Am I the only one who thinks it isn't right...

Oakdene · 28 June 2018 at 9:49AM

Basically my ex wife & I have 2 children, our daughter (13) lives with me & our son (10) lives with her. We split the care 50:50, as in our kids spend every weekend & all school holidays together.

We both work & she has re-married. Her husband works as a social worker. Most people in this situation, i.e. with care of one child each, would not bother with maintenance as it's swings & roundabouts. However we do, I pay £130 a month (direct into her account) & she pays me £75 a month (which is actually £90 as she uses CMS collect & pay despite me giving my bank details to her).

My son came over the other weekend & said that 'Mum is going to college to re-train' (currently works in admin). So when I saw her next I asked, with genuine interest what she was re-training in & she said nursing hopefully. She then said that as of September, her maintenance payments would be stopping as she won't be working at all. I didn't say anything apart from 'Ok'.

Am I wrong in thinking that it is a little unfair that I will be the only one paying maintenance now, especially given that I am (very happily) single & she has re-married (to someone who earns a good fair whack more than me)?

Nannytone · 28 June 2018 at 12:24PM

What her husband earns is irrelevant because they are your children and not his.

It would be nice if people acted in a fair way but they don't

Oakdene · 28 June 2018 at 12:29PM

Nannytone wrote: »

What her husband earns is irrelevant because they are your children and not his.

It would be nice if people acted in a fair way but they don't

I do see what you mean by this but by the same token why should the amount of maintenance I receive from her be reduced because she has decided to have another child?

pmduk · 29 June 2018 at 8:52AM

Oakdene wrote: »

I do see what you mean by this but by the same token why should the amount of maintenance I receive from her be reduced because she has decided to have another child?

You said she is retraining not having another child

Oakdene · 29 June 2018 at 8:54AM

pmduk wrote: »

You said she is retraining not having another child

Yes she is retraining. The amount of maintenance she pays me was reduced when she had a child with her new husband 2 years ago.

BAFE · 29 June 2018 at 6:51PM

You expect another man to pay for your children?

Sambella · 29 June 2018 at 11:51PM

The issue is that you both only have your non resident children (who live with the other parent ) weekends and holidays and not 50/50 day to day care. You’d need to have them 3.5 days each or 7 days out of 14 or whatever other equal split. So technically you’re both liable for CMS for 1 child only each if one wants it that way.

If the split of the non resident children was a true 50/50 neither of you would be classed as non resident parents.

jimd-f · 30 June 2018 at 10:14AM

not quite right Sambella as the issue of who is the parent with care is governed by who receives the child benefit.
so if both parents receive child benefit for the child living with them then even if they have 50/50 shared care there could still be CMS cases open by either party, or both, and both Paying Parents would have to contribute based on their respective incomes.

HoneyNutLoop · 1 July 2018 at 9:24AM

Sambella is in fact correct for a new CMS case. If both parents share equal day to day care (not just overnight care) and both equally bear financial responsibility then neither can be classed as a non resident parent. This is a significant and deliberate shift in law from CSA cases, where one parent must be determined as the non resident parent.

Oakdene · 2 July 2018 at 12:40PM

BAFE wrote: »

You expect another man to pay for your children?

Not at all, if I had it my way we wouldn't even be paying maintenance to each other.

jimd-f · 3 July 2018 at 9:06AM

HoneyNutLoop, you are correct in what you say.
the problem in reality is that if both parents do not agree that there is 50/50 day to day care and the receiving parent gets child benefit then CMS will open a case and pursue the paying parent.
it will be up to the paying parent to prove that there should not be a case.

this can be quite a complex issue -there have been court cases involving Durham Legal Services- as the government has not legally defined day to day care.
as the governments position on child care is that this should be worked out between parents wherever possible in a case like this then without an agreement between the parties you get to the position where there are 2 cases open; which was never the intention

Am I the only one who thinks it isn't right...

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free