Is this true - CAO

[Ffs2020]

I've posted this in legal as well, but I wanted to get opinions here too.

I'm posting on behalf of a friend. She's been told by a solicitor that because her ex pays cm, even though it's based on 2 overnights per week and he actually has no overnights, that he doesn't have to supply clothing, underwear, shoes, toys or anything for their dc during his contact at his house. Also that if he does avail of overnight contact, he doesn't have to supply pyjamas, toiletries etc.

She's also been told that he can have a week of holiday contact during the summer. She can have holiday contact too but only if she's taking the dc away. If she plans day trips, etc but staying at home at night then contact is supposed go ahead.

None of this is written into the court order, but this is what she was told by a previous solicitor. Its completely against the expectations and court order dp has for his dc, although dp has a higher level of contact.

I have no firm knowledge on this, I know CM covers all those things as well as trips etc but I wouldn't of thought mum would be ordered to pack full bags for dads contact he should have the basics of only the basics surely... hopefully someone can give you a yes/no
How awful that afar wouldn't want to supply anything!

If the NRP pays child maintenance, then legally they are not obliged to cover any other costs.

However the resident parent isn't obliged to send the child off for contact with anything other than they are stood up in. If the NRP wants contact, they have to provide for the child during that period - that's why the maintenance tapers off depending on how many overnights they have.

As for the contact, a bit of give and take/common sense should be applied. Sure enough if the parent with care is organising day trips they should arrange them on days when the child is not due to have contact with the other parent, its a bit off if they are doing that.

I believe if paying CM you don't have to (legally speaking, certainly not morally), have to cover anything else so for example, you don't need to pay half for school uniforms or school trips, actives and so on. I don't think that extends to the time when the children are with the paying parent though to the extent that they literally don't have to provide anything in their home for their own child like toiletries and pyjamas. That's ridiculous. Although I'm no expert obviously.

However, the holiday one I can understand. If you're going away on holiday then it's expected that contact would be effected. But why would you arrange day trips when the children were supposed to be with their other parent? You shouldn't be doing that other than in specific circumstances imo.

To clarify the holiday contact, dad has dc for a week in summer, daytime only, so back to mum at night, with day trips only. Mum was told that she can only do the same if she actually leaves the area. Having said that, the court order states equal holiday time, with no distance or plan requirements, but I'm curious as to why a solicitor would say otherwise.

Mum has also had to supply food during contact, as dad said he doesn't have time to shop, or cook. She doesn't do this anymore.

Who’s spouting this crap?I don’t think it’s the solicitor.

Stick to the court order.

What shitebag of a “Dad” doesn’t have “time” to do a food shop to feed his child?
What this “Dad” is eating himself? Living on the air and sun rays? Abusive and neglectful.

Poor attempts to control the mother.

I’d keep all communication written and go back to court if needed.

If he isn't having them overnight but has CM calculated on that she should keep a log of how often he actually does have them and then apply to change the CM calculations.

Also I wouldn't be providing anything for his house. That's on him. How can he force her to?

It was her previous solicitor. She wanted them to make a point that the dc potentially feels uncomfortable at his house as there's no belongings for them there. Her previous solicitor said that as he pays cm, he not expected or obliged to have anything for them at his house and that she needed to 'get over the idea'.

I agree that it is an attempt at controlling her, which would also characterise their relationship, but also because of that she just accepted that what she was told was correct.

It doesn't sound right to me, based on common decency, common sense, and dp's experiences. Also, how would any child want to stay overnight with a parent where they have no personal items without feeling like they aren't wanted?!

@FrenchBoule, he says that he's too busy - he has a 'very important job' - that the dc is too fussy, that it's a waste of time, that it's a waste of money and food, that he doesn't know what size clothes, that it takes valuable time away from him during contact, and that contact should be fun for him, and not involve preparation, cooking etc. Since mum stopped sending food, the dc either comes back hungry, or eaten nothing but junk food. Basically, he's a wanker.

No she does not have to supply anything, bar the clothes they are dressed in.

Nor does she have to supply food/ drinks.

Her holiday time is just that, holiday time. She simply agrees/ informs ahead of time which her week/ holiday is, and contact will not go ahead. There are zero stipulations around where someone has to go for it to count as holiday. She could camp in her backyard and count it as ‘holiday’, if it’s her week, it’s her week to have that time with her DC.

If her DC are not enjoying contact and return as she claims, then she needs to document it and go back to court.

Does he pay her any spousal? Does she work?

I just wanted to say he sounds like a useless specimen of a father. He can't even buy pyjamas and toiletries...waste if space and your poor friend dealing with this idiot.

Another sperm donor and oxygen waster.

So he wants contact but no shopping,cooking or dressing the child.
Well,this is the job of a PARENT and not just mother.

Wanker of the year.

Wouldn’t entertain it at all, keep diary and go back to court if needed.

If he doesn’t have any overnights, then cm amount needs to reflect that. The mother should be getting more, as she has the child/children 7 nights a week.

He won't even buy food or toothpaste?! This is so bizarre! Can she stop contact on this basis alone?

And if he isn't doing overnights then the child maintenance needs to be adjusted.

I wonder if some of the confusion is the difference between legal obligations, and decent parenting. There is no legal obligation for him to buy clothing, provide home cooked food etc, but obviously any decent parent would do these things.

The whole set up sounds really odd though, why do they not stay overnight when he has them for a week? I'm also not sure I understand why contact would not go ahead in a week that they were at home anyway, as surely day trips can be arranged around that easily. It sounds like neither parent is putting the DC first, and both are trying to make the other look bad. Surely if the RP knows they won't be fed while away you would send food rather than let them go hungry?

Advice I was given by cms is that if I wanted to get maintenance changed to what he actually has the kids rather than the CAO I would need to go back to court to get it changed first.

I stopped providing stuff for overnights etc when he provided his spending breakdown for the divorce and was counting stuff for the kids.

She needs better advice it's a minefield and you have to think of everything yourself

If dad isn't having the children overnight then there would be no reduction in maintenance. If the court order stipulates overnight contact but dad is choosing not to have it then go back to CMS and argue this point. You maybe told to get court order changed... is this an option.
Unfortunately neither CMS / nor the courts stipulate who is to provide clothes/ toiletries/ toys at the non resident parent home - I think because naturally they expect common sense to prevail. Dad should he providing the basics PJs / underwear/ toiletries and perhaps a change of clothes. Would they not take clothes from mums and then take them home? This sounds like a very strange situation.

If its not in the agreement then how on earth is she to be held to it?
Surely she would be better off just ignoring his demands like no going away and having to provide food etc