Dad seeking opinions on CMS and custody payments

[DryRiser]

I'm an ex-DH seeking input on custody costs etc, so you can go to town on me if i'm AIBU. 😂
I earn £100k pa, and my 3x DS will live with 50% of the time. Via the CMS calc we have worked out I should have to pay £613 pcm (which i'm happy with), and i'll also cover all their costs when they're with me, and likely the majority of shared costs (school trips, new trainers etc)

All of this I'm okay with, and I want the best for my kids, I just want some opinions if i'm under or over selling my contributions?

Context: ex-DW has a very low income, and will be on benefits when the time comes (at the moment i'm paying for everything). She knows she'll have to get new better paying job, but it looks like i'll still be paying CM.

tar

Well, it is. But in practice getting an exact 50/50 split is extremely unlikely. The common understanding is that it's only nights but there is more to it than that. In a hypothetical situation that was 50/50 on the nose it would be 0. But very unlikely in practice to happen.

I’d say a bit unfair to you tbh

@Pyroleus That argument would carry no weight in a court in a needs case. If someone wants to claim that they gave up a career and they want to be compensated for that, two things would be necessary:

1. They'd need to have had the foundations of the career that they claimed they lost. E.g. someone who was flipping burgers couldn't suddenly declare they could have have a stellar legal career; and

2. The person that they are divorcing would need to be earning enough to compensate them.

In the vast majority of cases, neither 1) nor 2) applies. First, there are normally not enough assets to go around and neither earns enough to pay the other maintenance in excess of child maintenance. What then tends to be much more common is that potential recipients of a larger share of the assets try to exaggerate the impact that staying at home or working part time has had on them (i.e. in reality they lacked the qualifications or desire for a career that was going to progress during marriage and they still don't want to get better qualifications or work full time now) whilst the potential loser will underestimate what they earn. That's a typical case. The high flyer who gave it all up; I've never seen such a case and can count the published cases with this set of facts on one hand.

Thanks Lurgy, i'm not seeking financial advice on how to invest my money or choose the right insurance scheme, i'm seeking input on how much to give to my ex so that's it's fair. I'd like to go through the rest of our lives knowing that we did right by each other and our children, despite the circumstances

@ShinyShona absolutely I agree it wouldn't stand up in court. OP asked if we thought it was fair, and I don't think it is. I was arguing morally rather than legally.
I also agree that one party may have worked harder prior to marriage to establish a better career, whilst the other focussed on partying/travel/whatever. Obviously that's not something to ignore either., and should be factored in.
But the point stands that OP would likely not be earning £100k now if he had had 100% care of his children from the moment they were born, so SOME element of his current and future earning power is because of his wife's contribution.

You're right, the internet is a great place to locate your moral centre.

My suggestion would actually be to use mediation and get a Consent order.

Everything sounds amicable now, but she could change her mind and want a lot more. Or your income could go down, or hers could go up.

If you want a Consent Order without using expensive adversarial lawyers who can muck everything up, you may wish to try amicable.io since they are legally aware but remain “impartial” and unlike lawyers, they don’t make more money by drawing the parties into a fight. They give “legal information” and can help to project-manage the divorce process.

You should be aware, if you do that, they may point out that since her “needs” are not as well met by earnings as yours due to her lower earnings power, she may have a case to keep more than 50% of of assets. Conversely to that, however, if you have 50-50 care then the case to pay her a monthly child maintenance amount may be more than she could expect.

Also, while your thinking in terms of common family interests is commendable and for the best if you can maintain it, you need to bear in mind that she may at any point in time stop taking any account of your interests (or you of hers for that matter).

For this reason, I think a Consent Order is the only way to get a clean break and protect both parties against potential unexpected financial claims in the future. It costs a bit of money and aggro upfront but I think it is well worth it.

Not always. Someone I work with is a high earner they have to pay despite 50/50

It's not always about "working harder." It's just the unfortunate reality that some fields pay much more than others and some degrees access those fields more readily than others.

I'm afraid I'm a bit skeptical that the OP needed their ex to earn £100k. I know plenty of parents who earn north of £100k whose spouse or partner has also always worked. It's a common claim but I've never really seen any evidence to support it.

I think it's more true to say it's neutral at best. Yes, money on childcare has been saved. However, by one person deciding not to have a career and to stay at home that has still tended to result in less income for the family, less pension savings, less mortgage capacity and a lower ability to earn when the children are older. I'm skeptical of the argument that this has amounted to "supporting a career" more than using daycare would have done.

Well I guess it's very varied between couples. If I had worked full time since having kids, DH and me would both have had to cut our hours because there is no childcare available in this area. Additionally DH works unsociable hours sometimes, so if I wasn't here he would have had to leave his job (which pays much better than alternative options locally) and therefore he'd now be earning less. Every couple's situation is different, but OP will know to what extent that's true for him and his wife.

I think you are behaving very decently and what you’ve suggested is fair / good.

ultimately the children should be very point of focus - it’s clear you don’t want the kids to suffer and to have a reasonable lifestyle in both homes.

Fair play to you for doing the right / decent thing

there are lots of thread on here by women with ex husbands who seem to be earning double or triple what you do and are jumping through limited company hoops to pay £50pm and see their kids every other weekend like the gobshites they are.

I agree with this. Obviously there are cases where the SAHP was a bit of a waster and ended up at home by default, but equally there are many cases where BOTH parties agreed that what they wanted for their children was someone at home. IMO it's completely reasonable that the person who stayed at home, in the expectation that they would have financial support in the long-term from their spouse, should be compensated in the event of divorce.

Even if there was no stellar career beforehand and the spouse isn't a huge earner, a 10 year gap on your CV is a massive issue. If I want a parent to be at home full-time with the kids and I want that person to be my DH, so I can stay in my career, surely I should expect to have to look after him to some extent whether we stay together or not? Otherwise what is the point of a marriage contract?

For me it's not just about supporting the career, it's about the fact that both parties agreed someone would stop working to stay at home, on the understanding that they were a family unit who would look after each other financially.

I'm skeptical of the argument that this has amounted to "supporting a career" more than using daycare would have done.

Whilst I agree with much of what you say, I disagree with this. The ability to come and go as you please, take nights away on a whim, not have any commitments for pick up and drop off is hugely advantageous. My DH simply couldn’t maintain his career without me doing ALL those things and my legal career is undoubtedly less stellar because I have to, yes, I still work and still have a career. But if tables were turned and I was able to have the freedom and flexibility he does I’d 100% be able to progress, it means picking a family friendly employer and not being able to take trips or do evening marketing. It means being able to drop everything at a whim.

It’s insulting to any primary carer to suggest that daycare can replace them in their entirety.

Again, I'm skeptical. Did they both agree to the same extent? Or did one decide and the other get told? I'm always a bit surprised when I hear this argument because I don't think it would be human nature for most people to walk out on a newborn because they disagree with their partner's career choices. It's more likely that they disagree but lump it and resentment builds over time. That seems more plausible to me.

Absolutely that’s a factor too. Who took the “hit” has been the source of many discussions and we have revisited it as time went on. Our finances are treated as a whole not two halves or uneven shares.

When you’ve been together many years often things evolve over time. My situation is in part a result of DH’s business folding during Covid and a desire not to be repossessed. Then we’ve found where we are works. We had to adjust quickly.

I’m baffled as to the comments saying that his ex DW just needs to up her earnings - as though it’s that easy! And implying that people are lying about loss of earning potential! An example of how you can be university educated (have career potential) and then lose out when you supported your ex’s career: I know someone who graduated from university with a group of peers and took 4 years out to raise children (born close together). By the time she got back into the industry, every single one of the peers she graduated was 2 to 3 promotion levels above her. It has been 4 since and while she’s gone up 1 level she is nowhere near catching up still.

Can she move anywhere in the country and do whichever hours are required to work her way up?! Unlikely. The window of being able to put absolutely everything into climbing your way to the top almost entirely closes once you become a SAHP. Being older and more senior after your ex has done the nappy and nursery years is an amazing place to be in - and his ex DW will need to give up a lot more than her ex did without having a supportive partner to hold things down at home.

As the original OP i'll jump in here with our situation. My Ex-DW decided to take voluntary redundancy at the point of her return to work from first child (10 months later). We discussed it together and I offered that we'd be okay on my salary alone, and it would allow her the flexibility to start her own freelance business without any pressure.

There were plenty of times over the years, especially as the kids were at school, when I would have welcomed her to go back to work, as we would have had more income (I work at home a lot so childcare would not have been an issue).

But I never put any pressure on her, never even asked her. There's no doubt though that her decision has allowed me to focus on my career fully.

It’s fair.
You’re very supportive of your children and it’s obvious that’s paramount to you. Do what you can to make the divorce easier on your kids. Stability is everything. Arguing over money that ends up being swallowed up in legal fees is unfair to the children. I’m glad you’re not doing that.

There are also benefits to the family and children in having a focused primary carer, those benefits can’t just be cast aside in favour of economic benefit. There’s more to parenting than your ability to financially provide. I’m not saying that’s your view OP as you sound pretty balanced and reasonable.

Have you not met men who actively want their partner to stay at home full time, or perhaps to have an extremely part time job? I know loads, my DH included. It’s a great benefit to the working person and the family as a whole if the SAHP is doing everything at home.

Tbh though I think regardless of who decided, the point of marriage is that you throw in your lot together. There has to be protection for people (mostly women) who are financially dependent on their husbands on the expectation of being married forever.

@Fanpango No, I haven't. I'm sure they exist but I think their existence is greatly exaggerated by Mumsnet. Most couples I see divorce both work full time. When there is a stay at home parent, in most cases I've seen it has been where they couldn't earn enough to cover childcare. I've never - personally - seen a case where someone has given up a well paid career to stay at home, although I know they must exist.

It's not all that an important factor though because it only really becomes an issue when there are plenty of assets and income to go around. Which would far exceed the means of the type of clients I see.