This is going to be a divisive one...

[TeaAndWine]

Interested in opinions and ways to deal with this. Will try to be succinct.

4 DC between 5-13. We have them two nights in the week and EOW, plus lots of times one on their own for sleepover etc.

DH pays what is set out on CMS but is officialy through the CMS if that makes sense. We just used the calculator on their website. Plus extras for trips/uniform etc.

DH's ex wife is going with a friend to Disney Orlando for two and a half weeks in September, without the kids, so we will have them that time. No problems, I'm quite looking forward to it.

The kids have been to Florida as holiday many times before, and this will be around her 15th time going. Odd to me why of all the places to go in this world without kids you would choose to go their again but hey ho, horses for courses etc.

My question is - Surely if we're having the kids for nearly three weeks DH should not be expected to pay CMS while she's there? That's effectively giving her spending money. Our bills for food/days out etc will go through the roof.

We simply cannot afford to pay the CMS that month and to have them. The CMS is just that - for the children. Who we will have.

We have them numerous other nights that have never been taken into account with the calculation.

I think part of me that I'm happy to admit is bitter as she's never worked a day in her life, even before she had kids, yet we can't even afford to go for a weekend away despite both working full time, but perhaps that's a different thread.

Would we BU to say we will be paying CMS for the one week she has them that month? As the money is for the children, who will be with us nearly the whole month?

Open to hearing thoughts. Don's tin hat

But he's not paying the minimum! He's also paying for half of extras!

Exactly! There seems to be a lot of skim reading going on from people determined to dig their heels in over whether the minimum maintenance is enough. They're not paying the minimum, it was clear from the OP that they are splitting extras above that rather than claiming they are covered by the maintenance.

This thread is becoming ridiculous.
Bottom line is the OPs household won’t be able to pay maintenance, pay for essentials for the kids while they have them for an extended period AND pay for any extras to make sure they have a nice, fun time while their DM is at Disneyland of all places without them.
It sounds like they will be pretty much stuck in the house eating the cheapest of cheap food, no doubt being treated to pictures from their DM of all the fun she is having.
And OP and her DH are the bad ones for wanting to make sure the children don’t suffer? And DM is quite right to take that money from her children?
Ok then...

No way! The maintenance is for the children’s upkeep.
If you are looking after them, she shouldn’t get any

Thank you all for your responses. I think it's all got slightly detailed as it always does on SP forum with talk of 50/50, mum not working etc etc.

I do not think we are being unreasonable to ask for a 'deduction' of three weeks to account for the time she is on holiday. That's what this comes down to.

I do not think we are being unreasonable to ask for a 'deduction' of three weeks to account for the time she is on holiday.

Yes but the 'deduction' forms part of the annual analysis of CMS. It's not something you get to unilaterally withhold because she's dared to go on holiday.

You can of course ask, but she's perfectly entitled to say no.

I think it's bizarre that so many people think contributing to 'extras' is so praise worthy.

@Snowfalling20 can you honestly not read?

OP I don't think this is as divisive as you think it is. Maintenance does not pay 50% of the cost of raising the kids so she's paying more than her share all the time the kids are with her. Whether she does that through inheritance, benefits, working etc makes no difference and isn't relevant. This is 3 weeks where you have to make sacrifices in your lives for the kids. I don't think you have any grounds to ask for a few weeks off

I think it's bizarre that so many people think contributing to 'extras' is so praise worthy
No one is saying it's praiseworthy - people are saying that he's paying for extras therefore the extras are not coming out of the cms.
@TeaAndWine - I'm sorry if I'm one of the ones contributing to the detailing - I'm just honestly confounded by some of the responses you're getting.

@kitk
She’s likely paying way less than 50% of the kids total costs. Her ex has them nearly 50% of the time. Her ex still pays maintenance and half of extras. Her ex left her with the house and so has to pay to house them almost 50% of the time while she doesn’t have to bear that cost. He also covers the rest of their expenses while he has them.
Over and over and over again this has been said.

recalculate number of nights including the holiday and if it changes the bracket, change the payments. don't just withhold for the holiday.

@kitk clearly you missed the many pages of people expressing divided opinions, then.

@cohle you don't find him having them 50/50 or very close to whilst also paying the maintenance set for someone having them less as well as splitting all significant extras, havinh also left his ex all the assets from their shared home, remotely praise worthy, so it's hard to tell what would be enough for you tbh.

If all of the children are at school I really don't see why their mother cannot go out to work. Or do something. So does she just live off benefits and maintenance payments? What does she expect to live off when the kids are grown up?
I don't know how maintenance payments work because my ex pissed off abroad and refused to pay any so I had to work fulltime to support my child.

Sorry for the derailment OP with talk of 50/50, I know things often get derailed with these sorts of threads but in this case it is highly relevant that the contact is so close to 50/50. It means that there is already a disparity between what he should be giving and what he is, and changes the answer to whether this cost should just be soaked up based on the assumption he is already not giving enough. Context does change things.

Maintenance does not pay 50% of the cost of raising the kids so she's paying more than her share all the time the kids are with her
He pays for the kids directly 48% of the time when theyre in his care. Doesnt that count?

@AlexaAmbidextra
@getyourarseoffthequattro

Well, I actually do agree that the mum should look for part-time work now, as her youngest child is in school. But I can see that having four children must have presented significant barriers to working in the past, especially as it seems that she doesn't have any prior work history. The childcare costs and complications vs her marginal income would have been huge.

They both chose to have a significantly larger than average family, which is going to take more than an average income to support.

The point I am making is that the OP shouldn't be the one stressing about money, considering how to economise or having to seek advice from mumsnet. It should be the father of the children doing that 'dad work'.

you don't find him having them 50/50 or very close to whilst also paying the maintenance set for someone having them less as well as splitting all significant extras, havinh also left his ex all the assets from their shared home, remotely praise worthy, so it's hard to tell what would be enough for you tbh.

Of course I think CMS should be calculated accurately. I just think that's an entirely separate issue from whether OP's DH should unilaterally stop maintenance for three weeks because his ex has gone on holiday.

I really don't think we know enough about the divorce settlement to form a view on whether he gave his ex the marital home from the goodness of his heart. I imagine the ex wife would have a pretty different side to that story.

I dont get why posters are finding it hard to understand that he has the kids 48% of the time. The argument of "maintenance doesnt pay half the cost of raising a child" is relevant when one main carer does the bulk of caring and say other parent has them eow, but that is far from the case here.

50/50 requires no maintenance but 52/48 requires a payment of half of what it costs to raise a child in maintenance as well why?

I imagine the ex wife would have a pretty different side to that story
The reason she got a mortgage free housr and he got shite all are frankly irrelevant. The fact she got it all and he didnt is relevant - not the whys and wherefores.

The reason she got a mortgage free housr and he got shite all are frankly irrelevant. The fact she got it all and he didnt is relevant - not the whys and wherefores.

But you have no idea he got "shite all". Just that she got the house.

Nor do we know what they respectively contributed initially to the purchase of the house.

I dont know that he got shite all but house vs no house is an incredibly big difference

Nor do we know what they respectively contributed initially to the purchase of the house
No but we do know shes never worked and i think if shed have paid for it single handedly op would have mentioned that.

The fact is she got a house and he didnt and whichever way you look at it puts her at a huge advantange doesnt it?

So if the NRP has the kids for 2 weeks of the summer holiday as part of the agreed contact and calculated in the days allowance for CSA - then he should reduce it again.

My EX does this and it fecking sucks. Not that he has the DCS much - it is petty and childish. If Ex went into hospital for surgery would you ask the same?

stuffed does your ex have your kids 48% of the time and pay maintenance and extras on top??

Its not petty and childish when the extra days mean youre having the kids over 50% of the time is it?

Op is having the kids over 50% of the time and paying the ex for the priviledge. Makes no sense to me.

He pays more than minimum, in terms of trips, clubs, uniforms etc on top of money
He has contributed whatever his share of the house would have been
He has the children more days than is reflected in the CS amount
He and OP have so little disposable income that feeding 4 kids for 3 weeks in addition to all of the above will put them in deficit.
The ex is using her disposable income to go on holiday for 3 weeks.
During that time their Dad will do his usual time plus the extra while she is on hol.
During that time she will not be feeding 4 children, using gas and electricity to wash them or their clothes, keep them warm or use petrol to run them about.

The OP and her DH will pick up these costs.

Why should they?

@Magda72 with respect My exh pays me the Irish minimum as specified by the court. is not comparable at all to the CMS. The Irish minimum through the courts is based on what the children need and what both parents are able to pay and who they live with. CMS is the minimum enforceable amount outside of the court system in the Uk and as such has a very low bar, it was never meant to replace the court system which you went through and which is much fairer.

You will mostly likely be receiving far more than the Ex in this case.

This whole thread is a muddle because the OP has said it’s 50/50 when that is a whole different course of action. The OPs DH should then go back to court. It does not excuse petty withholding of 3 weeks minimum enforceable money because the Ex dared to go on holiday by herself.

It still stands that the OPs DH who is being lauded for what... paying the minimum enforceable amount for four children, is already being subsidized by his Ex. So what if he pays for a few extras? It’s hardly going to bring his maintenance up to half the amount those children cost.

Or a fairer way would be for both the Dad and his Ex to look at how much the children cost, and who can pay etc. Then split that fairly through the courts instead of CMS. It will be a truer reflection.