Another CMS question

[monkehsee]

When DP and his ExW separated the agreement was that they had 50/50 care of the children, she kept the house which has no mortgage and they had a clean break.
She works full time awkward shift pattern so DP agreed to stay part time on fixed hours with 2 hours of childcare needed by to be paid each day for wrap around care.
DP was not paying the childcare bill because his ExW claims the childcare element of tax credits and they had agreed that he would stay part-time and do the majority of school runs etc. He picks up Extra hours when he can to supplement the part time income but can only do this if she isn't working over the weekend.
Unfortunately the wrap around care requires payment all week as the requirement for it is ad-hoc and they have variable use of it.
DP never has set days with the children and only has the children when she is working so she can continue to work full time in her job. He has them 50/50 but doesn't get to decide the days.
Now however she has suggested that he should be paying the childcare because it falls on his days?
I kind of get what she is saying but he has already agreed to take a reduction in income and be part time and she gets the tax credits element for childcare.
Surely if she expects home to pay the childcare he should be entitled to the tax credits as they have 50/50 care?
Am I missing something or is this unfair? If she is claiming the tax credits for childcare but he is paying for it surely that is fraud?

@CombatBarbie

Ok you need to address it. Quite frankly I'd suggest week on/off and she's responsible for childcare in her week. DH gets to up his hours and stop the bloody maintenance. Is he a high earner that can afford to work 2 days a week?

No he's on 21000 pa

@CombatBarbie
Why does the OP need to address this issue? Her partner does not appear to be complaining and unless I missed it, he is not asking the OP to provide money or child care.

At some point, isn't it better not to insinuate yourself into issues that are between 2 adults who are capable of making their own decisions?

What good comes from creating conflict where things are being managed to the satisfaction of those directly involved. The time ,should it ever come, for the OP to speak up would be if or when she is asked to provide time or money towards this issue. Apart from that anything else seems intrusive.

@CombatBarbie

Ok you need to address it. Quite frankly I'd suggest week on/off and she's responsible for childcare in her week. DH gets to up his hours and stop the bloody maintenance. Is he a high earner that can afford to work 2 days a week?

I’m with this. It’s fishy as hell or she’s eroded his common sense and he’s being a doormat.

It’s okay to have an opinion and share it with him and to ask questions.

He needs to be able to plan his life and invest in his own financial future.

Tiredoftattler

Because her OH hasn't picked up how unfair this is on him and seems to just be going along with it. Not saying she needs to be involved in it but OP has asked about the situation presumably as she cares about him and can see this isn't a fair arrangement.

Exactly, he's either being a doormat or there is something else going on.

This is so weird. Working part time affects his income now and in the future because it impacts on his pension and earning potential. Any woman in this position would be told she is leaving herself vulnerable. His ex is building up her career, her earning potential and pension pot. What's in it for him? I can't believe he's such a doormat. What is really going on?

[quote Tiredoftattler]@CombatBarbie
Why does the OP need to address this issue? Her partner does not appear to be complaining and unless I missed it, he is not asking the OP to provide money or child care.

At some point, isn't it better not to insinuate yourself into issues that are between 2 adults who are capable of making their own decisions?

What good comes from creating conflict where things are being managed to the satisfaction of those directly involved. The time ,should it ever come, for the OP to speak up would be if or when she is asked to provide time or money towards this issue. Apart from that anything else seems intrusive.[/quote]
Back in the real world, people do actually discuss and ponder their partner's situations on a hypothetical level without being interfering and "intrusive".

I think much unhappiness and acrimony comes when a new partner who was not involved in the divorce process nor had any first hand knowledge of the nature of the relationship comes along to tell the party that either the Courts or the process in which he or she had no involvement was somehow unfair to the partner.

Her partner is not complaining and unless he is asking for her input, the OP may be intruded into a situation in which no one has solicited her input or opinion.

If she is the girl friend, perhaps the situation might be less frustrating if she allowed the 2 people directly involved in the situation to resolve it.

I think sometimes that for all if the talk about boundaries little thought is given to exactly what boundaries should girl friends not cross.

I cannot imagine dating a man that I think incapable of adequately managing his own divorce. The partner does seem concerned about these issues so why should OP be objecting when her partner is not complaining?

What is the expected end game or outcome ?

Much unhappiness comes when one parent in a split up couple takes the piss and, often as the result of it having been an abusive relationship where the piss taking had gone on for years, the other is too afraid to rock the boat for the sake of supposed harmony and in the best interests of the children, or is so beaten down they don’t realise the extent of the piss taking.

No harm at all in OP asking some questions because she cares for her partner who’s currently incapable of making plans, working the hours he’d like or saving to invest in his own life and future because his ex thinks she’s his boss and he’s an open atm.

@AnneLovesGilbert
Assuming all of the things that you mentioned are concerns for the OP 's partner, do you think that it likely that he would be unaware of these issues? If he is aware of the way that his life is being or will be impacted and yet he is not complaining, he likely has a plan or does not feel that his life has been as negatively impacted as the OP seems to feel.

Perhaps, the OP feels that his current situation effects her future plans for this man's life. That is fine , but there is nothing said to suggest that anyone but the OP is dissatisfied with the existing arrangement.

The OP's partner may be perfectly happy with this arrangement as he seemingly agreed to it. One man's perception of a doormat may be another man's perception of fair play. As the OP was not privy to the discussions surrounding the divorce, it is quite likely that she may not know why the particular agreements were reached.

If she is unhappy with what this man is capable of bringing to her table , perhaps this is neither the partner nor the relationship in which she will find satisfaction.

Better to know and accept that in the beginning of the relationship.

@Tiredoftattler I think at a certain point you may need to accept that you simply have a more detached and independent outlook than most. Imposing your view onto a partner who has expressed they don't welcome it, or pressuring them to make changes, is intrusive, sure, but simply thinking about and questioning their situation is perfectly natural and harmless behaviour.

I think what @MeridianB said about the ex eroding the arrangement by stealth is spot on.
From op's updates it sounds like the ex has subtly chipped away for years, making incremental changes along the way all the while bamboozling op's dh with it all being "for the good of the dc". He's now caught in a situation that snuck up on him so to speak & is not seeing the wood for the trees.
@monkehsee the whole arrangement really does need to be looked at.
Is your dh open to taking about this stuff with you or is he very defensive?

As an outsider looking in then she appears to have literally EVERYTHING her way. I vote he goes full time and they split the cost of childcare between them

@EL8888

As an outsider looking in then she appears to have literally EVERYTHING her way. I vote he goes full time and they split the cost of childcare between them

This is how I feel it should be. However I haven't mentioned anything to him as I don't want to be intrusive

@aSofaNearYou
I do not think that I am detached but I do try to bring both feelings and logical thought into the choices and decisions that I make. I also feel strongly that women should be prepared to be independent particularly if they want to have children.

Has anyone thought that the wife got the house because she was the higher earner and perhaps brought the down payment with her into the marriage?

Perhaps, the OP's partner could not afford to pay his share of the property settlement and waived his share of the equity in the home in lieu of paying a property settlement. This often happens in divorce settlements.

The OP's partner may not have been a victim of anything but his limited or poor earning history and potential. It may have a reasonable decision to have the OP's partner provide child care as opposed to support if his earning history indicated that he would be bringing less than the cost of child care to the table.

I do not necessarily think that the OP,'s partner was or is being victimized. Based upon the limited information provided, I can easily envision situations where the agreement reached made perfect sense.

If the OP ' s partner is not complaining it is just as reasonable to assume that he is cognizant of why those particular agreements were reached and that he recognizes the reasonableness of the agreement.

The stickler will be what happens when the ex no longer needs child care and would benefit from actual monetary support ? As the kids get older that day will likely come.

If OP truly wants a future with this man, rather than creating an issue about his divorce agreement, she might better spend her time preparing to become the higher earner in their relationship. The ability to be less financially dependent and more independent may serve her well if she plans on moving forward with this man.

[quote Tiredoftattler]@aSofaNearYou
I do not think that I am detached but I do try to bring both feelings and logical thought into the choices and decisions that I make. I also feel strongly that women should be prepared to be independent particularly if they want to have children.

Has anyone thought that the wife got the house because she was the higher earner and perhaps brought the down payment with her into the marriage?

Perhaps, the OP's partner could not afford to pay his share of the property settlement and waived his share of the equity in the home in lieu of paying a property settlement. This often happens in divorce settlements.

The OP's partner may not have been a victim of anything but his limited or poor earning history and potential. It may have a reasonable decision to have the OP's partner provide child care as opposed to support if his earning history indicated that he would be bringing less than the cost of child care to the table.

I do not necessarily think that the OP,'s partner was or is being victimized. Based upon the limited information provided, I can easily envision situations where the agreement reached made perfect sense.

If the OP ' s partner is not complaining it is just as reasonable to assume that he is cognizant of why those particular agreements were reached and that he recognizes the reasonableness of the agreement.

The stickler will be what happens when the ex no longer needs child care and would benefit from actual monetary support ? As the kids get older that day will likely come.

If OP truly wants a future with this man, rather than creating an issue about his divorce agreement, she might better spend her time preparing to become the higher earner in their relationship. The ability to be less financially dependent and more independent may serve her well if she plans on moving forward with this man.[/quote]
My issues aren't about his divorce agreement it's about the ExW not sticking to the divorce agreement and wanting it all her way. 🙄

@monkehsee

You can encourage him to go back to Court, but keep in mind that everyone entering a Court wants it their way. A Court is not likely to change an agreement that the parties themselves willingly agreed upon; your partner voluntarily agreed to work part-time.

Now that the agreement has proven to be less desirable than you think it should be, that is hardly a reason for the Court to consider a modification.

Would it not make more sense for him to look for a better paying part-time job?

Wanting things her way does nor make the ex wrong; given the opportunity most people want things their way.

You are not wrong to want things your way, but the route to getting what you want may not be by attacking or objecting to what on the surface may have been a not unreasonable agreement given the parties respective financial status at the time of the divorce.

If you want to have a long term relationship with your partner , you like his ex should prepare yourself to be a higher earner. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a woman earning as much or more than her partner.

As you discuss this situation with him, make sure that you know exactly why the agreement was structured in the manner in which it was structured. It is unlikely that it was structured that way simply because the ex was greedy or grasping.

In any case, if you are prepared to provide yourself the lifestyle and future that you desire, you will then not be at the mercy of his ex or anyone else. Focus more on your own financial independence and let him figure out a resolution to his problem. Sometimes you can be most supportive by stepping back and allowing a partner to grow into his or her own.

Wanting things her way does nor make the ex wrong; given the opportunity most people want things their way
This woman is wrong. She’s diddling her children and her vagina is no excuse.
There’s no dressing this up. She is wrong.

It sounds like you have a lot of resentment op which is eating I to your relationship.

You sound as if you are the higher earner and your partner has gone from one high earning female partner to another.
Are you expecting to have DC with him one day?

I think you need to revisit your whole relationship and status quo and whether you want to rock the boat he doesn't want to rock.

I don't think it will go down well op as he is clearly putting his DC and her first, and you second.

You won't come out of it well op and you will stress him out enormously by vocalising any of this so may be look at finding yourself a new partner?

This woman is wrong. She’s diddling her children and her vagina is no excuse.There’s no dressing this up. She is wrong

Thousands of women are left in this position post-divorce. I have never seen it suggested that the (male) ex is wrong to be getting on with his life whilst his (female) ex juggles the childcare and part time work. In fact, this board would be full of ‘lazy cow’ type comments if she didn’t juggle childcare and full time work yet a man working part time is somehow impeded in pursuit of full time work because of his ex and not because of the difficulties many single parents face in managing work and childcare. Granted, this is unusual because usually the part time worker would be the person with the children most of the time but the principle is still the same.

Quite frankly I'd suggest week on/off and she's responsible for childcare in her week

So make the ex pay for full time childcare she’ll only ever use half of? Week on/week off is one of the least helpful ways of managing 50/50 when it comes to paying for childcare.

His ex is building up her career, her earning potential and pension pot

Agreed. She is still entitled to tax credits, however so she’s not particularly high earning is she?

OP - have you been through the divorce process? Do you understand how it works? Unless your DP had no legal advice whatsoever, it is likely the ex getting the house was off set in some way with something else. It is highly unlikely the judge would sign off one half of a couple getting everything and the other nothing.

I have never seen it suggested that the (male) ex is wrong to be getting on with his life whilst his (female) ex juggles the childcare and part time work
I’ve never seen it suggested that an NRP should work part time, keep the house, the benefits and be paid maintenance by the RP.
Leave male or female out of it.

21k for 2 days work IS a good wage!

They need to have a frank discussion. If this went to court, the court would probably order in favour of the ex re shifts etc and not necessarily having set days. The logic for childcare would be that if the ex is claiming it via tax credits, that of the 30% owed left, that he pays 2/5 of that to account for the 2/5 days he does work.
Unless she went to cms, then I would stop paying cm. If however, she has gone via cms, and he has the children 60% of the overnights then make a counterclaim. However, this may mean also claiming the cb, which will remove the tax credits claim for the ex, and you wouldn't be eligible to claim as you'd have to claim uc, which if you're working would be over the income threshold.

If this went to court, the court would probably order in favour of the ex re shifts etc and not necessarily having set days. The logic for childcare would be that if the ex is claiming it via tax credits, that of the 30% owed left, that he pays 2/5 of that to account for the 2/5 days he does work

I just wanted to chime in because I have direct experience of court with regards to shift work and childcare costs with my ex.
It may be different because I’m the RP but my ex worked shifts which changed week to week, said he wanted 50:50 but couldn’t do set days.

I worked part time at the time and my complaint was that i couldn’t up my hours and work full time to enable the 50:50 care because of my ex’s shift patterns or make any plans further than 2 weeks in advance.

I also had to pay for full time childcare even though I didn’t require it because I didn’t know from week to week which days my ex would be having our son and I couldn’t find anywhere that could do childcare on an ad hoc basis.

My income and our lives were greatly limited by my ex and his unreasonable work pattern and him insisting on doing 50:50 even though he couldn’t really adhere to it.

His view of 50:50 was having our DS to sleep at his house 3-4 nights a week but the reality was he would collect our toddler at 6.30pm after work, put him to bed at his house then drop him home at 6.30.

The court ruling was that I was able to keep residency of our DS and I could enforce set days for my ex. He couldn’t in reality stick to 50:50 (he never really had this) and when he protested about the arrangement changing the judge actually said

“Your long standing work pattern is not of concern here, MsSpongebob had to change her job to be able to support her children and be available to care for them which is what I also suggest you do”.

Set days were issued for contact and all I had to do was make sure my DS was available but if my ex couldn’t make it then tough luck for him.
In the end we’ve fallen into a regularly pattern of Weds and EOW plus as much extra in the school holidays as my ex is available to do.

I work full time and I have to pay ALL of the childcare bill because my ex now pays maintenance and not a penny more. The courts will not generally rule for a NRP to pay for childcare unless it falls directly on their usual access day.

I honestly think in the OP’s DP’s situation he and the children would be better off with him being the RP if the mum’s shift pattern is ever changing and her having the kids whenever she is able but that way Dad is still available for all the emergencies, school runs etc due to being part time but he’d then be able to be financially supported to do that.

Or he pushes for set contact days like I did and mum sorts out childcare for the kids if her work falls on her days, DP sorts childcare for his set days and then he can then work fall time and no one is being disadvantaged financially.

full time*

And this is exactly what many male NRPS do all the time.

Definitely seems odd but his issue to sort out not yours.

People seem outraged that it is the mother working and lets be honest if she gets working tax credits from a full time job - she is not earning a huge amount.