Child maintenance on 50/50 co parenting but 3 sleeps a week

Tezap

ZaSa1418 said:

Did she say why she wont allow you to have them on the Sat night? Is it because of the money? 

Her stated reason isn't because of the money and I'm trying not to raise the money issue so it doesn't appear to be my motivation. She feels that if I have Friday night (which she sees as a fun night but in reality the kids are exhausted from a week at school) then she should get Saturday night. I'd like to have the kids overnight on alternate Saturdays but I wasn't going to push it too hard (as it is only 26 occurances a year when they would be asleep in bed anyway) and was happy with 3 nights a week if only this 0.5 night a week wasn't causing such a big payment to be required.

tightauldgit

Tezap said:

Thanks I guess it's checking that I haven't missed anything as £447 per month seems a crazy amount for the difference between 3 and 3.5 sleeps per week when the rest of our arrangements such as school pickups /dropoffs, weekends,  breakfast/dinner and school holidays are broadly 50/50.
I want the extra 0.5 overnight a week with them and don't want this financial drain as I already have half the childcare costs and my own home to maintain so I guess it's going to have to be trying to securely it via solicitors if she won't agree it.
Any other ideas anyone?
What happens to the child benefit in a 3.5 nights a week situation? Do HMRC just toss a coin, let the mother keep claiming it, etc?

Child Benefit can only be paid to one parent and given your ex is already receiving it then I would think it would stay with her unless there was some specific court order to the contrary. 

As for the other stuff if that's what the calculator is saying and you've input the right info then it's right. 

If you want to save money the only thing you can do is cut back on what you spend outside of the child maintenance. 

MalMonroe

I've been through a divorce and my daughter was only 9 at the time. She was absolutely traumatised. And that was without any moving backwards and forwards from one home to another. She visited but never wanted to stay at her father's. Mostly because he'd moved in with someone else who had her own two boys.  

But what I'm trying to say here in a very clumsy way is that your children must come first. Their parents have split up, try to imagine how they must be feeling. It appears that they haven't had any choice in what's happening to them (your ex and you have decided how their time with you will be split) and now there's bickering about who is going to pay for 0.5% of the time they are with one or other parent. Is it really important? 

On an annual salary of £49k I'd imagine that you can well afford to pay for your children. Even if it does appear that you are paying twice. (I don't think it does appear like that). Your children didn't ask to be born, they deserve the best of everything. Spend your money on them and their care. Don't bother about what your ex is spending or acquiring. I bet her salary isn't as high as yours but it really is not about you two. You both need to step up and be parents, rather than a couple at war.

I agree with what tightauldgit says, above, "If you want to save money the only thing you can do is cut back on what you spend outside of the child maintenance." Those children have to come first.

HampshireH

MalMonroe said:

I've been through a divorce and my daughter was only 9 at the time. She was absolutely traumatised. And that was without any moving backwards and forwards from one home to another. She visited but never wanted to stay at her father's. Mostly because he'd moved in with someone else who had her own two boys.  

But what I'm trying to say here in a very clumsy way is that your children must come first. Their parents have split up, try to imagine how they must be feeling. It appears that they haven't had any choice in what's happening to them (your ex and you have decided how their time with you will be split) and now there's bickering about who is going to pay for 0.5% of the time they are with one or other parent. Is it really important? 

On an annual salary of £49k I'd imagine that you can well afford to pay for your children. Even if it does appear that you are paying twice. (I don't think it does appear like that). Your children didn't ask to be born, they deserve the best of everything. Spend your money on them and their care. Don't bother about what your ex is spending or acquiring. I bet her salary isn't as high as yours but it really is not about you two. You both need to step up and be parents, rather than a couple at war.

I agree with what tightauldgit says, above, "If you want to save money the only thing you can do is cut back on what you spend outside of the child maintenance." Those children have to come first.

What leads you to these assumptions?

OP could be saddled with debt accrued in the relationship for all we know.

The ex definitely could be on more than OP.

Both parents should be equally accountable for child costs depending on the time they have them. OP shouldn't just have to accept they will have to pay more if it turns out it isn't correct.

tightauldgit

MalMonroe said:

I've been through a divorce and my daughter was only 9 at the time. She was absolutely traumatised. And that was without any moving backwards and forwards from one home to another. She visited but never wanted to stay at her father's. Mostly because he'd moved in with someone else who had her own two boys.  

But what I'm trying to say here in a very clumsy way is that your children must come first. Their parents have split up, try to imagine how they must be feeling. It appears that they haven't had any choice in what's happening to them (your ex and you have decided how their time with you will be split) and now there's bickering about who is going to pay for 0.5% of the time they are with one or other parent. Is it really important? 

On an annual salary of £49k I'd imagine that you can well afford to pay for your children. Even if it does appear that you are paying twice. (I don't think it does appear like that). Your children didn't ask to be born, they deserve the best of everything. Spend your money on them and their care. Don't bother about what your ex is spending or acquiring. I bet her salary isn't as high as yours but it really is not about you two. You both need to step up and be parents, rather than a couple at war.

I agree with what tightauldgit says, above, "If you want to save money the only thing you can do is cut back on what you spend outside of the child maintenance." Those children have to come first.

The children should come first but that's often used by people to suggest that parents (and dad's especially I think) don't stand up for their rights which I totally disagree with. 

I think the OP has made a fair point about the way the system works in their post but unfortunately that is the way the system works so there probably isn't any way around it. 

I don't really agree with the assumption that just paying more maintenance makes the kids lives any better - not least of all because there is no requirement that any of that maintenance is spent to make the kids lives any better. 

ZaSa1418

Tezap said:

ZaSa1418 said:

Did she say why she wont allow you to have them on the Sat night? Is it because of the money? 

Her stated reason isn't because of the money and I'm trying not to raise the money issue so it doesn't appear to be my motivation. She feels that if I have Friday night (which she sees as a fun night but in reality the kids are exhausted from a week at school) then she should get Saturday night. I'd like to have the kids overnight on alternate Saturdays but I wasn't going to push it too hard (as it is only 26 occurances a year when they would be asleep in bed anyway) and was happy with 3 nights a week if only this 0.5 night a week wasn't causing such a big payment to be required.

Have you asked to have them a different night, if she thinks Friday and Saturdays are 'fun' nights then ask for another night of an alternative basis.  
As the kids get older chances are the schedule will change to cater for them. 

ZaSa1418

Tezap said:

Thanks I guess it's checking that I haven't missed anything as £447 per month seems a crazy amount for the difference between 3 and 3.5 sleeps per week when the rest of our arrangements such as school pickups /dropoffs, weekends,  breakfast/dinner and school holidays are broadly 50/50.
I want the extra 0.5 overnight a week with them and don't want this financial drain as I already have half the childcare costs and my own home to maintain so I guess it's going to have to be trying to securely it via solicitors if she won't agree it.
Any other ideas anyone?
What happens to the child benefit in a 3.5 nights a week situation? Do HMRC just toss a coin, let the mother keep claiming it, etc?

If you have more than 1 child and have them all for 50% of the time you can apply to the child benefit office. If you can prove you have 50/50 they then should split it e.g. you get child benefit for 1 and she keeps it for the other child (if there are 2 kids) 

I know many mums who only get cb for 1 of their children because it's 50/50 and dad gets the other 1. 

Has she actually asked you for maintenance? 

Tezap

MalMonroe said:

I've been through a divorce and my daughter was only 9 at the time. She was absolutely traumatised. And that was without any moving backwards and forwards from one home to another. She visited but never wanted to stay at her father's. Mostly because he'd moved in with someone else who had her own two boys.  

But what I'm trying to say here in a very clumsy way is that your children must come first. Their parents have split up, try to imagine how they must be feeling. It appears that they haven't had any choice in what's happening to them (your ex and you have decided how their time with you will be split) and now there's bickering about who is going to pay for 0.5% of the time they are with one or other parent. Is it really important?

Our situation is a bit different in that my wife was unfaithful and I saw the signs but gave her the benefit of the doubt for so long until eventually I found by accident overwhelming evidence and she admitted it but wasn't sorry and that was the end. The kids have been ok about it. I have been very careful not to say anything negative about her or debate any topics in their presence however hard that has been.

On an annual salary of £49k I'd imagine that you can well afford to pay for your children. Even if it does appear that you are paying twice. (I don't think it does appear like that). Your children didn't ask to be born, they deserve the best of everything. Spend your money on them and their care. Don't bother about what your ex is spending or acquiring. I bet her salary isn't as high as yours but it really is not about you two. You both need to step up and be parents, rather than a couple at war.

It's not a question of if I can afford them but if I should have to pay twice?

While £49k sounds a lot it's less than £36k after income tax, national insurance and a low % of pension contributions. Then after the child maintenence payments that leaves me with £30k pa. Agree that still sounds a lot but I need 3 bedrooms and have £200k on the mortgage to service (my fixed rate ends next year...) and normal household bills including buying the kids half their clothes, paying for half their school trips, half the school meals, half their bithday parties, buying presents for them to go to birthday parties on my days, petrol, a car to eventually replace, etc.

Tezap

HampshireH said:

OP could be saddled with debt accrued in the relationship for all we know.
The ex definitely could be on more than OP.

While she earns a little less if you add her after tax income, the child benefit and this child maintence payment she has much more income than my after tax income minus child maintence.

She also has lower ongoing costs as she has taken a higher percentage of the property equity in return for me keeping the bigger pension (her pension is good too as she never gave up work, the difference is age related) so yes I have more debt to service. I've had to go interest-only for now and am hoping the tax free lump sum from the pension will eventually help me on the mortgage balance which should reduce the interest enough to convert to repayment.

I get the 'stop arguiing about money an focus on the kids' argument but this really seems unfair and it's going to stop me being able to spend quality time with my kids taking them on nice days out and a holiday each year. I'm already buying the cheapest food in the supermarket and have been having ultra low cost days with the kids (sometimes not really leaving the house other than to walk to the park) to try and keep solvent.

HampshireH said:

Both parents should be equally accountable for child costs depending on the time they have them. OP shouldn't just have to accept they will have to pay more if it turns out it isn't correct.

It does seem very unfair but I don't see much I can do about it.

Thank you for your understanding.

Tezap

tightauldgit said:

The children should come first but that's often used by people to suggest that parents (and dad's especially I think) don't stand up for their rights which I totally disagree with. 

I think the OP has made a fair point about the way the system works in their post but unfortunately that is the way the system works so there probably isn't any way around it. 

I don't really agree with the assumption that just paying more maintenance makes the kids lives any better - not least of all because there is no requirement that any of that maintenance is spent to make the kids lives any better. 

Thank you yes the 2 issues seem to get conflated so easily and I end up looking like the stereotype bad dad who is unwilling to pay for their children as most people (including me until recently) assume the calculation is fair and it's really not the case.

My kids will enjoy a lower standard of living if the half the time they spend with me is boring because I'm needing to be so tight so that I can make this payment to their mother based on where they sleep after I have fed them on a Saturday night.

I think the only answer is to try and get a 50/50 court ruling that we alternate the Saturday nights. I didn't really want it to be this way where the money tail is wagging the dog on the childcare arrangements but sadly it seems the only answer.