How to split children’s costs

[sparklypony]

Ex and I have been separated 3 years now and originally agreed to split all children costs like clubs, school dinners, clothes etc 60:40 because he earns more than me. If you add up our salaries his is roughly 60% of the total and mine is 40%. He is now saying he thinks we should split the costs 50:50 now because we have the children 50% of the time each (and always have done since the separation). I think we should stick with 60:40, but am interested to know how others work out how to split costs. Thanks 😊

I cover all costs and have children 28 days a month... I think if you have them fifty fifty, that the costs should be the same

If you have them 50/50 you cover the costs on your own time - so it's a 50/50 split. He isn't required to pay more because he earns more.

I get what other people are saying, but they’re his children. He’s very disappointing as a father.

What does 'entitled to' say the child maintenance payments to you would be if you did it that way?
I would have d thought the higher earner would have to pay a tiny bit more, even if 50/50 care.

@arethereanyleftatall if you have 50/50 No CMS would be payable.

Are you sure @CornishGem1975?

I don't know btw. Just seems strange.

Hypothetically- one parents earns £1m Pa and one parent earns £10k. The courts would want the children to have similar lifestyles in both houses.

I thought cm was calculated only on NRP income, not on a standard living cost, so I would have thought it would be taken in to account, even at 50/50.

Rather than just ask, I thought I'd do it...they do...this was based on the paying parent earning £1m but having the children more than 3 nights a week overnight..

Yes @arethereanyleftatall CMS can't make an order where care is 50/50. CMS is calculated on how many nights a child spends with the NRP. If it is shared equally, nothing can be claimed.

You can of course come to your own arrangement but if you wanted to make an official claim and you have 50/50, nothing is payable.

Not saying it's right by the way, just how it is!

Bizarrely, I wasn't asked what 'my' (as the pretend non paying parent) income was.

Cross post...check it out...

The calculators can't be used for 50/50 shared care. I know this because I have 50/50 with my ex.

It's a bit more complicated too that just "nights" as it's also about day to day care...who sorts school stuff, doctors appointments. The law changed a few years back.

From the government website

Q: What happens if the day-to-day care of a child is equal between a paying parent and a receiving parent?

A: In this situation, the paying parent does not have to pay any child maintenance for that child.

Where can I get more information?
Go to www.gov.uk/child-maintenance

This also explains it

www.evolvefamilylaw.co.uk/blog/who-pays-child-maintenance-when-you-share-custody/

It's not straightforward though, best thing OP can do is get some proper advice.

Why should he pay more? You have kids 50:50, you’re separated so have no entitlement to his earnings anymore. So Childrens’ costs should be split 50:50 imo 🤷‍♀️

I live in a different country where income is taken into account no matter custody and add-ins are calculated for extracurricular and things. It just seems so unfair for kids to suffer because of parents status. The goals of basing it on income is that the kids are affected by the split as little as possible.

That's interesting - I was surprised it didn't include 50/50 as one of the options -just 1 night, 2 night, 3 night, more than 3. I selected more than 3 for both.

For my divorce, we went through mediators, huge disparity of income, not 50/50 - they used calculator for cm, but because of the still huge difference, calculated an extra amount for me. They called it 'spousal maintenance' but could have called it whatever. It was just to make it fair. At no point were either of us asked if the standard reasons for sm applied. It was just granted because of the disparity.

In general, I agree with him. If residency is 50/50 then expenses should be 50/50 unless there’s a huge discrepancy in earnings but in your case there isn’t.

You are separated now so you no longer get the benefit of his salary, what he earns is his business and doesn’t entitle you to a discount; the relationship is over. You are both equal parents so you both need to pay for them equally.

I’m sure any sacrifices you made in your marriage / hits to your career will be remedied in your divorce settlement.

Because you don't know the root of why one earns more. Maybe one party was a sahp whilst the other progressed their career.

Yes but that is a separate issue that will be dealt with in the divorce & her divorce settlement will reflect that.

I'm getting the impression they're looking to work it all out by themselves.
But, yes - op, you need to see a solicitor if you haven't already.

It should be 50/50 if you both split the cost. If you earn significantly less can you get help with your share of the childcare costs?

Thanks all, that’s really helpful 😊

Spousal maintenance is completely different to child maintenance @arethereanyleftatall I didn't ask for any spousal maintenance in my divorce but that will be up for OP to pursue if she thinks she should have it.

If you can't afford 50/50 without hardship, or too tight of a budget, ask him which activity you'll be cancelling because you can't afford to pay any more than you already do.

I can't get over this idea that it's 50:50 based on time spent with each parent - and income is meant to be disregarded.

I understand that's the system in the UK - a very bad one, in my view - but it's shocking so many here agree with it.

(Separated, hopefully soon-divorced mother of 3 here, living in Ireland - my awful ex pays far less than he should to maintain his D.C, courts will increase this tho not enough ultimately. But still better than how it might be in UK)

This is a myth. The court are concerned with needs. They couldn't care less if there is inequality after needs are met. It just normally it works out this way because there isn't enough money to go around to meet needs.

Also, and this is important, if the weaker financial party has the same opportunity to earn the same as the stronger financial party, a court would consider it their problem if they chose not to do so. They certainly wouldn't look to equalise their positions.