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

Empty house or not, things like the following need to be paid: mortgage/rent, household insurance, gas and electric daily standing charge and minimal amount for fridge/freeze security lights and alarms etc, tv licence, council tax, internet, phone etc. Also the insurance and tax on her car, which is also for the children’s benefit, needs to be paid.

But she still needs to make a contribution towards her children for those three weeks she’s away. They don’t just go on pause while she’s on holiday. They don’t stop eating, having a wash, using lots of electricity, going in dad’s car which also benefits them, they don’t stop wearing clothes that could end up getting holes in them, they don’t stop potentially losing equipment at school which needs to be replaced, they don’t stop using the internet, or going to clubs, birthday parties don’t just go on pause until she comes home etc etc etc.
Their lives carry on and their expenses carry on. So why shouldn’t their dad have financial contribution from her, whether that’s from docking the maintenance or her giving it him back. He might as well just dock it.

Also, I do think it’s much more important to make sure the children have food to eat while she’s away over things like her car insurance being paid. Like I said, they don’t stop eating.

@SebastienCrabSauce it must be quite easy living in your world, where everything is black and white: you don’t make money, you’re less productive/important/your contribution counts for nowt. Does that go on the end of a rant about how easy it is to raise 4 kids and if it isn’t, the mum must be incompetent?

Look, my point stands, it doesn’t matter if the mum is mortgage free, if she doesn’t work, if she has the kids ‘almost 50/50’. In an ideal grown up world it’s not tit for tat. In an ideal world the parents sit sown and work this fairly.

@BuddahAtSea in my world?
I’m a single parent raising 2 children 10/14 days and actually bearing the financial brunt of raising them.

The OP is trying to be fair, which at the moment it is not.

The mother sounds, quite frankly, spoilt

There is no reason for any parent not to work in a 50/50 care situation.
It’s a choice. Just as it’s a choice to spend her money on luxury holidays without taking her children.
It’s hard to be sympathetic to parents like that to be honest

Thank you @SebastienCrabSauce you've made some very good points.

Oh goodie, my first 'stay out of it', what a milestone! I'm surprised it took 5 pages.

Cool, I'll continue to feel the impact of the exes financial choices whilst working every hour god sends, not being able to afford a trip to France for my mum's 70th, constantly looking for when people invite me to.thinhs to see if it's close to payday, and having to tell the kids that no, we can't take them to Centre Parcs, but let's.camp in the garden. What larks!

I'll stay out of.it when it doesn't effect every single aspect of my day to day life thank you.

Op some people on here are very anti stepmum’s feelings. Telling you to stay out of it but I bet your time and money is very welcome...

And like you say, working all hours while she doesn’t, and she’s the one who gets the luxuries. It’s a bit of an injustice if you ask me. Can’t see why anyone would jump through hoops to justify why she is hard done by. I think it’s quite disgraceful how she can swan off for three weeks and technically not have to provide for her children in that time, knowing you will pick up the pieces instead. I’d be mortified at myself if I was her.

It is because the ex is independently wealthy (inheritance) that she is able to go away on holiday for 2.5 weeks. If she didn’t have that money the OP would not be in the position she is in: working to contribute to the children.

I don’t think it fair for one minute that you take in extra expense, feeding them, during that time, and have to compromise your own modest holiday. I would think it fair to cut the maintenance money by half for those weeks, to take account if the non/fixed overheads: food and daily expenses / activities.

Not sure why the ex is being slated for not working. Her youngest of 4 is only aged 5. I'm sure having 4 kids and her being a SAHM while they were young wasn't solely her decision. It's hardly a walk in the park finding childcare for 4 kids or a job that fits in with the hours which suits her circumstances.

@notthisshitagain but their dad has them pretty much 50/50. She could work if she wanted to How do you think other parents do it?

@funinthesun19 I agree with everything you say there. Someone mentioned on this or another thread - can't quite remember - about how culturally ingrained the myth of the wicked stepmother is & it is so, so true. But it's also coupled with the myth of the perfect birth mother who has martyred herself for her children while the man who 'abandoned' her sits on his laurels for the rest of his days spending money that should be hers.
I cannot understand why there are so many women on here who seem to think that a mother's responsibilities should not include financially providing for their kids. It's 2020, not 1820. Of course it's harder for a female rp to progress in a career, but it's harder for any female parent to progress in a career because again, the cultural norm is that the female parent will take up the majority of physical care & very little provision is made for decent paternal leave from the start of family life.
That ANY woman should be financially dependent on any man is a ridiculous,archaic notion & I for one find that idea which is perpetuated on here again & again very depressing.

. I'm sure having 4 kids and her being a SAHM while they were young wasn't solely her decision

😂😂😂 I mean, the fact she's never worked, even long before children, sort of throws that theory out the water.

Thank you @Magda72. I always enjoy your reasoned responses. I myself, like all my sisters and friends, love holding down a job, and knowing that if the worse happened I'd have that. The DSC's love my job, and I like setting an example to them about a woman who's in work. (They've asked me before why I work when daddy does )

I know what this board is like, but there's been some very helpful and enlightening posts in amongst the expected ones..

Not sure why the ex is being slated for not working. Her youngest of 4 is only aged 5. I'm sure having 4 kids and her being a SAHM while they were young wasn't solely her decision. It's hardly a walk in the park finding childcare for 4 kids or a job that fits in with the hours which suits her circumstances

As another poster pointed out, it’s 50/50 care. And age 5 is school age. She really can get a job. It doesn’t even have to be full time, it’s just the principle of going out to work once her youngest is old enough.
She can afford to go on nice holidays while the op is working long hours and gets nothing. And now as an added bonus she will probably have to pay towards this woman’s children while she’s in Florida. Nice!

Actually thinking about it, I don’t see why she couldn’t get a full time job really. Lots of other people manage it!

She absolutely could get a job, there is no question about that.

I'd even be happy if she just volunteered or something, just to contribute, to show the children some work ethic, some dedication
I volunteer whilst working, I would love to be able to dedicate my time to it properly.

It's never going to happen though. She's been seeing someone new for quite some time now and I wouldn't be surprised if she has another with him so she gets another four years excuse.

A mum could be an axe murderer and still be excused as the step mum is always wrong on MN.
The pp saying oh poor mum etc, are you serious? So she’s to swan off to Florida without her kids and expect OP to shoulder the expense of the kids AND pay CMS? I imagine if it actually happened to any of you you’d be infuriated. Yes kids should be supported but to be funding this workshy graspers lifestyle I think not. The OP and her DH are enabling her spending and holidays, why should they struggle so she can have her jolly?
I’m surprised MN aren’t gasping at a mummy leaving her kids for 3 weeks, usually MN take their DC everywhere and break their hearts going for a shower.

OP I kind of sit on the fence as to whether you are being unreasonable or not.

However as things are tight I do think you should just ask mum if you can reduce the CM and position it as it’s so that the kids can have more fun that otherwise.

That way you know where you stand. How much to reduce I don’t know, but maybe start at 2/3 reduction with the hope of 50%.

How reasonable/flexible is she usually?

My main feeling on this is how can she afford Florida if she doesn't work?! Is the CMS reaching the kids would be my question.
That aside without knowing the individual circumstances it's hard to say. Live off value pasta for 2 weeks I know kids are expensive but it doesn't have to cost a fortune.

The days are averaged out over the year, so if you add those three weeks to the usual days you have the DC, would it take you over 50/50 and over the bracket? It would be worth adding up the days you have had them and finding out so your DH could go to her with the figures and say 'technically I don't have to pay any maintenance for the year as I have them more than 50/50 this year, but happy to continue, however not for those 3 weeks.'

Dumb question - but I thought that any during the week 'sleepovers' usually involved only 1 of the 4 sdc at a time - so it's not really 50/50 is it?

Having said that - I don't see why the DM can't flip back some food money.

In an ideal world the parents sit sown and work this fairly

yes, they would. However most of what is being suggested on this thread is nowhere near fair!

The general consensus on MN is that if you split up and have kids, the man must house, pay AND care for them so that mum can work (and pay for not very much).

Its batshit.

and this!

It's hardly a walk in the park finding childcare for 4 kids or a job that fits in with the hours which suits her circumstances

i imagine its actually pretty easy when the kids are only with you half of the time and you have a big fuck off inheritance, to be honest.

Much harder when you're in a couple, both working parents and have to pay FT childcare because there is no other home in which they live half the time.

But oh no, poor mummy cant get herself a job because of her children. Get a grip man.

Once you add the extra 15 nights, how many nights does that mean you have them a year? Would it not reduce the cms or even make it 50/50 which means you shouldn't be paying

Empty house or not, things like the following need to be paid: mortgage/rent, household insurance, gas and electric daily standing charge and minimal amount for fridge/freeze security lights and alarms etc, tv licence, council tax, internet, phone etc. Also the insurance and tax on her car, which is also for the children’s benefit, needs to be paid.

If she can't afford to do these things without CMS then she shouldn't be spending all that money on 3 weeks in Orlando FFS.

i mean can you imagine if this was a dad going away for 3 weeks to disney without his kids! there would be uproar...

but yet most posters think the mum is a poor little struggling woman who needs the money and have conveniently left out the fact that she's pissing off for 3 weeks without her children!