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

You sound very hardworking OP and the fact that you love and care for the children comes through in your posts. If I could change the world so that you could afford a bit more, I would.

However, I am saying this at a government policy level not an individual level, but I do believe that there should be a bit more of a public conversation around family planning and the ability of parents to provide for a larger family if their circumstances change e.g. relationship breakdown. Young people, before they start having children, need to have some idea of what it costs to provide for one, two or three children. State funding, unfortunately, is politically determined and can be removed at any time.

At an individual level, your DH bears significant responsibility for the situation and needs to be the one worrying about it and ideally taking on extra work or seeking promotion to pay for the family that he conceived.

Actually I find it quite icky that she is going without her children, partially because it’s Disney and partially because it’s such a long time.

I don’t understand why she cannot work either, inheritance won’t last forever. I have wondered how she is still getting benefits with such a large inheritance. I also see it as, if she can afford Disney then providing some ‘keep’ for her children should be a part of that cost.

However these are observations which the OP had no control over, it’s not her or her DP leaving the children so I don’t see the need to focus on mums actions.

On Mn, when you’re a mum who has separated from your child’s father, the usual rules regarding breaks and holidays without children don’t apply. You’re basically allowed to fuck off whenever you want because you deserve it, no matter what that will mean for everyone else at home.

needs to be the one worrying about it and ideally taking on extra work or seeking promotion to pay for the family that he conceived

i am not sure that would help him much at all - he would need childcare for the extra time hes at work, and after paying for that and the increase in CMS he would be likely no better off, or even worse off.

I would suggest that they actually get the CMS recalculated because they're paying too much, and if the mum finds herself struggling it is in fact HER that needs to get a job.

OP and DH are 2 FT working adults, who have the kids almost half the time, and pay maintenance for the rest of the time. They are understandably struggling. Mum clearly is not struggling and yet the suggestion is that the DH find more work.

There is something very wrong with that imo.

Further more, my main reason for sitting on the fence is that many bills are static and mum won’t save that much with the kids not being with her especially as the money sounds like it will be re-purposed

Seeing as she possibly has questionable priorities, if CM is reduced will be restrict what she spends on the kids to compensate?
That’s my only reason for the fence.

Seeing as she possibly has questionable priorities, if CM is reduced will be restrict what she spends on the kids to compensate?

god. So because mums irresponsible for money dad should continue paying over the odds.

I’m sorry but for all your arguing OP, your DH is only paying the minimum enforceable from the CMS as you have yourself stated. That is in no way half the amount of costs for the children.

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.

Whether the mum works or not is nothing to do with you! She is not asking for money for herself. The CMS is not asking your DH for money for her. She is not getting maintenance for herself.

I really think the comments towards the ex about ‘she should work’ are misogynistic and really mean.

The OPs DH is not paying half the costs for the children otherwise he would be paying WAY over the CMS amount.

I say that as a SM and as an Ex. It really makes me mad when anyone upholds the CMS as if that is the costs of bringing up children, it is NOT and it does not uphold itself to be.

Op said ex has been to Florida several times with kids, she is clearly not short of money so hardly going to be living in poverty if maintenance is reduced in line with CMS recommendations.

I’m sorry but for all your arguing OP, your DH is only paying the minimum enforceable from the CMS as you have yourself stated. That is in no way half the amount of costs for the children

A - no he's not, he's paying more because they're assessing it based on the incorrect number of nights.

B - why should he ALSO pay HALF of what it costs to bring up 4 children to the mother, when he actually BRINGS UP THE CHILDREN ALMOST HALF OF THE TIME?

i felt the need to write that in caps so you actually bothered to read it and try and understand why what you just said is so ridiculous.

I really think the comments towards the ex about ‘she should work’ are misogynistic and really mean

misogynistic? can you elaborate on that?

I really think the comments towards the ex about ‘she should work’ are misogynistic and really mean.

Oh come on! I’d say that about a man too.

I’m an rp and currently out of work. Does that mean I will make that my lifestyle choice for the next 18 years? No! And neither should she!

Snowfalling20 nobody is arguing whether CMS is enough if you are the primary carer and actually shoulder a majority of the costs of raising the kids, people are arguing whether he should have to foot that bill in a scenario that is effectively 50/50.

I really think the comments towards the ex about ‘she should work’ are misogynistic

I'm a proud, vocal, flag wearing feminist. How on earth is it misogynistic?
If anything is misogynistic it's her continuing to rely on a man to substitute her lifestyle, and refusing to be financially independent when she has no obstacle not to be.

We will be getting the recalculation done. We honestly can't carry on like this. I think DH is nervous to approach her about this and we both don't like rocking the apple cart. I just don't think we have a choice now.

Because it’s nothing to do with child maintenance that she doesn’t work. Nothing at all. She’s not asking for her own maintenance!

So mean and so misogynistic.

She’s probably like most mothers, doing her best to raise her kids. And everyone is laying into her saying she should get a job to make her ex off less than half the childcare costs!

Come on. We women should be a bit nicer to each other.

If anything is misogynistic it's her continuing to rely on a man to substitute her lifestyle, and refusing to be financially independent when she has no obstacle not to be.

Misogyny right there. She isn’t asking anyone to substitute her lifestyle.

The money is a calculation of the minimum enforceable amount of CMS FOR THE KIDS.

Not sure which part of that you don’t understand.

She’s probably like most mothers, doing her best to raise her kids. And everyone is laying into her saying she should get a job to make her ex off less than half the childcare costs!

no.... everyone is saying she should get a job because inheritance and maintenance don't last forever. It would be mighty irresponsible and actually very stupid to rely on both of those sources to keep a roof over her head, as neither are permanent. When those kids turn 18 and the inheritance is dwindling, this woman is fucked, to put it bluntly.

The maintenance isn't an entirely separate issue is it, because you're suggesting that the dad have the kids half the time, and pay her maintenance. So he's supporting them physically half the time, and financially for the rest of the time.

I personally don't think that's fair, and it happens a lot of the time.

I really think the comments towards the ex about ‘she should work’ are misogynistic and really mean
Well done @Snowfalling20 - you’ve just won MN today! What a hoot
Why does her vagina mean she deserves to have everything handed to her and not have to work for it?
She’s not paying anything close to half the kids expenses if she is receiving maintenance plus half of all extras AND they are with their father almost half the time. He’s paying all the same fixed bills she is, and more because he has to pay for a home big enough to accommodate them while she was just given hers.

snowfalling

Misogyny right there. She isn’t asking anyone to substitute her lifestyle

except the government........

snow what are you struggling to understand here... lets have some figures to try and explain to you why its not unfair on poor mummy to have less maintenance.

MUMS BILLS
Mortgage - £0
Council Tax - £80
Gas and Elec - £90
Water - £40
Car Payment - £200
Various Insurances - £100
Food - £350
Total - £860 per month.

DADS BILLS
Mortgage - £500
Council Tax - £100
Gas and Elec - £90
Water - £40
Car Payment - £200
Various Insurances - £100
Food - £350
Maintenance - £250
Total - £1630

Mum has the kids around 52% of the time, and dad has the kids around 48% of the time - which doesnt even take into account this extra 3 weeks.

Mum is much better off than dad - dad is paying mum circa £250 for literally 2% of the "extra" time that she has them.

It. Is. Batshit.

(my figures are based on my own bills with increase in food because i dont have 4 children, and cms payment is a guess because i dont know what ops husband earns, but you can see my logic here!)

god. So because mums irresponsible for money dad should continue paying over the odds.

That’s not quite what I meant. I mean dad might want to protect his children from having their needs cut because mum spends money questionably.

He cannot control her recklessness. He can try to mitigate against it.

In any case, I think he should just ask. If she says no then so be it.

goodness me, have i been transported back to 1954?

Come on. We women should be a bit nicer to each other

The irony of that comment on this board. Stepmums are torn apart on here but yeah, if it’s a mum/ex wife/rp let’s all stick together and praise her on how amazing she is

He cannot control her recklessness. He can try to mitigate against it.

So much vitriol towards a woman who is not here to defend herself and who has done nothing wrong!

The facts still stand, the OPs DH is only paying the minimum enforceable amount for his kids and he wants to pay less!

Not sure exactly what there it to not understand about that. Whether she works or not is none of their business and it is horrible and mean to be slating the poor woman. I’m ashamed of MN sometimes. And I say that as a step mother.

A fairer way would be to go to court if you are so concerned OP and let divorce courts decide as it is often much higher than the CMS amount. They can then decide whether it really is 50/50, which I doubt tbh.

But you know, it’s just another man penny pinching about paying the minimum enforceable amount for his children (did I already say that? Everyone got that?) and getting his GF to do it!

Misogyny at its finest. How sad for the kids really. It’s always them who lose out.

The facts still stand, the OPs DH is only paying the minimum enforceable amount for his kids and he wants to pay less!

erm... snow he's actually paying more than the enforceable amount, why cant you grasp that?

He wants to pay less because he will have been having them more than 50% of the time, in which case it should actually be her paying him maintenance, and since she doesn't work he's likely get about £7 a week. Would that be fair?

They can then decide whether it really is 50/50, which I doubt tbh

why do you doubt it? because it cannot possibly be true that a dad does 50% of the parenting?

Yeah, sad for the kids when their mum goes to disney for 3 weeks leaving their dad scraping pennies together to feed them. But again, i'm sure thats fine because she birthed 4 children and so we should all admire her strength, grace and holy qualities.