To expect DS's dad to pay for his school lunch?

[AquaWipe]

I have NC for this as very outing.

DS spends every other Thursday to Monday with his dad. Obviously, this requires him to drop DS at school every other Friday and Monday.

The maintenance he pays me will drop in accordance with this, as would be expected.

I have advised Ex-P that he needs to provide lunch on these days, the same way as he did previously when the arrangement was every other Friday to Monday, as well as every Wednesday overnight.

However, ex-P has responded that since he pays maintenance, his responsibilities end there and I am to pay for all school dinners. He also claims that the CMS have sent him proof of this. This is contrary to what I have been advised by the CMS, who state they do not get involved in the intricacies of how the maintenance is spent.

So, AIBU by expecting ex-P to provide his son with food on these days?

Found it

AIBU - school lunches http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/amiibeingunreasonable/3733607-aibu-school-lunches

The reason why maintenance drops / rises according to how many days each person has with the child is because the NRP is supposed to be meeting their expenses during that time (also having to be able to house them etc, but that’s as well as).

Therefore it is your ex’s responsibility to pay for this.

However, there are some people you just can’t reason with. If he is prepare to let his son go hungry in order to make a point, then what can you do? Those saying “why can’t two grown adults sort it out” haven’t dealt with the kind of man the OP’s ex appears to be.

I just pay for my children’s school lunches every day - including Dd for who exh claims to have 50:50 with (he doesn’t really, and certainly doesn’t meet 50% of her expenses, hobbies, clothes, uniform etc). I really don’t want exh getting involved with what Dd in particular eats at school as he’d probably give her an eating disorder nitpicking about what she has to eat etc. (Just to note she’s very sensible but he’s a tight git)

What isn’t nitpicking is the OP being miffed at being expected to pay for all lunches every day of the year. It adds up.

This sounds just like my ex. If you're still in proceedings, make it clear that you want everything that could possibly be an argument, written into the order. Ours covers lunch money, as well as shoes, coats, uniforms, snow days, drs appts, method and times of communication...

Blokes like this are such wankers, I’m fuming for you @AquaWipe So, he want the benefit of a reduction in child maintenance payments but doesn’t feel that he should have to pay for meals
for 2 of 5 days??

This is so hard because if you hold out then your child may just end up with no food at school. Would he go that far and be that petty?

Was it the CMS who said that £80 could be deducted for fuel? Either you live a really long way away or that figure is wrong. DH was allowed a variation for fuel when we lived 100 miles away, it was about £2.50 😆 I’d check that out.

If you’re still in court, can you bring all of these expenses as well? Or can you counter claim to the CMS that your ex isn’t paying for these things? Excuse my ignorance if you can’t. It seems grossly unfair your ex can make a claim against you and not you against him.

Ive just seen the post by daffodilandtulip. Also future expenses if your ds isn’t there yet, such as school bus or college bus contributions. It sounds though as if he’s secondary age.

Yes I'd check that figure with the CMS if you can

I agree that that £80 sounds v v high and would check it. As you are in court proceedings you have an opportunity to get this all laid out and have a judge tell him what his responsibilities are. To the pp wanging on about poor nrps being driven to suicide, have a look at the stats on the amount of single RPs in poverty, the billions in unpaid maintenance and the rates of childcare that RPs have to find (even if they get UC ..which not everyone does) whilst the NRP usually gets it for free from the RP.

I agree - I'm saying the cms get it wrong all ends. Lots of NRPs are given fictious arrears and incorrect calculations they're made to pay.

Maintenance is to cover everything apart from the time that the child is with paying parent. Child benefit would pay the school lunches. Child maintenance would pay for bits the child needs. Everyone needs to contribute not just NRP

They sound as bad as each other. He doesn't want to pay more. She doesn't want to pay as she doesn't thinks it's her responsibility and packed lunches have been suggested. Who suffers? Only the child. They're both using the child as pawn. Him to control finances. Her to get more money. If they've ended up in court it sounds like there's more background and no doubt they both blame each other. Who suffers? Child.

@SweetChild0mine do one. You know nothing of the background. I'm not trying to get more money, I just want him to provide DS with lunch.... the same way he would on a Friday or Monday if school was closed

You're whinging he's reduced his payment. You want him to pay for lunch even though you get maintenance and child benefit.

I'm not saying he's right because it's two days lunch, of course he could provide it! But what you going to do if he doesn't? Just not provide it aswell ??

Regarding the fuel deduction, I have no idea how they work it out. He gave them a figure, I shared a court order and they came up with something

I'm not whinging about reduced payments...

You mentioned that he's managed to reduce his payments due to travel and even though he's done that doesn't want to pay for lunch ... it's obviously a touchy subject.

For what it's worth, I'd challenge CMS because they've defo reduced it by a lot and it doesn't seem right. Also leaves you with only £160. It doesn't seem right to me

you can top up the fingerprint when you want with a minimum of £5 but DS manages to practically spend all that in a day even though he takes snacks.....

Sod that for a game of soldiers. DS will have to rein his wants in and fit in with you. He takes a packed lunch, you put £40 a month on the parentpay account so he can get a drink if he is desperate. When the money has gone (in the first week!) tough.

He is old enough to understand his dad is a tight git and you can't afford any more.

Definitely double check this, CMS get things wrong all the time and you have to be really on it with making sure you understand the breakdown.

When my eldest’s dad moved from Yorkshire to London, his reduction was something like £2/3ish per 100 miles or something similar I don’t recall.

@SweetChild0mine 'maintenance is to cover everything " 🤣🤣🤣🤣 it doesn't come close to covering half of everything an RP pays for in the vast majority of cases. Nowhere close. There a reason CMS doesn't specify what it's meant to cover beyond a very general "contribution to essentials". If an RP only provided essentials and notjing else they'd be held up for neglect. All the things that most people agreed make for a good childhood, hobbies, playdates, occasional treats, sports equipment, trips out, more than one pair of shoes..many RPs pay for all of that as well as more than their share of the essentials. CB is hardly a fortune .it might cover bus fare, or lunches but doesn't make up for a lack of appropriate input from the NRP and when you factor in the lost earnings an RP often suffers as a result of being the on call, default parent, the imbalance is appalling in the vast majority of cases. Let's not turn this into "whatabouttery" ..if you think some nrps get a raw deal, start a thread about that.

It is to cover everything and that's why if NRP has kids overnight the payment drops. The child benefit and maintenance plus the same from the RP is what is used for the child. I just meant it's to contribute to everything not it is everything (and £180 certainly won't cover it alone)

Some NRPs get a raw deal. But so do some RPs. It's not fair all round especially where kids are involved. It should be a set amount for a child in my eyes - where parents alone cannot meet this amount then it should be made up by UC (which everyone should be entitled to ensure kids aren't in poverty). The current system is that if kids NRP can't be arsed to work RP gets £7 a week or if child's NRP has died they get nothing. How is that fair to RPs and children in this situation? Forced to poverty where some people are getting £1500 a month off their ex

Maintenance is to cover everything apart from the time that the child is with paying parent.

The days the Father drops the DC at school are classed as his time. He is responsible for feeding them on those days.

Yeah but if he isn't going to the child suffers.

If we take that logic she should share the pittance that is child benefit on a pro rata'd basis.

My point is where does it end?

Her son will see for himself what an arse his dad is in time.

The op has not once said she won't provide lunch if the dad doesn't, so no, the child does not suffer. She's asking if it's reasonable to EXPECT him to, to which the answer is a resounding yes. As for CB, if you only have parental responsibility 4/14 nights, there's plenty of spare time to go and earn a few quid extra to make up that difference. I'd far rather have that autonomy than be so limited in my earning potential as many RPs are, and therefore reliant on the CB. Again, most NRPs don't contribute anywhere near 50% of costs so the fact that the RP gets a bit of assistance from CB is fair enough.