needs without hardship
you'd have to be pretty daft not to know how complex it is to really establish exactly who is paying what with some costs being more indirect/ muddled up with other household costs.

so although my ex earns more than I do - and I have greater outgoings (another child), I wouldn't think it fair to ask her to pay more, I'm equally responsible so should pay for half of their financial requirements
I agree with you here.

*Other views expressed in this thread seem to be:

d) Absent fathers should pay. Any parent who has a day less than equal time is an absent father. If there's exactly 50-50 care then dad is a "good parent" so no maintenance needs to be paid, even if mum is penniless.*
Nope, it's that NRP - male or female - should pay. You can try and see this as sexist in a bid to dismiss views but it's really not.

e) There is no such thing as shared care. All children have a primary carer. If the children spend one night a month less with the secondary parent he'll no concept of the cost of childcare and cannot share costs 50-50. He should pay, it's not just food.
You say this but you also leave it to your ex to sort out instruments, hair cuts, shoes. The reasons why you've done this are neither here not there - she does take more responsibility than you.

f) The law is the law. It's perfect and always has been. We should never question it or suggest changes.
Nope - people are saying that no system can be perfect. A system which protects children who have absent parents who pay nothing and then are living in poverty are the ones the law most needs to protect.

You shouldn't have had kids if you are going to not like paying for them. Use contraception in future or get sterilised.

@WafflesnBlueberries

If the kids are only with me 5 days a fortnight then I'd say they are with her 2 extra nights

But that's not accurate nor mathematical is it?

There are 14 nights in a fortnight, so if you have them 5 nights your ex has them 9 nights. Almost 2/3 of the time. You have 35% She has 65%. You are the NRP. Most of that over the weekend?

You should be paying CM. And that isn't perfect though it's law- it's well known that it is far less than DCs need, it's a minimum that government set. What parent thinks ooh this minimum amount is all I'll pay for my DCs whom I love?

It's not "£175 per breakfast" - you've argued a blinkered point.

It's about the RP who has to have rooms for DCs, the extra bills you are failing to consider, (she pays that whether they are there or not as she has them lost or the time), the bulk of all the mental load and lack of freedom, having to put your career second & move your work around DCs, the one who has to find money for everything that "just crops up", the childcare and to be responsible when they are ill that she is first call and takes time off. Does the medical care and appmts.

It limits your career, your time and whilst it's great you have them 5 nights a week, it's the mundanity and slog that looking after DCs is, is that really an even split between you? I'm not sure when you say it's a £175 breakfast that you really comprehend anything about caring for DCs. You have new DC but that doesn't change existing DCs you chose to make still need you, and their needs don't change if you think it should be watered down as you can't afford all your children! Don't make new DCs then!!

Your posts are intelligence misused. There's academic and financial intelligence. And emotional intelligence; parenting intelligence. They are all different and your posts make me think you spectacularly miss the point.

That fabulous mind of yours could be better used finding better solutions and creating a strong Co-parenting bond between you and your first lot of DC's mother. I bet you can do it if you choose.

I just can't help but think of you really wanted your DCs 50:50 shared care and you dropped the money issue, you would find a way forward.

She has the bulk of the expenses and you throw so much facts based on money calculations that you miss the extras, the adhocs, the responsibility that comes with being the RP.

I know so many families with equal shared care, that I find it difficult to believe if you weee truly flexible and around more for your first DCs that a judge would have found different. But we can't know all the details of what s/he (judge) took into account.

If you really are in a good place now to be able to flex around these great children you have together what they need and as you say they are telling you they want more time with you, then apply to court and do it cheaply. You can be litigant in person and not use expensive solicitors. For then grand price of the court application £300 ish , you are perfectly able to advocate. (But I'd drop the money calculation fog as that is never what it's about when a judge looks at what is in best welfare interest of the children involved.)

timtab.com/50-50-custody-not-working-negative-co-parenting-effects/*Here's an interesting which discusses shared parenting and debunks some myths.I think it's quite balanced

written by what kind of expert? we haven't used the term 'custody' in this country for over 30 years now. Any suggestion that a baby should share care makes credibility questionable - no understanding whatsoever of what baby's need in their first 12 months in terms of primary care givers.