Ex disputing CMS and making rival Child Benefit claim in 50/50 care

[fixatedplanet]

Hi all,

I’m really struggling with this and could do with some advice.

We’ve had a proper 50/50 week-on/week-off arrangement for the last 4.5 years. The boys (14 and 11) split their time equally between us week on/week off and we’ve always split the costs of shared things 50/50. He does his bit when they’re with him and I do mine. It has been working fine but....

The issue is income. I earn around £60k and he earns well over the £156k threshold. Because of that, even though it’s 50/50, I applied to CMS for child maintenance so he pays his fair share (it comes out at the maximum rate, around £800 a month which is a 50% discount as he has them 7 nights out of 14). I thought that was reasonable as his salary is much higher and he should pay more than half.

He immediately challenged it with a Mandatory Reconsideration, which was rejected because I receive the Child Benefit (he gave it up due to the high income charge and then during divorce said I could have it which only seemed fair). Now he’s put in a rival Child Benefit claim for one of the children AND lodged a tribunal appeal with the CMS. He’s basically trying to get out of paying anything through CMS and I could lose some of the child benefit now!!!

We are completely 50/50. He does everything on his time and I do everything on mine. But because he earns more, he should contribute more and CMS should sort this I would have thought, I should not have to go to a tribunal.I have started to gather evidence to try and show that I do more so it gives me a good chance at the tribunal and I guess he is doing the same now. I am going to get a barrister to help out at the tribunal to try and prove I do more but he does stuff too so not sure if that will help me.

I’m worried he might actually get the Child Benefit (even though he can’t claim it himself because of the high income charge) and that the tribunal might side with him. Does he have any chance of winning that? It just doesn’t feel fair because he earns much more than me even though we share all the care equally. He did offer to cover all of the shared costs but I have said no and decided to go down the CMS route as that will be more money than simply covering the shared costs.

Has anyone been through this? Can he really do the rival Child Benefit thing and what are his chances? I guess he has lots of evidence to show that we share care equally and have done for several years but he cannot even claim it so I would miss out! And what are the chances at tribunal? Surely they will see my side of things? He has started to pay me the £800 a month now so I have had a few months payment so far so that is good at least but I am worried I might lose it or be told to give it back.

Thanks in advance.

Didn’t she also get 50% of his pension?

I quite honestly, swear to heaven, do not understand how you took any of that from what I said, especially in context with the thread I was talking about. (I don't know how you know what generation I am, either, but by this point that feels like nitpicking.)

It's ok, I don't think the explanation will improve things. I'll just add it to the list of ways I've inadvertently offended people on here this week. Yesterday it was describing myself as a plain woman. Nothing yet beats the time I suggested fish, blood and bone in the garden rather than menstrual blood. That was insane.

Apologies, misread. Deleted.

I'm with him. You have the kids 50/50. You shouldn't be entitled to his money.

I could understand if op was on minimum wage and he was earning 100k’s that would be a huge gap to try and fill.

But the argument isn’t poverty vs millions.
It’s high wage vs higher wage. With someone who appears to of been openly willing to bridge a lot of gaps between nice and luxury.

It’s not no holidays vs private yachts. It’s nice holidays vs luxury holidays.

And as fickle as some children can be the secret is sometimes the children love the “poor” holidays best.

They often when younger would rather be at Butlins than in Dubai.

Making friends at an all inclusive, in Spain vs just dad on a yacht.

Not saying the yacht isn’t fun but it’s not always going to be their best holiday.

Nobody suggested he would beholden for the rest of his life just until the children leave full-time education.
Which is what he agreed to when he came in her to be blunt.

It ought to be breach of contract.
People ought to be able to sue for it.

But we’re working with what we have for now and we’re not even enforcing that.
And that’s preventing women from being independent and able to make their own money. I could give you example after example as to how my ex-husband sabotaged my ability to earn at all nevermind equally.

And it was all completely acceptable to the family court, positively encouraged by his solicitor for their monetary gain.
And whilst obviously I can’t blame them because the ex had to sign off on it however he wouldn’t have had the brains to think of it himself. That’s how well the system is serving women.
There is a well trodden path and playbook that we see every day on Mumsnet depleting women’s ability to access the legal system by arguing over the children 50/50 even when there’s been domestic violence.
Ensuring that the playing field isn’t level and the money to continue litigation to divide assets has been spent.

And then other women gleefully condone it

Not all men abusers not all women are saints.

Some mothers use their kids to go after money that isn't fair or just or even legal.
Some women alienate their children against the fathers.
Some women would be happy to see the father unable to own a home, unable to take their children on holidays. They would bleed the father dry.

Not all but it happens so what we have is a legal system that tries to ensure no party is totally screwed. It generally is more generous to the mother but obviously no system is perfect.

However, in OP case (and in the OP in the previous system) the father wasn't being underhand, he wasn't making it impossible for the mother to provide for the children.
There was a small disparity in income which had been addressed on financial settlement.

In both cases prior to 50/50 being in place the father had also been paying far more maintenance than required
When 50/50 was in place the father continued to pay maintenance despite it not being required, covered the children's expenses that were his responsibility and contributed to other expenses on too. In OP case he offered to fully cover joint expenses.

When women get greedy and behave underhand - such as in both these cases - they not only ruin the co-parenting relationship, cause unbelievable stress to to father (and his wider family), cause unnecessary and unneeded distress to the children. They fundamentally damage society view of women and make it harder for women who actually are being financially abused by ex and therefore it makes it easier for men who do not financially support the children they produce to get away with it. If these women are able to exercise their legal rights they system is slower due to time being taken up on unjust cases such as this..meaning those women and children in financial distress will be waiting longer and longer.

Your inability to see the difference and to recognise that things are never black and white is why true equality is so hard to achieve.

The law is black-and-white. That’s literally why we have the Law. It is the line in the sand.

Law is interpreted and applied. It's really not black and white. That's why we have judges to assess context and past precedence and processes are often long and drawn out.

The OP has had 4.5yrs to improve her career and income and earning status. In what way is she affected 4.5yrs later by her ex? Her ex husband isn't yours (I should hope).

How is it a breach of contract.. he is looking after his children just as equally as her?

The OP has never mentioned domestic violence... you are trying to change the narrative now. They have successfully co-parented for 4.5 years and now the OP has gotten greedy because she wants lavish holidays.

The OP and her exes assets were already split, and that is where she got the benefit to "level the playing field" by getting 70% of the marital assets versus his 30%. She was also allowed to keep the children benefit for both children even though they should have been claiming one child each.

Obviously if there was a change in circumstances whereby the OP had majority custody or whereby the ex wasn't paying his share of extra costs (which is not the case at all here) then the correct thing to do would be follow up with CMS.

CMS has set parameters, and cannot override the system without a court order. However, assuming the divorce decree was signed off in court, this should actually be enough for the ex to dispute the CMS charge. Instead he's now having to go to a tribunal to get it extinguished (which it will be most likely) and the unfortunate thing for the OP is that she may well be likely to.repay the money she's taking from him in CMS up til that point.

All because she wants a lavish holiday at her exes expense...

And the Law is on the father's side in this instance so 🤔

I'm sorry for your bad experience, but no-one is responsible for the lifestyle of another adult. Both parents have equal responsibility for the child. If the care is 50/50 then the father is already fulfilling his half and based on what the OP says is spending more than she is. Which is fine, the children are not deprived any of the time.

Ok so what has happened now is that CMS have removed my older son from the calculation now and reduced my payments from about 800 to about 600 so I am receding less but still getting 600 a month.

You want to hope ex doesnt claim against you for the elder child or puts in an appeal on the grounds of 50:50

He already has put in an appeal with the tribunal and even if he puts in a claim for the other child I will only have to give him 200 a month in my salary so we claim for one child each which seems fair

@fixatedplanet So once he puts in his claim you will get £400, minus the child benefit you’ve lost (approx £120 a month), that makes you £280 better off?

You only talk about money. How is the coparenting relationship between you now that you’ve done all this?

Good well done for enforcing your legal rights.
Who gives a shit about how the coparenting relationship is? You are divorced from these people. They are no longer your friends.
Even if they pretend to be, they wouldn’t piss on you if you were on fire

I suspect the children care about the coparenting

so yet again, women should be fearful of enforcing their legal rights for fear of upsetting the children
And yet the other Party wasn’t so fearful about ruining the coparenting relationship by knowingly screwing the OP out of at least £400 per month
Ingrained misogyny at its finest
in my experience, the children don’t give a shit actually they know mummy and daddy aren’t friends anymore

My parents divorced when I was 8 and had an outwardly hostile relationship for my whole life beyond that.

Trust me, we gave a shit.

It is quite obviously better for children if their parents can remain at least civil.

Civility would include paying what the OP was legally entitled to without a fuss and without needing to be dragged through the CMS when being presented with evidence that that was the case.
So I presume what you mean is then, is that this other Party will take it in good faith and remain civil whilst paying what he is meant to pay to the other party ?

He was paying 50% of all costs, and had the children the 50% of the time he wasn’t paying for. You’re talking about the man like he disregarded the kids, didn’t pay a penny, didn’t bother.

My dad didn’t pay CMS once in the 18 years it took for my brother to “age out” of it, he left when he was 6 weeks old having had an affair while my mum was pregnant with him. My mum was absolutely correct to think and call him a prick, you still don’t need to expose your children to that hostility.

Thats not who this man is. By OPs own admission, he paid 50% and had 50%.

The £400 you’ve pulled from somewhere may be legally due, but it’s money grabbing from a man who hasn’t stepped away from his children and just happens to earn more than his now ex wife. The law may not agree, but any decent person would.

But my reply to you stands. Even if this man was in the wrong, or in fact the mother was, getting kids involved in your parental disputes or in any way allowing them to be aware that your parenting relationship has collapsed, is unfair and unnecessary for them, and our kids should be at the heart of that parenting relationship. The rest of it is just noise.

So yet again, women have to take the Financial hit and take it up the arse for the sake of civility whereas men can’t just do the right thing in the first place
For the sake of civility
fuck that and if the kids can’t see it when they’re older more for them, not the kind of kids I’d want in my life anyway

I do particularly enjoy the narrative though now we’ve moved away from she’ll never get a penny she’s not legally entitled. It’s morally wrong too.
She has in fact being entirely vindicated.
And now we’re concerned about whether he’ll be all upset and he won’t be civil
And the implication that that’ll be her fault as well
What a bunch of clowns