CMS

[Runto]

I live same building with my kids and ex.
We have a big flat , where the kids are, and a small flat, where I stay.

I see the kids and support every day for homework music food and we go out to play sport every day.

Only thing
The kids don't sleep as mine , because the flat is a bit small. It is possible for them to sleep in my flat but is is just less comfortable than their own bed , one couple of stairs up.

The mother is claiming child maintenance because she says the kids don't sleep at mine.

The mother had a job, is from a wealthy family ( inheritocratie

Given the fact that I am involved 100% in there life I

So even on 'your days' she has to be the on duty parent every night because they stay at h

I do think it’s 100% relevant if she comes from a wealthy background. The comments on this situation are revealing and, to be honest, a bit disheartening. The mother's wealth plays an important role here. The focus should be on what’s best for the children—not the mother’s interests, especially when they seem to be in conflict, as they are in this case.
If the father is consistently present, spends quality time with the kids, takes them outside, and covers all expenses when they’re together—while the mother is already financially secure—why create unnecessary tension in the family over money she doesn’t even need, just for the sake of "principle"? As I mentioned, the mother herself framed this as a matter of principle. Frankly, some of these comments are just unreasonable. @ArminTamzerian, @DarkHollowTree , @EnhancedVampireEyeballs , @HaddyAbrams , @Willyoujustbequiet @MmeChoufleur Who thinks it is weaponising legality at the expense of family peace?

CMS isn’t about providing financial security for the mother. It’s about providing for your kids.

Just because mum is financially secure (whether through hard work or dumb luck) it doesn’t absolve the father of responsibility to pay for his kids.

It is a matter of principle. You have to support your children. You're their father. You dont get out of your responsibility because their mothers family has money.
You seem to think you deserve praise for spending time with your children, playing with them. You don't. That's the minimum required.
You also have to financially support them.

Where's your pride?

Her family wealth is absolutely not of any relevance whatsoever.

Both parents have a legal duty to financially provide for their children. The father must adhere to the law as it stands.

If he doesn't like it he is free to apply for a court order for 50/50.

Why do you think you should essentially get paid for taking your own kids outside?

You haven't told us who pays for the flat - mortgage, bills etc.

Do you feed them breakfast and dinner? Do you pay some of the bills for the large flat? Do you buy their clothes? Toys? do you pay dinner money? School trips? Uniform?

What was unreasonable about my comment?
I said the blunt tool, one size fits all, of the CMS doesn't always work. Not, in this case because of the mums wealth, but because you could realistically be spending equal amounts.

Which is why I mentioned the housing costs. Presumably hers are higher. But possibly not.

If she's incredibly wealthy and you're so poor, as the picture you're trying to paint.... How come you've both got in the same building?

So do you buy 50% of their food, uniforms, clothes, pay half the bills for their flat where they sleep and shower etc? Not just days out and holidays, all the boring day to day costs, like their share of the electric used at home?

She has a job and is from a wealthy family and you think that absolves you of contributing financially?

You says she's greedy, well its swings and round abouts because you're a tight fuxker.

So the other parents pays the high rent and bills because they have to have the extra bedrooms and house the children. In my area it’s at least a £300 extra per bedroom. Not taking into considering food costs, school costs, extra curriculum, clothes etc.

wow, you’re a weekend parent, the ‘fun’ parent whilst the other parents does the hard work you PLAY outside with them. How about do the hard work aka parenting? You live in the same building, share the costs 50/50, share the parenting 50/50.

@PaintYourAssLikeRembrandt.
I don't think I should get paid to look after the kids. how do you come to this conclusion?

I think it's perfectly acceptable your wife wants to nail down a specific financial contribution from you each month, as your contribution to all the above, and more. And the law agrees.

The current situation sounds a bit ad hoc tbh. The fact you're arguing against having a clear CMS agreement in place suggests you're aware the current set up is more beneficial to you than her.

It really is of no importance what her family background is - the children are jointly yours, and should be funded by you jointly, not by her & her parents.

You don't want to pay maintenence because you take them outside.

The mortgage for the flat, the larger flat is paid already. been paid when the couple was together. However the flat below, the mortgage is not paid yet. They own both at 50% of the property but because the father lives in the smaller flat, he pays 100% of the mortgage installment.

@beesandstrawberries
a weekend parent is, I believe, a parent who is available on the weekend only? here the father is available, every day and provides support and play with the kids or help every day. so not a weekend parent.

The father, who has kids who like the outdoors, spends far more time with the kids outdoors (sports) than the mother. The CMS only looks at night spend. it is wrong. is it not? The mother does not need the money.
isn't it a case where the money is legally justified but it is family irresponsible to create tension in the family for money you don't need?

@HaddyAbrams . sorry.

So you’re not one of the parents?

@Wahsingday you said "CMS isn’t about providing financial security for the mother. It’s about providing for your kids."
The father provides for the kids... when they are out, the father pays for everything when he is with the kids.

Who pays for the children’s food, clothes and shoes? Who pays the sports fees and if a car is needed, who pays for the running and repair of it?
I get that you are putting the time and care in but children cost money and are you contributing 50% of that?
If you are then I think she is being unfair, if you aren’t then wake up and smell the cornflakes, those things aren’t free!

What about the bills where they live and sleep? Clothes etc

So you think that because your ex is wealthier than you, that you shouldn't be responsible financially for your own DC?

Where do the kids eat - who’s paying for that
who buys/makes the kids lunch
who buys breakfast
who pays for the heating, gas, electric
who buys the clothes
who pays for the school trips

my guess would be mum, you need to pull your weight financially as well as playing outside with them.

paying for them on your days out is irrelevant and something all mums and dads do.

As you should.

You should also contribute to their living expenses as you have zero overnights.

A bee in your bonnet about your ex being rich doesn't absolve you of your financial responsibilities towards your kids.

It’s your comments that are unbelievable!

You say your ex has a wealthy family. Why should her wealthy family pay to raise YOUR children? You also say that your ex works part-time for extras. If she was so loaded, why would she work for pocket money?

Her family could be paupers or royalty, it is your responsibility to pay half the cost of raising your children. It is your ex’s responsibility to pay the other half.