I separated from my children's dad several years ago and have a new partner now who I live with.
Their dad has them three nights a week and pays child maintenance based on this. He treats it like a chore - when it's not one of 'his days', he doesn't want to know, and he will stick to the bare minimum end of the 'three nights a week' band (156 to 174 nights per year) - if he chooses to do an extra night (e.g. on holiday with them), I 'owe' him it back. I've told him the rate he pays is reduced because he's expected to pay for what the children need on those days, i.e. childcare and lunches, but he insists that's not the case and refuses to pay towards any of the 'extras'.
I'm in a position now that if I committed to having the children on those days, I wouldn't need to pay for childcare, but instead it's costing me £20 per week in childcare and over £5 in school lunches. During term-time, this could add up to just over £100 a month, which is a little over two-thirds of the child maintenance. He seems to think the remaining third covers everything else and rarely contributes to anything additional, such as school trips, as a result.
Is my understanding correct? It'll not change anything even if it is, but it'd be nice to know either way. I just feel bitter that we are expected to stretch our money so far. He sees our household with two incomes and seems to think we have infinite money, but we're having to watch every penny we spend whilst he wants to take the children on at least one foreign holiday each year, so it's not like he's living in poverty. His mortgage is far smaller than ours due to money he's been gifted over the years, and he has extra income from a rental property. I try to be decent to him, for example he gets free travel for him and the children through my work which must have saved him £100s, if not £1000s, over the last few years, so I don't think it's a case of 'tit for tat'.