Thoughts on what CM covers

Interested to get others thoughts on this matter...

I pay agreed CM to STBX of 20% of my income for x2 kids. Our incomes are at opposite ends, so what she gets from me is nearly equivalent to her wage.

I understand that this is the formula, and i do not have an issue paying it. I want to provide for my kids. When we were together she would buy the childrens clothes and other necessities with my bank card from places like Asda, Tesco, Primark, etc. She still does. What i give her each month is more than double what we ever would have spent on them. I understand CM covers more than clothes - my point is that they should not go without or want for anything with what i give her. I''m probably contributing towards her living costs as well as the kids.

I am often asked by the kids for things - winter coat, new shoes, etc. I am happy to treat my kids, of course, but I have a nagging thought about the large sum of money i pay each month, plus these little sundries.

We have no wording in a court order about CM. I dont want to go there as we still dont have an agreed signed CO. STBX and I do not talk.

Am i wrong to insist that anything the kids ''need'' like winter coasts and school shoes come from my CM? As I believe if i had to, i could prove what I spent each month on the kids things when I was there and show that i give her more than enough to cover everything - including school trips, bus fares, etc.

Or do i just swallow these costs for the sake of the kids? STBX blackmails the kids into thinking they go without because of Daddy, that Daddy has all this money and she struggles along. Its not true, Actually, with my CM and her income at 20% tax and mine at 40%, she actually has a similar income. I hate seeing my kids not having the things they want and need, but there needs to be a line.

Does your CM cover EVERYTHING for the kids other than the things you CHOOSE to buy them?

Or do you pay standard rate CM and still buy these things for them?

I am curious to get others opinions before tackling this with STBX.

So you think you are contributing towards ''her'' living costs. What exactly are these? Gas, electric, mortgage/rent, council tax, water? If the answer to this is yes, then how are these living costs not part of your children''s living costs too?

pixy wrote:

So you think you are contributing towards ''her'' living costs. What exactly are these? Gas, electric, mortgage/rent, council tax, water? If the answer to this is yes, then how are these living costs not part of your children''s living costs too?

Pixy, i understand my CM contributes towards this for the kids, but it should be a contribution, not a majority. I believe both parents ought to support themselves and their children. She also shares these costs with her partner whom she cohabits with. I believe there is at least a few hundred pounds a month received that exceeds whats needed, this is used towards her share of house costs plus expenditure for her phone, car, clothes, etc

CM covers everything a child needs - which can be their living costs, clothing, activities etc... Or that''s what I thought anyway. If you pay what you''re supposed to pay that''s good my ex didn''t and if you wish to buy them extra clothes or things that''s great but that''s voluntary or maybe just being a decent dad?
You don''t have to buy or pay for the extras if your paying the CM at the going rate but if you want to pay for extras that is voluntary.
Your stbx has to understand the money she gets for CM should cover all their needs including bills etc... If she can''t manage she''ll have to just pay for the essentials.
Do what you feel is right and what you can afford.

If you genuinely believe that your contribution covers the children''s living costs as well as clothing, shoes, school trips, acitivities etc then I think your first port of call is to discuss with her whether you are correct. And if you are then I am with Catwoman, the rest is voluntary.

I do not know how long you have been separated or how old the children are, but don''t be surprised if you discover that the costs really have gone up. It''s going to need a very careful, tactful discussion - don''t wade in as though you are convinced she is doing you over (even if she is).

As Pixy said- do the maths
If your ex is actually better off than she was when you were together than the answer is simple. Chances are if you are in th e''high income'' category- she will be.

I used to get asked for extras all the time. If you say yes, this will continue and it begins to turn into a bit of a pss take. Saying ''no'' sets the tone straight away.

Dont forget your ex will probably be getting benefits- and for 2 kids this can be quite a nice money maker alongside your CM.

somuch2know2 wrote:

As Pixy said- do the maths
If your ex is actually better off than she was when you were together than the answer is simple. Chances are if you are in th e''high income'' category- she will be.

I used to get asked for extras all the time. If you say yes, this will continue and it begins to turn into a bit of a pss take. Saying ''no'' sets the tone straight away.

Dont forget your ex will probably be getting benefits- and for 2 kids this can be quite a nice money maker alongside your CM.

As the ex in this case is working, and has a new partner, it is highly unlikely she is ''making money'' from benefits.

Please do not forget that benefits/tax credits top up low incomes and mean the difference for many households between paying bills and for the basics, and really, really struggling. For single parent households, tax credits and maintenance (where it is paid) can mean that working actually pays. Suggesting this is a ''nice money maker'' is simply perpetuating the ''single mums on benefits plunder our economy and give nothing back'' myth. I wonder how it feels to be a child of a mum/dad/parents who work hard but who also receive benefits/tax credits when they are hear this? What messages does it send them? Isn''t it hard enough to be a child from a ''broken home'' without having to deal with the not-so-subliminal message that the parent they live with somehow isn''t good enough?