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 😊

That was nice of the mediators. The courts would do no such thing and your ex was a sucker for agreeing to it! SM is only paid where there is a need and certainly not to achieve equality.

Needs is exactly what it was @BetterFuture1985
What did I 'need' from him to allow the girls to continue to live their good quality standard of life; in both their homes.

Right. So nothing to do with equality. Presumably both households have less than optimal income so it was shared out.

In my divorce my wife had only just returned to work. Along with CM and UC she had almost as much income as we'd been living on before. Without me and my commute in the picture she could easily cover the bills. I earned more than her but she couldn't prove a need for it so no SM. She tried of course but she didn't get it.

You are right - I used the wrong word initially, I didn't mean to make it fair, I meant needs.

I sought SM because it didn't sit right with me to receive UC, when 'as a family' - our financial pot didn't need them. My ex thought the same.

I’m glad for your sake he’s an Ex. He’s mean - imagine not wanting to contribute what he can, in accordance to his means, for his own children!

That's very noble of you but you're both shrinking your children's inheritances. We looked at things rather differently. When we were together only I worked and compared to a dual income household on the same income we paid thousands of pounds more in income tax every year (something like £8k more than a dual income household receiving the same). We both agreed universal credit was a perfectly justified way to get the money back so we were treated fairly with other families.

I have to say I see this attitude a lot here and it is very odd. This is a situation where the childcare is 50/50. Why is everyone having a go at the father for paying his half and not the mother for getting upset about having to pay her half? I would at least want to know why there was an earning discrepancy before I passed judgement on him.

I would at least want to know why there was an earning discrepancy before I passed judgement on him.

What do you mean? Why?
There just is - he earns more than her, why shouldn't he proportionately pay more for their joint DC needs?

Why are the kids needs more because someone earns more? They're not.

Because decent parents want to give their kids the best opportunities they can. They don't think 'ah, never mind dc, you can't do ballet because your mum can't pay her half. Oh well, I'm off to golf, laters.'

@CornishGem1975
We surely all give our dc the best we can afford? So, we dont deny them skiing lessons if we're millionaires because they don't need them?!?

@BetterFuture1985
I wouldn't see my way as noble and yours as only fair. I'd see mine as absolute base level social conscience, and yours as unscrupulous.

What would the split be like if you both paid for the childcare each of you needed?

Well, first of all I'd want to check mum was maximising her earning capacity. Hypothetically, if he was working full time and she was only working part time when care is 50/50 I'd point out it wasn't dad's fault that mum earned less.

Another factor I don't know is what the capital split was. If mum got more than dad, dad might have a bigger mortgage.

There are all kinds of things I would want to know before jumping to any conclusions.

You're entitled to that opinion. Of course it's my ex-wife who claims, not me, and she claims not because of our marriage but because she's never had a career. She'd have been claiming whether she ever met me or not and I don't particularly feel like picking up the state's tab for her now we're divorced.

All well and good unless one parent takes the , refuses to work many hours and then claims its the other parent's fault that they don't have any money like my ex-wife did. Sometimes there are issues going on where there is a "refuse to work spouse" who will use the children's welfare as a form of blackmail to get money and eventually you have to stand up to it. It's hard on the kids but normally it gets resolved pretty quickly once the "refuse to work" spouse realises their ex won't be manipulated any more.

Not saying this in any way reflects the OP though.

@arethereanyleftatall

You can’t use CMS calculator for super high income parent’s child maintenance. Beyond about £150/year income - courts assign additional top up maintenance.

In OP’s case - the difference in income is not large enough to argue in court over.
What she can do depends on whether she can afford 50% of child-related costs.

She can just cover it. Or, it’s it’s a stretch, she should tell exH that current amount is the max she can afford and he needs to decide which activity they are cutting - and He needs to let the children know, as it’s his decision.

I would at least want to know why there was an earning discrepancy before I passed judgement on him.

At the risk of feeding the troll, I’ll bite on this - have you EVER considered the sexist structural disadvantage most women face in terms of jobs and salaries, especially when a woman has children.

Furthermore, there’s also the complementary phenomenon that when a man has children, his salary goes up, while the children’s mother’s salary goes down. For men economists call it the “marriage bonus.”

Interesting that the first thing you jump to is that the woman is lazy or on the take.

This notion of when people have children the woman’s salary goes down and man goes up is rubbish. Yes that happens - usually where a woman doesn’t have a career to start with and is more than happy to give up and usually the man already has a career and would do so with it without a wife at home

its oerfectly possible for women to work and earn well when they gave children ( as I do) but most in fairness chose not to them complain they don’t have a decent job when they need one

anyway, the thread is going on a tangent

op is it’s 50:50 he’s not going to have to pay and will get a vari of he takes it back to court

you either have to agree between you who pays what, cut back of activities or agree who pays which etc, pick up the difference, appeal to his better nature but won’t be awarded based on a small salary difference

Sorry realised this one’s not court ordered. Point stands cms will award nil payment if it’s truly 50:50

Yes, I would consider that too but I would never make an assumption without confirming the facts of an individual case. I wouldn't assume this disadvantage existed just because it happens often. Especially given the efforts my firm make to right this historical wrong; I doubt we're the only ones.