CMS Payments & Child Benefit - AIBU?

[august29]

Hi all

I'm a dad, not a mum, to clear that up before I start.

My wife and mother of our 3 kids thought she had a better offer and we ended up separating.

As part of the financial divide, she has a new efficient 4 bed detached house and new car both paid for outright so no big expenses for her. She also has a 1 bed flat she rents out and a small amount of cash - getting around £350pcm income off this after expenses.

The CMS tell me to give her what works out about 18% of my take home pay every month and she also gets the child benefit of just over £200 per month.

I have the children 102 nights per year, also driving around a lot and helping with clubs and pick ups on other days.

Now, every time they do some club or there is an expense for things like clothing, I am getting a message asking if I will pay half. I want them to have school lunches, but told I will have to send them with the money. Their schooling is located for her benefit, but when they're coming to me I'm getting requests to provide bus money for my eldest (3 different schools mean I can only pick up 2 and other gets bus).

I have been giving extra, but I'm feeling a bit hard done by, so would like some neutrals to offer their opinion and help me out here.

Her house and car expenses are very low because of the financial settlement (and I'm happy with that). We're in quite a cheap area for day-to-day living. She's now working full-time (first time) and on a decent wage. I'm already sending CMS and she has the child benefit.

So, AIBU if I start declining her requests for extra towards clubs, clothes etc. And is it reasonable for me to expect her to make sure she pays for the kids to have a hot dinner at school? I don't want the kids missing out, but feel like I need to draw the line somewhere. What would you expect the cms and child benefit to cover in this situation?

Thanks for reading.

Unless he's missed out lots of detail about what he got in the divorce? Intentionally.

And he doesn't say 'kept' the house. He says 'new house'.

Maths is obviously not your strong point.

I don't know how Google arrives at that figure, but I'm guessing it includes things like having a larger house with bedrooms for the children, furniture for those rooms, a larger car, and clothes. If you're a "part time Dad", you still need all those things the exact same as the Mum. You probably also pay for an annual holiday with the children, Christmas and birthday presents equal to what the Mum pays.

He has the children 2 out of 7 nights, so if he pays in full for those nights and any activities they do on those nights, and Mum pays in full for 2 nights, that leaves 3 nights of the week that they are each 50% responsible for.

1.5 nights per week of extra curricular activities, food and bills does not add up to £450 per month.

I'm also pretty sure my 4 yo doesn't cost anything like £900 per month even including everything above.

I have also lost the ability to make money as the result of her having this settlement, with my income now a fraction of what it used to be.

How come? Why isn't your income the same now?

I don't understand how she can have a new 4 bed house and car both fully paid off and your back at home with your parents with nothing?

Sounds like bullshit to me. Courts don't award all the assets to one party on divorce. I am resident parent and my ex earns 3 times what I do and he still got awarded assets in our divorce.

So the OP either has more assets than he's letting on or he's done something post divorce to lose his assets.

I'm actually laughing out loud at the ops way of spinning things. It's bordering on delusion. The omission of any detail in his favour.
It's actually fairly clever - the first post was written in such a woe is me fashion until you actually thought about what he wrote which was that he didn't think he should pay for his children's costs ON HIS DAYS 😂
I'm also interested in the 'I can't work now' statement. I wonder what this would be from her side. My guess is now he actually has to parent his kids for a third of the year, he's had a bit of a shock, having never done it before. Ditto 'she works full time now having never done so before.' Let me guess - she couldn't because you did 0% if the child care per chance?
Just a hunch.

And to the poster who thinks men get a raw deal - the first response of laughter was spot on.

you have zero legal obligation to pay more.

Go to court for 50/50 op

I notice OP says she now works full time. So presumably she's paying for childcare. I bet child maintenance and child benefits do t cover that plus food and bills for the kids even if her house is paid off.

How on earth did she get two properties and you get none? That makes no sense no judge would order that you must have had other assets/money for yourself

Cms is the legal minimum. When your kids are grown up do you want to tell them you did as little as you legally could or tell them you provide the best you could?

They are your responsibility on your contact days, so travel during this time should be paid by you. Your CMS payment is reduced to account for what you're spending on the kids during this time.

What the kids eat on her days is her business not yours (assuming they are being fed). If she prefers to send a packed lunch, then that is fine. You cannot insist she pays for school lunch and her response of if you want them to have it, you pay seems fair.

The clubs during her time is her responsibility to pay for, if she wants them to go. But she is free to remove them from the clubs if she cannot afford full fees, so it's a judgement call for if you want to risk them missing out. You cannot insist they go but she pay. You should also be paying for anything they do on your days.

Cloths at her house are her responsibility, while cloths they have at yours are yours. Unless you are asking her to send cloths with them, you do not need to pay for new clothes.

However, I'm almost certain that your ex will be paying more then 18% of her income on stuff for the kids. Kids are really expensive. A good parent would pay what they can/ what is needed, not the least they can get away with.