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

If you and partner have ever not been able to have the children on allocated time - has she asked for more?

@TeaAndWine
I think I have the answer. You must pay in to the pot because the ex and children are entitled to it, but you mustn’t get to thinking you have any say on where the money goes when it leaves that pot.
It’s taxation without representation and if you don’t like it, throw a tea party

Ok @getyourarseoffthequattro
But won’t going 50:50 mean that dad will need to pick up more cost such as school lunches, trips, uniform, clubs etc.
Or mum might reduce contact in which case the children will lose out?

Maybe he already pays this but it will be for dad and OP to discuss this as a possible move.

@LASH38 considering they have the kids 48% of the time anyway, i cant see that having them 2% more of the time will cost them much more, if any more at all.

Mum can try and reduce contact but she wouldnt be looked fondly upon by a judge, and since shes so keen on spending 3 weeks away from her kids, i cant see that she's the kind of person who'd do that, considering it would only end up in more work for her.

Given she has never worked throughout the marriage - the OPs partner is lucky they didn’t go through the courts as chances are she would have been awarded spousal maintenance

bringringbring lol, not likely any more, unless husband is an incredibly high earner, and considering she's got rather a large inheritance AND only has the kids 50% at the time, i cant see that any sane judge would have given her spousal maintenance!

@getyourarseoffthequattro if 50:50 means mum loses the cash she uses for lunch, clothes etc as well as living costs then she may rely on dad to replace it thus costing more money as someone needs to ensure the kids do not miss out.

As said, I’ve assumed that he doesn’t already provide over the CM towards these costs.

If mum reduces contact to keep CM how much will court cost? How will such hostilities affect the children?

OP - I don’t know whether it’s right or wrong to reduce CM, but under these circumstances I think it doesn’t hurt to ask. I wouldn’t row or get excited about it, I would ask the simple question and position it as the CM saving to benefit the children (which it sounds like).
If she says no I’d leave it at that as I wouldn’t give anyone pleasure of having to plead for a reduction.

Given that she's away for 18 or 19 days and that in that time you've naturally have them for 7 - 9 days anyway (depending on when the weekends fall), then you'll actually have them for around an extra 10 days. To feed two children for 10 days would perhaps cost £50 in extra food and the extra bills should be no more than £10 I would think. It may be that your finances are so tight that this pushes you over the edge but if so I don't think the ex can really be held responsible for that. Might the ex want to swop the time? So have them for an extra few days around her holiday when they're usually with you? This would balance up the costs and I imagine that she would appreciate some extra time with them too?

@lash38 i feel like im banging my head against a brick wall.

Why should dad have the kids 50% of the time AND subsidise mum?

Please, explain to me why you think that should happen?

CM is a contribution to raising the kids. He's paying her that AND raising the kids almost half the time. If she cannot cope with paying for her own children ONLY HALF THE TIME - it is her that has the problem. Not dad. Dad shouldnt have to make up for that.

They all need to ensure the kids dont miss out ON THEIR OWN TIME.

Honestly its mad that so many women are still of the opinion that they should be supported by a man because they cant cope. Why are we so afraid of women having to support themselves?

Honestly its mad that so many women are still of the opinion that they should be supported by a man because they cant cope.

She isn't being supported by a man. She is supporting herself (the fact that it's via an inheritance rather than work is really no one's business). He is paying support for his children, not her.

If the OP believes CM is being calculated on the basis of an incorrect number of nights then they should recalculate. However I suspect the having one of the kids for a sleepover every so often really doesn't have as much of an impact as some posters are suggesting.

cohle i know she isn't but lash is suggesting that she should be if they go 50/50!

OP didnt include the random one child sleepovers in the number of nights, she only included the nights all children are there which worked out as 48% of the time.

I don’t see him subsidising mum, I see him contributing towards his children’s needs and that if he withholds it, who will be affected the most?

Didn’t the OP say that the CM takes into account that he has them 2 days pw plus EOW?

However I see that you are transfixed by mum getting any cash so we will have to agree to disagree.

right so, mum has kids 50% of the time, and so does dad, except dad also has to pay mum extra?

he wouldnt be "withholding" anything because there would be nothing to withhold - would there?

how is that not subsiding her? he's already doing "his half"

im not "transfixed" by mum getting cash - i just dont understand why dad needs to pay on top of "doing his half"?

No, op didnt say that RTFT.

i get the feeling you dont really understand how this works.

@lash
It is subsidising her lifestyle, she clearly has suffice t spare funds to treat herself to foreign holidays, would this be affordable if dad wasn’t paying CMS and having kids eat 50/50? Having an ex paying support doesnt entitle you to sit on your arse and watch him struggle to make ends meet, it’s sheer selfishness.

So cms paid plus money for trips and uniform

What about the multitude of additional costs that I doubt the father pays for on the basis he’s not the RP (even though 48% of time).
Winter coats, clothing, party presents, stationary, i could go on and on but children have a multitude of expenses x4 that I suspect the mother buys

cohle i know she isn't but lash is suggesting that she should be if they go 50/50!

I’m not suggesting dad should still provide CM if they go 50:50. The OP’s finances sound precarious, so I’m advising that if they go 50:50 and mum then decides that whatever else she pays for should be 50:50 that dad could end up with The same or less money than he has now if he has new direct expenses.

If he already pays half of say travel, school lunch, uniforms etc on top of his CM then yes maybe 50:50 will be cheaper for him. Hopefully it wouldn’t cause a hostile environment between the parents in which case, what will be the effect on the children?

@bringringbring Can you just explain why it is that you doubt the father pays for all those things you mention?

is it because you believe men cant be good parents? is it because of your own experience? or is it based on evidence given by the op on this thread? course its not

@Bringringbring
Those multitude of costs I’m sure are helped by the Child benefit and UC she receives for them. Should a mother not pay for anything?

Because the OP doesn’t mention

And she would if it was the case 8 pages in!

Hopefully it wouldn’t cause a hostile environment between the parents in which case, what will be the effect on the children?

well it shouldnt, and if it does, thats on the parent who decides to be a dick, isnt it?

you cant allow someone to walk all over you, just because if you stop they get hostile. What does that teach your children, seriously?

i personally wouldnt feel the need to mention buying things for my kids, that are entirely normal and part of bringing up kids though - i dont think thats unusual really.

@Bringringbring my point exactly. I have repeatedly said that my opinion is based on dad not providing extras for the one off costs. OP hasn’t said either way.

There are four kids I believe. The uniform bill alone must be astronomical.

Then IF mum is greedy, this will cause a major fallout. Fine for the adults to deal with but what about (all) of the children who will feel the tension/get caught in the middle.

OP has clearly stated that mum has money due to benefits/inheritance. It can be reasonably assumed that this is paying for Florida. Whether that’s a good use of the money is questionable but dad cannot dictate what mum spends money on.

@snowfalling20 - the kids have been to Disney many times - they're hardly missing out 🙄.

op says Plus extras for trips/uniform etc in the op @lash38

She isn't being supported by a man. She is supporting herself (the fact that it's via an inheritance rather than work is really no one's business). He is paying support for his children, not her.
So why then should he pay her THE KIDS money when she doesn't have them????