Uniform costs part of CMS payments?

[Odellio]

SS starts secondary school in September. Is it normal that uniform costs are split between parents in addition to CMS payments for the NRP? Or would uniform costs be covered by CMS?

According to my ex, the piddling CMS is more than enough to cover absolutely everything

I think that reasonable people discuss this and try to reach a fair outcome

Obviously it is best to share the cost. i have children without proper clothing in school because their parents are arguing about who has to pay for it. It is not very edifying.

Presumably both parents require and want the child to be in the right uniform, so both parents should contribute

I think it's bizarre to think that you can define what is covered by CMS when it's not constant. Like how can you say it's supposed to cover everything when it's a percentage of someone else's income? It makes no sense.

My ex has not given a single penny more in 15 years than basic maintenance. My dh has paid way over for years.
If he's decent of course he'll contribute but that depends on him and he doesn't have too

Their Mum is the NRP.

Thanks for the quick responses, I agree. But Their Mum seems to think she doesn’t have to pay.

We will obviously ensure he has everything he needs regardless!

I would say it should be covered either by CMS or by the child benefit from the government. CMS is a contribution to the increased household costs, such as more food or special clothing such as school uniform.

There are so many things that the dad has to pay for and doesn’t get any help, such as housing which is then empty for most of the month, extra clothes and shoes and coats and sports kit at his which is only worn a few times and then outgrown but still needs to be bought.

The CMS contributed to the hobbies and extra food and things like uniform in my opinion. There is also the child benefit to use so I would expect that to be saved up for these things.

Technically that’s correct, all the NRP has to pay is CMS, that is their contribution to everything the child needs and they do not have to pay a penny more, they don’t have to contribute to uniforms, clothes etc on top of that.

A decent nrp would pay towards uniform costs in addition but they can't be made to if they don't want to. There is no obligation beyond cms

The NRP still needs to buy everything the child needs at the second house. That might include uniform depending on the schedule. It definitely includes clothing.

Mum won’t be needing uniforms at her house, she doesn’t have any custody on school days. So would your opinion change, or it still includes all clothing?

Any decent NRP should split big extras like uniform.

A good parent would halve all uniform costs (which can be horrific, especially during growth spurts &/or with a move up to secondary school or similar), but sadly many don't.

A good parent would also do their fair share of sourcing and purchasing uniforms. No one wants to spend their weekend in Clarks getting school shoes, or take time off work to visit the school second hand shop (which always seems to open during working hours 🙄) these are boring and time-consuming jobs which should be split between the parents, but some will unfortunately never do their fair share of the parenting load.

I do agree with this. I can’t imagine not wanting to do those things for my child.

So far during primary years she has done a fair share of sourcing and paying, so has been very even. Maybe why I’m surprised of her recent comment and asking for advice.

I think school uniform is reasonable to go halves on. Where the uniform then sits depending on the house the kids go to school from etc

Where it can be tricky is once an NRP is on CMS they'll sometimes think sod the RP that's what you've requested that's what you're having.

You'll get the usual around maintenance being the 'minimum' but unfortunately the argument doesn't really consider the true financial situation for the NRP.

I think it depends entirely on how much maintenance you get.

Secondary school uniform is normally a big outlay, but as they don’t grow as fast tends to last a bit longer. On an average maintenance payment for an average salary I’d say it’s not enough to cover the outlay so the NRP should contribute

My DH contributes 50% of extras such as uniform as his maintenance payment isn’t huge but enough to cover the basics but any large outlays it wouldn’t cover so he pays half.
However I get a decent maintenance payment as ex is a high earner so I don’t ask for any extra.

I very often see that maintenance is the bare minimum but this is not always the case

Well yes. You can have 3 Dads who all see their kids say every other weekend. Let's assume we're talking about 1 child in each case for simplicity.

Due to salary levels let's say Dad 1 pays 300 a month, Dad 2 pays 650 per month and Dad 3 pays 1000 per month.

Which Dad is paying the minimum? Or are they all paying a reasonable amount based on the income received.

If NRP sees the child only on the cheap and easy days, then I absolutely think they should
be contributing extra for things like uniform, childcare, school trips, and all the other big expenses of childhood. It’s only if the time split is fair in its actual burden that the expenses can be fairly distributed.

it would be better if the law reflected that explicitly.

A good parent would pay half the uniforms. Unfortunately there are lots of not so good parents (mothers included) who view CMS as all they should pay. The system lets them get away with it.

Very simplistic view.

I specifically had it written into our financial agreement when we divorced that school uniform, shoes, trips and extra curricular activities were all the be paid in addition to CMS.

but if you don’t have that, then you can’t make anyone share it!

I'd say most parents are forced into CMS because the NRP tries to get out of paying very much at all, not sure anyone would willing use it if they could come to a sensible agreement with their ex. It's based on the NRP's income, I'm not sure what else you'd expect them to base it on. A NRP's outgoings shouldn't affect the amount of maintenance they pay otherwise all they'd do is up their outgoings! It's actually very fair to a NRP, if they don't earn much, they don't pay much. The RP is the one left trying to make up the shortfall of the real cost of looking after a child if maintenance is low. Of course there are instances where a RP doesn't spend the maintenance responsibly, I wouldn't class them as good parent either.

I thought financial agreements were only binding for 12 months after issue. Even then the other side would have to agree to this being in the financial agreement as part of the divorce.

They are all paying the minimum. It's the minimum that's required of them by law to support their child. In the same way a RP has a minimum amount of financial support they should be spending on their child without it being neglect. A good parent would prioritise their child and spend more than the minimum required of them.

It said something by like ‘until the children reach the age of 16’ he’s still paying up without drama!