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

@magda72 ive said it before (under many different usernames) and i'll say it again, you are truly the voice of reason when it comes to the step parenting board.

So she does, I missed that. I did say quite a few times that my opinion was dependant on who covers cost or if it is split.

I’m which case if he wants to go for official 50:50 then it’s worth opening that discussion first I think. Maybe directly with the older children first to see how they feel if it would need to be a more rigid routine.

If I were dad I’d want to set out who pays for what and how to ensure that the children are properly provided for in the case of no CM.

Did the OP say how much is paid? Or have I missed that too?

Obviously it could be 20 a week or 400 per day.

OP would 50:50 and no maintenance be an option for the family?

But OP he has also gained...you! A full time working adult that presumably contributes?!
Jesus wept bring! Are you actually of the belief that the op should go out to work & contribute to the financial raising of her scs while their own mother doesn't???? Are you for real?
I guarantee you all of op didn't work she'd be accused of leeching of her dh & soaking up his money which should be used for his kids! And I can also guarantee that if op was living off an inheritance all the golden uterus's on here would be telling her she should be using it to help her dh rear his kids & if she had the audacity to head off for three weeks on holiday she'd be called the most selfish person on the planet!
The double standards on here between was is acceptable behaviour by a dm versus what's acceptable behaviour by a sm is truly disgusting - and I'm saying that as a dm whose kids have an sm.

@LASH38 considering its almost 50/50 anyway, i cant see how it would effect the children all that much.

IMO they should pay for everything at their own houses, so on mums days she pays school dinners etc, and then they go halfs on school uniforms and anything else its silly to have 2 of.

But OP he has also gained...you! A full time working adult that presumably contributes?!

Yes but she’s not there to subsidise the cost of his children is she?

I've read it all on here now. Misogynistic to say a woman should work?! Snort.

i really wonder what the responses on this thread would be like if the roles were reversed

"my ex has our 4 kids 52% of the time, he has a massive inheritance and doesnt have to work. I am struggling and he is going to disney for 3 weeks with his friends, and i dont think i can afford to feed the kids for that extra time. I also pay him maintenance based on a lot less nights than i actually have them for. Should i ask him if i can reduce/stop maintenance for the time i have them when hes away?"

Cant imagine they'd be the same, tbh.

But OP he has also gained...you! A full time working adult that presumably contributes?!

So many things wrong with this statement.

Firstly, if DM had a partner no one would be expecting him to pick up the tab for the kids instead of their dad. There would be uproar.
I’m sure I read a few pages back that she does have a partner? In which case she also is having her living costs contributed to.

Secondly, the OP should not have to contribute towards the SCs at all. They are not her children.

Thirdly the OP is already subsidising her SCs by proxy because without them she would be paying rent on a smaller property. So her half of their joint rent is higher.

@getyourarseoffthequattro
There’s a lot of double standards on MN, just the other day pp were sympathising and supporting a woman who had punched and slapped her DH, the apologists were disgraceful.

@JKScot4 yes i saw that, it seems that a lot of things that we see as unacceptable for men are A ok for women.

I also think that the view on MN is that women should have it all. The whole mans money is family money but women should have their own view says it all really.

But actually if you are a woman, And a SM, you go down to being some sort of second class woman who is not allowed it all, or in fact even some of it.

IMO they should pay for everything at their own houses, so on mums days she pays school dinners etc, and then they go halfs on school uniforms and anything else its silly to have 2 of.*

I agree with that.

I concern re effect on the kids is mums hostility if she is so inclined. While this doesn’t mean dad should give everything, I do think that no one especially the children, becomes a winner in this scenario.

SM income should be irrelevant. She is not responsible for the kids, although she may choose (or not) to take an active role as they are a part of her husband.

Anyway, OP I hope you can all come to a satisfactory conclusion that works for your family.

I agree it does feel like women who have split up with their children’s dad should have everything. And when I was a stepmum I did feel like I was some sort of second class woman compared to my ex’s exw, who some people on here would agree I should have been jumping through hoops for. 🙄

fun yep me too.

Its always grated on me. Ex seems to think that i should parent and pay for her child, but have no say whatsoever in anything, and that dp should put her first before me. A lot of posters on here would agree with that too.

Also that her child is more important than mine, just because mine is a "second family" child.

Luckily i dont have much to do with her these days, and since DSS moved back in with her for the money i have taken a massive step back and simply dont engage any more. Its liberating.

@funinthesun19 & @getyourarseoffthequattro - I couldn't agree more. When I was with exdp his exw's sense of entitlement was just chronic. At one point she told him I should buy a 7 seater so I could ferry her kids around, but dp was not supposed to contribute one penny to OUR household because his money was to be for her children & her. She also told endless lies about me & my kids & yes refused point blank to work while sending nasty txts weekly to dp about money & her not being able to afford the hairdressers etc. Her attitude leaked down onto the kids who basically just ignored me whenever I was with them.
I'm a very secure person but I can honestly say that experience was one of the most battering to my sense of self worth that I've ever experienced.

I'm a very secure person but I can honestly say that experience was one of the most battering to my sense of self worth that I've ever experienced

this rings true for me too, now i have stepped back somewhat i can see just how bad it was, when in the midst of it i just got on with it because i didnt know what else to do.

A particular low point was when she wouldnt have DSS for one of our contact nights because i had been admitted to hospital and induced with ds because he wasnt moving. i just thought, god, has she that little compassion that even this is a game to her.

And then days after i had him, she wanted me to have DSS all day every day in school holidays because she thought i had nothing better to do.

If i ever split with DP i honestly just cannot see that i would ever act in that way.

Even now, anything she can do to spite us, she will. She moves contact round when she feels like it, lets DSS take loads of time off school "ill" but kicked off at the mere thought of us taking him out 1 day early for a holiday. I am waiting for the next kick off, when DSS inevitably fails his GCSE's or the attendance officer gets involved, it will be all our fault, i am sure.

@Magda72
The entitlement is awful, my DPs ex is the same, the demands for £ are endless despite very generous maintenance and half of everything. She will literally go buy one of the DC underwear and txt ‘you owe me £10’ that’s his ‘share’, had the cheek to reduce her work hours, has booked a long haul holiday and had the cheek to say she needs more money!! She is the most bitter irrational person I’ve ever met.

There are two arguments here. And neither of them should have anything to do with whether this woman works or not! Honestly it is no ones business she still pays for the kids and is not receiving spousal maintenance.

One issue:

• Dad is paying the minimum enforceable amount. Not an agreed or fair settlement. I think that is important. The CMS was not set up ever to provide a calculation of what the child needs. It was set up to protect the most vulnerable children when parents could not settle by divorce (which is fairer) and need to have an enforced amount.

He wants to pay less than this because he has them for three weeks.

He’s included all the time he has them in the CMS calculation but wants to pay less. I think that is morally wrong for his kids. Because, as I’ve said again, CMS is not a fair representation of the costs of bringing up the child. It doesn’t set itself out to be that. It is just a minimum enforceable amount.

The above is unfair and wrong. This is not an Ex asking for more than the CMS, which if half the costs I would back anyway. No she isn’t doing that. She’s accepting that he’s paying a minimum amount.

Second issue

If they want to go 50/50. That is a whole other issue, but if the Dad wants to do this then it is perfectly fair for him to apply to the courts to have access changed and therefore maintenance also changed.

What is not fair is saying ‘oh it’s practically 50/50’ without any solid talks about what that means, and how that is split fairly financially and otherwise.

This is particular pertinent if it is the step mum, OP you are a second party and have no idea of what might come out if there is 50/50 cost negotiations so it’s not fair to equate reducing CMS on that basis. Do it properly.

I do still think much of the comments on here are misogynistic. A woman has done nothing at all, the mother is isn’t asking for a penny. However she has been vilified and branded sponging off her ex and there is no evidence whatsoever that this is the case. And I’ve seen many an Ex be very greedy as reported but not on this thread at all.

I’m a bit ashamed of mumsnet today.

So why then should he pay her THE KIDS money when she doesn't have them????

Because CMS is calculated over a year. The fact that's she's gone on holiday doesn't mean she can magically stop paying most of her bills.

@Cohle I agree. I despair sometimes. I’m all for fairness and I agree some men are used by greedy ex wives. Yet the attacks on the mother when all she is doing is going on holiday and not asking for more than the minimum enforceable. It’s not on.

I’ve had my maintenance cut by my Ex when he has had our DS for two weeks. I just think that makes him a very mean selfish man. I calculated how much our child actually cost, and he pays 20% of this (yet CMS calculations would probably be that 20%).

@Snowfalling20 what people are saying, they are saying under the assumption that OP is correct in calculating they actually have them 50/50 or only a few days fewer. We are taking her on face value because there's no use advising otherwise.

Nobody is saying that if he is actually having them significantly less than half the time then he shouldn't pay, or arguing that CMS in general is enough, but whether it is enough or not when there is a RP and a NRP is moot if they are having them 50/50, because neither of them should be paying anything to the other in that case. Nobody is attacking the mother either, simply saying that OPs husband shouldn't be paying more than is fair whether she is working or not, her decision not to work doesn't mean she deserves maintenance in a 50/50 scenario just because she might struggle without it.

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.

Or maybe the mother should take on some work, any work, to pay for the family that she conceived? A bit radical I know but .......... 🙄

Or maybe the mother should take on some work, any work, to pay for the family that she conceived? A bit radical I know but ..........

She is paying for her family. Whether she has obtained that money by work or inheritance is really no one's business.

OP's DH is paying the minimum he is legally required to. If he believes that amount is due recalculation based on the nights he has the kids then he should do so.

OP's DH is paying the minimum he is legally required to. If he believes that amount is due recalculation based on the nights he has the kids then he should do so.

If he has the children 50% of the time then he shouldn’t have to pay her at all.

If he has the children 50% of the time then he shouldn’t have to pay her at all.

He wouldn't have to

But he's not paying the minimum! He's also paying for half of extras!
My exh pays me the Irish minimum as specified by the court. He was told to pay only this amount because I too have a wage & had some inheritance from my parents & with both I can & do support my children when they're with me. That's what was expected of me as a grown, able bodied adult by the court & family law system! This court appointed money that I get from exh is to offset the fact that I feed & heat my kids more than my exh does. We then go halves on any agreed extras. If this man's exw is choosing to live off inheritance & not work that's her choice. But she has also has been given what was the family home - by OP's dh - so why on earth is he being damned for paying the legal minimum - especially when he pays extras & he has the kids 48% of the time?