Maintenance Changes - Opinions Please!

unholyangel

Does your ex actually realise she's being paid far more than you're required to?

If she doesn't perhaps ask her to check for herself. You may find she's more amenable when she realises that she's entitled to less for 5 days than you're offering for the 4 days.

I'd never recommend someone only pay the minimum - especially if they can afford more - as child maintenance works based on what you earn rather than the actual costs of raising the child. However it may also be worthwhile to point out to your ex that although you're willing to pay more than required, that payment doesn't have to be made via her - you could choose to set up an account for each of the children for when they're older or even just spend extra on them when they are at yours.

ETA: I mean the above as a way of showing that you're being more than fair with her rather than as a way to blackmail her!

FBaby

Assuming the maintenance you pay doesn't include an element towards the mortgage that remains joint then of course you are reasonable. What would be easier to comment on is her rationale why she thinks it isn't. Does she pay for childcare and would continue to do so even on the days they are with you, holidays? Does she pays all their activities school uniforms school trips etc...?

robeano

Hi Everyone

Thank you so much for your opinions. On the whole it feels like I'm not being completely unreasonable so I think I'll carry on with the proposed reduction. However, I really like the idea of phasing it over a couple of months to make sure my ex can adjust more easily.

Thanks again Moneysavers - you're all wonderful!

Rob

kingfisherblue

robeano wrote: »

Hi Everyone

Thank you so much for your opinions. On the whole it feels like I'm not being completely unreasonable so I think I'll carry on with the proposed reduction. However, I really like the idea of phasing it over a couple of months to make sure my ex can adjust more easily.

Thanks again Moneysavers - you're all wonderful!

Rob

You sound like a very reasonable man, and thoughtful too.

Marvel1

silvercar wrote: »

If £800 represented her having them for 5/7ths of the week. That means £640 is equivalent to having them 4/7ths of the week.

That is just on a pro-rata basis. In practical terms she still provides a home for them, can't rent out their rooms when they are not there, won't really buy them less clothes, may have a marginal drop in electricity and water and has to buy slightly less food. So I'm not convinced pro-rata is fair.

So basically the same as OP then.

silvercar

Guest101 wrote: »

It's 4/7 vs 3/7, so really the amount to be paid should be 1/7, but I appreciate it doesn't work like that, bizarrely

4/7 of one person's income won't be be 3/7 of the other, unless they earn identical amounts.

Guest101

silvercar wrote: »

4/7 of one person's income won't be be 3/7 of the other, unless they earn identical amounts.

Indeed, but that isn't what I meant.


The cost of looking after children doesn't depend on income, it's more or less the same no matter which parent is doing it.