To reflect that ‘some chase ex for their salary not child contribution

[Genuinethought]

using ‘ ExDh’ as example as most common situation

Wondering genuinely …

If I was to work out how much extra having a child live in my house ( accounting for the cost of having an extra room for them )
would likely not come to around £500/ £700 a month, what I generally hear is paid in CMS.

Reflecting on the ‘ french private school’ related trending post…

I have seen many people chase and chase for exDH salary….when In reality there is no way that they are spending £700 a month on having a child ( the exDH £500 and £200 contribution of the other parent- due to the fact that the child costs is supposed to be shared , (accounting for them having child more frequently )

I wonder further about this, particularly when people live in a mortgaged property that is going up in price, yet the parent that has paid towards that housing will never have a claim on it …

When I stop and think the cost of my child’s room
their food
clothes
activities
holidays
savings
I just can’t see how it totals £500-700 every 30 days?

when you separate you may loose the ‘ bonus’ of another’s potentially greater salary… continually trying to access it, beyond what is realistic , seems unfair
AIBU

Hmm… No I didn’t see it as this, correct.
But I will always wonder if SOME people chase the Non resident parent for extra, not for the child’s benefit , because they don’t see why the EX should have more money than them

It's also childcare costs. And it's very different if you are one of the rare lucky ones who has an actual co-parent, not some half arsed unreliable abusive nob who you cannot rely on to be available for doctors, dentists, haircuts, provide a holiday, school emergencies, have them when they're ill, have them reliably when you work, have them if you're ill....etc

My career has been severely impacted by single parenthood. I work less hours, paid more childcare and have all the mental load and none of the breaks. I earn at least 20-30% less than I should and ex pays me £250 per month while he has 3 holidays a year leaving me in the shit childcare wise every time.

It is not just half the costs. It should be fucking compensation if they're not remotely pulling their weight.

Rant over.

My DD's music lessons were over £300 a month alone! In fact despite being an adult, dd is still costing me over £1000 a month (university rent, food) so of course exh gives me money. I get spousal support to reflect giving up my career to move ever 2-3 years for his too.

But as others have pointed out, the resident parent has their earning potential massively restricted compared to the non resident parent, and childcare isn't allowed for in maintenance calculations. Why shouldn't they (effectively) receive some financial compensation for their sacrifices?

Men get to walk away and live their best lives while women pick up the pieces and build their lives around their children. Damn straight the ex should be contributing.

It’s not just the tangibles, it’s the care of the DC too. Often while the NRP can pick up a lifestyle that is almost like they were single again the NRP has their life permanently second priority to their children (as it should be for both parents).

So yes if DH and I split I would expect him to respect that if he chose less than 50/50. I would also expect contributions that are normally made to young adults, uni, housing, driving license.

Ah yes, women must be gold diggers. Why else would they want more than strict subsistence? Are you also going to muse about haircuts, handbags and gin, moving on to how they should provide receipts?

You forgot nails. Usually it's nails.

But why should the NRP have more money than them? Why should the NRP be living comfortably, hoarding their money, if the RP struggles to comfortably feed and house their kids? As many others have said here, it's about making sure the kids standard of living isn't affected and I can't see how it wouldn't be if all of the money their parents own is kept with the one they live with the least.

@Genuinethought

Just a stab in the dark, but are you romantically involved with someone who has DC with an ex?

You sound far more invested than “just idly wondering” 😂

The NRP will always have more money (provided they have a decent enough job) and TIME and LESS STRESS which sadly isn’t valued at all.

I don’t agree that people necessarily want more so the NRP has less. They want more to give their children more.

But you don't buy all those things for children every month except maybe the phone contract.

However did you guess

The reasonable expectation is that the child has the quality of life and standard of living the parents can afford to provide, based on their income. So if a father is a billionaire, it's reasonable to expect that he pays more towards the child he fathered, as he would in an intact family where the child was a dependent member of the household. Not a pittance so the child can survive.

What's remarkable isn't this expectation, it's the fact that it has to be made compulsory via CMS because so many fathers and their subsequent partners begrudge it and wouldn't pay if they weren't forced to.

@therealcookiemonster

You spend £500 on food for 1??? I spend about £400 on 3-4 adults and I don't budget

Yes… this is where my confusion lies

Sorry to disappoint you but no…. I’m afraid your the predictable one to try and ‘ rumble ‘ me …
I’m someone who I recognise from this post budgets well and know that when you separate ‘ what’s yours is mine’…. Is no longer…
interesting how no one has commented on the increasing equity in the house that the Ex wouldn't have claim to but is paying for ( the roof over the head)

I’ve learnt a lot from this post….

It's not about what expenses are made every single month.

It's what does it cost to give the child a standard of living commensurate with their parents' income, divided by 12.

OP what were you hoping to get from this thread?

If the ex was a millionaire then the kids could maintain the lifestyle by living with him.

But then …
divided by two.
it seems that many responders say that what their Ex pays doesn’t cover everything …
It shouldn’t

I've no direct experience but it's rare the courts will simply sign the family home over to the mother (to continue the sexes from your OP). It will be taken into the general pot and either the mother buys the father out, or the father retains a share, or the house is sold and the proceeds are split. Or, and very possible in the case of a high earning father and SAHM, the house and pension will be offset against each other leaning the mother has the house and the father the pension.

(Open to correction from more knowledgeable posters.)

Surely the big cost you're missing is childcare op? That's the killer before they child is school age.

Why should the father be completely free to earn and work as much as they want during the week with the mum paying all the childcare or taking a minimum wage job for the flexibility?

Men shouldn't be able to walk out on their responsibilities and the CM should continue to accrue even if they're not in work. I'd take it out of their state pension entitlement if they can't or won't have the cash before that.

You sound like my ex husband. He wanted to see my utility bills and receipts for ds food, leisure activities and clothes.

Even his solicitor told him he was an idiot and that was ridiculous.

Following your logic you should also factor in the cost of time caring for the child or children left with the resident parent. At current childcare prices that would be thousands of pounds a month.

Thank you for all your replies.
sorry for those of you that haven’t had what you are legally entitled to, that is rough.
I set out to understand if people
still want more than half of what I experience as enough to raise a child I feel I have my answer so will leave the post now .