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

That’s not what I asked!

I actually have a bit of sympathy for you if the mortgage on the large house is fully paid and you are paying the full mortgage on the smaller house. But this post makes you sound like an absolute tool, so I suspect in reality you are not a great person.

Anyway, you have choices to solve the situation. Apply to court / agree with other parent for overnights at yours, a provide a more comfortable bed for the kids. Require that the large house is sold, split between the two of you and then take your share of the money (unless ownership of house has already been dealt with in divorce and you got mor cash etc in return for her keeping the house). Stop paying for anything outside of maintenance. Lots you can do.

The wealth of her family is entirely irrelevant to your responsibilities to pay for your children and fixating on it makes you sound like a tool.

This person seems to be doing everything to fit their narrative of playing victim. They obviously don’t want to pay maintenance and instead of doing 50/50 of all parenting and all costs they’re making every single excuse of why they can’t. Plus they’re ignoring all the questions about who pays for the clothing, school costs, food etc

@cadburyegg That was quite a long email for such an early morning—was it a bit therapeutic, maybe? It honestly read like a copy-paste from a conversation you’ve had with your ex.
Anyway, to answer your question: the father is not paying for half of the things listed in your very detailed breakdown. He covers phones and some clothing. Let’s be generous and say he pays for 25%—or even just 10% if that helps make your point. But remember, I did mention that the mother is significantly wealthier than the father due to inheritance—generational wealth.
Also, when the kids are with the father, he pays for everything during that time. So yes, I’ve answered your question.
Now please answer mine.
Let’s set aside the above situation for a moment. I’m asking you, @Cadburyegg:
Which of the following cases would you rather deal with—purely in principle?
Please rank them in order of your preference.
after that Now imagine you’re in a position where you’re under no financial stress—present or future—thanks to inheritance.
Here are the three cases:

1. A father who provides both time and financial support for his kids but gives a fair bit of drama.
2. A father who is always present, deeply involved, but doesn’t contribute financially, no drama.
3. A father who sends money when needed, but is not involved in his kids' daily lives, no drama.

(And please—don’t tell me you don’t have time for this after sending me a midnight essay. ) Disclaimer: none of these cases relate to the generic case. This is just a separate, yet relevant question, which helps me to understand what is going on.

Your ex's source of finance is none of your business. You've admitted you don't pay 50/50 for bills for YOUR CHILDREN not your ex. And you want father of the year award? Good lord.

Threatening drama if you contribute to your kids living expenses doesn't make you a good dad.

You seem to think you're superior to other men because you spend time with your kids, and that you should be financially rewarded for that.

@beesandstrawberries. Doing everything to fit their narrative is a human trait. if you believe in the myth of objectivity. I don't. (I repeat this to my kids every day. Objectivity is a myth)
However, I do believe that the interest of the kids here should be paramount.

Now back to the case above, I did state that the father is spending at a ratio of 90/10 time outside/outdoor with the kids. But, as you know, there is no legal requirement to count the number of hours you spend with the kids in the cms. Only the nights counts. you seem to have no issues with that. I called "status quo bias".

So who are you in this situation? Are you the father or not?

But CMS is to cover your share of the living costs (that you say you don’t pay for, other than phone and some clothing and whatever is needed on your time).

CMS can’t assess each individual case (and yours is quite unusual). That’s why it bases it on the amount of nights you have the children. How else can it have a generic formula?

It may not seem fair to you but CMS won’t change the rules for you.

So you either go to court and have them more nights (reducing your CMS payments or cancelling them out if you get 50/50).

Or just pay what they say?

Her wealth does not come into it and you can argue all you like but that won’t change anything.

I think you need to sell both properties, each buy your own and then have 50/50 custody split. That way there are no grey areas regarding where they stay.

Why on earth do you think because you parent that means you don't have to contribute financially?

Just pay your ex or have the kids 50/50. All this 90/10 outside bollocks is confusing. Yes, you see your kids sometimes and giving them fresh air but that's not going to keep them fed sheltered, clothed is it? Just pay your way and stop going on.

I'm starting to wonder too.

@Runto I could almost see your point about you doing a lot, but having to pay purely on overnights.
But you're sounding less and less genuine here. Your ex is paying most of the children's costs. That's why you have to pay CM.

You know, none of your 3 options are fair. You could be present and pay towards your DC. Like their Mum does.

It reads more like the father's new partner.
If that's the case my advice would be to stop interfering. It's for the parents to sort out.
If it is the father writing about himself in the 3rd person, that's just plain odd. But tbf all the OPs posts are odd, and getting odder.

Why would you paying towards your children’s upbringing “disturb the peace” unless you’re a raging arsehole who causes trouble just to control your ex into dropping a CMS claim, and causes pain to your children in doing so?

It’s not an either/or, you can pay and still be a decent father and not make a fuss about doing your moral duty to your kids.

Stop saying that The Mother doesn't need the money, its irrelevant and CMS will not look at that
The point is you should contribute towards your children financially as much as you are able to and spending time with them doesn't absolve you of that.

The drama is a choice you're making, so take that out of the equation.

I thought some of the stories about men on mumsnet were pretty poor. But this behaviour really is the dregs. Pay for your bloody kids, it doesn’t matter how wealthy the grandparents are.

Are you divorced yet? If not then get divorced and sort out finances and ownership of the properties. It may well be that you can afford a larger place where they can comfortably stay if you split the capital according to what assets you both have.

At the same time apply for an order that your children spend 50% of their time with you if you really can't see why child maintenance is paid to the resident parent based on how many nights they need to house them.

If they don't want to do that then you have to accept that you need to pay the CMS rate to their mother towards their living expenses there and 100% expenses for the time they spend with you.

The father should accept his responsibilities and pay to help support his children. Everything else is irrelevant.

Absolutely this.

What moron thinks playing outside has got anything to do with making sure each child has been bought new school shoes? Or fed. Or all the other costs of thousands and thousands each year that a child brings.

The same moron, presumably that thinks it matters that his ex's parents have worked hard and become successful so should be paying his own children's expenses... so he doesn't have too.

No wonder this hero is an ex.

1. A father who provides both time and financial support for his kids but gives a fair bit of drama.
2. A father who is always present, deeply involved, but doesn’t contribute financially, no drama.
3. A father who sends money when needed, but is not involved in his kids' daily lives, no drama.

Can I vote for a father who provides both time and financial support, but isn’t a dick so doesn’t cause drama.

Id also suggest that any man refusing to contribute towards his kids is by that very fact causing drama and discord.

@Wahsingday

Thank you for rating the cases. That last vote wasn't one of the original options, but fair enough—I'm sure that type exists. It just wasn’t included in the choices I offered. Thank you, I really appreciate it. (let me think about your rating, I will come back to you)
I’d like to make a point: when a mother with no financial need—present or future (thanks to inheritocray)—seeks CMS from a father who is fully present and actively involved in the children’s lives, that may be legally justified, but it’s family irresponsible. You could also call it:

• Using legal entitlement without family consideration,
• Prioritising legal rights over family harmony, or as I’ve previously said,
• Weaponising legality at the expense of family peace.

What I find especially interesting is how many people in this group seem to believe that the wealth of the resident parent is irrelevant. Honestly, when someone says “money doesn’t matter” in a discussion like this (or any discussion for that matter), they often lose credibility in my eyes somewhat. That’s just "desirability bias". I also think some people here are reacting based on the usual “default narrative,” rather than actually engaging with the specific details of the case. So I’ll repeat a key point: These kids have open, easy access to their dad. They can go to his house anytime, raid his fridge, dig into the biscuit jar, and argue with him about anything, whenever they like. That’s not your standard absent-parent scenario. @HaddyAbrams—I don’t really understand the argument being made in response. But let me break it to you gently: life isn’t fair. That’s exactly why a super-wealthy mother can legally demand child support from a less wealthy father who is already giving his all—just not in pure cash (That the mother doesn't need). To me, it is the blatant corruption of the CMS.

@Spirallingdownwards Thanks. it is ongoing.