Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Why are nursery fees not included in child maintenance?

106 replies

haeesgy · 05/01/2024 11:19

Yes, I know it’s the resident parent’s choice whether to send the child to nursery… but the reality is it’s either that or don’t work..!

I would LOVE ex to have 50/50 care of our child. I didn’t have a child expecting him to turn up once a week (at best) for half a day. I didn’t want this, he left.

And now I’m left with child maintenance which is a long way from half nursery fees. Why is nothing done about this? Women treated appallingly again.

OP posts:
cadburyegg · 05/01/2024 12:29

Savedpassword · 05/01/2024 12:00

CMS in this country isn’t fit for purpose. If resident parents failed to feed, clothe, house and provide safe appropriate childcare, social services would be on the doorstep.

Indeed.

My ex quit his job to become self employed. He receives benefits to help start his business. I now get the grand sum of £0 per week for 2 children. It's so depressing. He has a 6 figure sum in his bank account after I bought him out of the house, but apparently that's irrelevant.

Sdpbody · 05/01/2024 12:29

I would leave the family home and my children, if my DH ever left me. Then I would ask for 50/50. No way would I be shafted with the every other weekend most men get away with.

haeesgy · 05/01/2024 12:20

araiwa · 05/01/2024 12:18

Make child custody a default of 50/50

No maintenance issues at all and each parent is responsible for their 50%

@araiwa I have tried. He does the bare minimum in every sense of the word.

OP posts:
GertrudePerkinsPaperyThing · 05/01/2024 12:20

araiwa · 05/01/2024 12:18

Make child custody a default of 50/50

No maintenance issues at all and each parent is responsible for their 50%

I don’t agree with this as it’s not always in the best interests of the child - both the fact of not having a “main” home, and because some parents aren’t suitable to have care of their children 50% of the time - whilst their ex partner is a perfectly good parent.

zendeveloper · 05/01/2024 12:19

Fiddlerdragon · 05/01/2024 12:14

He won’t have his child more though to relieve the burden of the nursery fees on the op. If they both need to work a standard 9-5 Monday to Friday job, how fair is it for the dad to be able to say, well I’m not having her Monday to Friday coz I’m in work, I’ll just have her on Saturdays. Giving the op no choice but to pay for childcare for every single day that they both work? I agree that if the father has the option of having the child 50/50, then he should be at least partly responsible for the childcare fees that the mother then has to pay because they’re BOTH in work. It’s definitely not fair

It can be even better. The father's contribution is calculated based on nights, not days. In my case, we ended up with 3 nights / 4 nights split per week, where the father was picking them from the nursery at 7pm and dropping off at 8am the next day. But the days and the childcare costs were mine, and he made big round eyes in the children's matter hearing - "but I can't have them during the day! I am working!" - so the order was made for nights only. It did not last, however, he got tired in two months and disappeared nearly completely.

araiwa · 05/01/2024 12:18

Make child custody a default of 50/50

No maintenance issues at all and each parent is responsible for their 50%

GertrudePerkinsPaperyThing · 05/01/2024 12:16

Goldbar · 05/01/2024 12:12

Because society is deeply misogynistic and many men (both in and out of relationships) are let off the hook in terms of their caring responsibilities again and again.

There should be a minimum maintenance amount that covers a decent amount of essentials and (assuming the child is in nursery) up to 50% of reasonable childcare costs incurred. If an NRP is unable to pay due to unemployment/low income, the state should make up the shortfall and a charge put on the NRP's pension. It should also be possible to seize assets to pay towards maintenance.

All of this basically.

And there should be consequences for non payers.

Youcannotbeseriousreally · 05/01/2024 12:15

Fiddlerdragon · 05/01/2024 12:14

He won’t have his child more though to relieve the burden of the nursery fees on the op. If they both need to work a standard 9-5 Monday to Friday job, how fair is it for the dad to be able to say, well I’m not having her Monday to Friday coz I’m in work, I’ll just have her on Saturdays. Giving the op no choice but to pay for childcare for every single day that they both work? I agree that if the father has the option of having the child 50/50, then he should be at least partly responsible for the childcare fees that the mother then has to pay because they’re BOTH in work. It’s definitely not fair

I fully get your point. I can only speak from my experience, where we are responsible for the childcare on our days. Though ours were older so it was wrap around costings rather than nursery.

haeesgy · 05/01/2024 12:14

What I find most sad is the number of women who don’t seem to understand it. We should all be making men accountable.

OP posts:
Fiddlerdragon · 05/01/2024 12:14

Youcannotbeseriousreally · 05/01/2024 11:21

I would be fighting for fees on the days he’s supposed to have the little one. You can’t expect him to pay the fees int he says he’s paying you if that makes sense?

He won’t have his child more though to relieve the burden of the nursery fees on the op. If they both need to work a standard 9-5 Monday to Friday job, how fair is it for the dad to be able to say, well I’m not having her Monday to Friday coz I’m in work, I’ll just have her on Saturdays. Giving the op no choice but to pay for childcare for every single day that they both work? I agree that if the father has the option of having the child 50/50, then he should be at least partly responsible for the childcare fees that the mother then has to pay because they’re BOTH in work. It’s definitely not fair

PuttingDownRoots · 05/01/2024 12:14

Because maintenance only looks at the income not the actual costs of the child. Its not right morally.

Goldbar · 05/01/2024 12:12

Because society is deeply misogynistic and many men (both in and out of relationships) are let off the hook in terms of their caring responsibilities again and again.

There should be a minimum maintenance amount that covers a decent amount of essentials and (assuming the child is in nursery) up to 50% of reasonable childcare costs incurred. If an NRP is unable to pay due to unemployment/low income, the state should make up the shortfall and a charge put on the NRP's pension. It should also be possible to seize assets to pay towards maintenance.

zendeveloper · 05/01/2024 12:09

haeesgy · 05/01/2024 12:02

@zendeveloper a lifestyle choice. What a cunt.

It is unfortunately a situation no one actually understands unless they have actually been in the shoes of a single mother with an actual professional job to maintain. Invisible in plain sight. I won't even mention other things said at that hearing, but it was crystal clear that the old white male judge did not have to bother with a question about who looked after his own children when he was in the courtroom EVER in his life.

haeesgy · 05/01/2024 12:02

zendeveloper · 05/01/2024 11:59

I think it is mainly to do with the single mother stigma here in the UK, and won't be a popular decision. Look, this woman is already a substandard mother due to failing to secure a father for her children, and now she dares to send them to childcare! Reeee! Unforgivable.

OP, I feel for you. My childcare fees at some point were £3K / month with two toddlers (the absolutely cheapest local nursery), and ex, who earned exactly the same as me, was assessed to be paying £380/month for both (as it is calculated on NIGHTS, not DAYS). It ended up in the court even, and the judge said that sending them to childcare was a lifestyle choice for me, I could have stayed home instead - so no allowance for any fees.

@zendeveloper a lifestyle choice. What a cunt.

OP posts:
haeesgy · 05/01/2024 12:01

novhange · 05/01/2024 11:59

Is it because you can help from UC for nursery fees?

I tested a scenario on the UC website where I was a single mum, and even on my salary (higher tax payer), the website said I was entitled to £2k per month in childcare fees.

Edited

@novhange how is this possible? I earn 59k so doubt I am going to be given 2k in childcare

OP posts:
Savedpassword · 05/01/2024 12:00

CMS in this country isn’t fit for purpose. If resident parents failed to feed, clothe, house and provide safe appropriate childcare, social services would be on the doorstep.

zendeveloper · 05/01/2024 11:59

I think it is mainly to do with the single mother stigma here in the UK, and won't be a popular decision. Look, this woman is already a substandard mother due to failing to secure a father for her children, and now she dares to send them to childcare! Reeee! Unforgivable.

OP, I feel for you. My childcare fees at some point were £3K / month with two toddlers (the absolutely cheapest local nursery), and ex, who earned exactly the same as me, was assessed to be paying £380/month for both (as it is calculated on NIGHTS, not DAYS). It ended up in the court even, and the judge said that sending them to childcare was a lifestyle choice for me, I could have stayed home instead - so no allowance for any fees.

novhange · 05/01/2024 11:59

Is it because you can help from UC for nursery fees?

I tested a scenario on the UC website where I was a single mum, and even on my salary (higher tax payer), the website said I was entitled to £2k per month in childcare fees.

Grilly · 05/01/2024 11:57

SMP is paid to nine months, school starts from 4/5. The time in between should be covered by standardised, subsidised, government funded childcare. Any additional cost should be split between the parents.

Pregnant Then Screwed do a lot of campaigning on the matter, OP.

Grilly · 05/01/2024 11:53

Kpo58 · 05/01/2024 11:26

Because you could want to send your DC to the most expensive childcare around and the other parent may not be able to afford it.

The real question should be why doesn't the government want to invest in childcare by making it free/very affordable so that most single parents can afford to work and have careers like the absent parent can. Why do they want so many children to grow up in poverty continuing the cycle of deprivation?

This. Our nursery costs are amongst the highest in the world.

FieldInWhichFucksAreGrownIsBarren · 05/01/2024 11:51

Of course he should pay towards this and I agree that it's yet another way women are let down, it's like the list is neverending... 😔

haeesgy · 05/01/2024 11:49

Absurd that there’s political discussion about this when women are suffering at the hands of deadbeats who don’t provide for their children.

My ex pays 500 a month. He earns more than me, just, yet I pay the entire 1,300 nursery bill and all of DC’s costs.

OP posts:
BingoWings85 · 05/01/2024 11:46

Do you really think that the real question is why shouldn't tax payers fund free childcare for all so that feckless fathers don't have to pay reasonable costs towards their children?

Well, the UK’s anomalous in having such an expensive (and poor quality) childcare system. I haven’t looked this up but from memory it’s the second most expensive in the world and one of only two countries where more than 50% of the cost of childcare comes directs from parents’ pockets.

If lone parents can access childcare, they can work, pay tax and hopefully won’t need to claim benefits. If they can’t, they don’t pay tax and probably have to claim benefits - and more children end up in poverty, which it’s hard to break out of. It’s simple maths and most developed countries have reached this conclusion.

Kpo58 · 05/01/2024 11:45

Muchof · 05/01/2024 11:32

Do you really think that the real question is why shouldn't tax payers fund free childcare for all so that feckless fathers don't have to pay reasonable costs towards their children?

Reckless fathers would then be contributing by tax, compared to not at all

It's like saying that we should do free school meals because the parents should be paying. Sometimes we need to make changes for the good of society going forwards rather than continuing to punish single parents because they know that they can't do anything to make the bad parents improve.

haeesgy · 05/01/2024 11:33

Kpo58 · 05/01/2024 11:26

Because you could want to send your DC to the most expensive childcare around and the other parent may not be able to afford it.

The real question should be why doesn't the government want to invest in childcare by making it free/very affordable so that most single parents can afford to work and have careers like the absent parent can. Why do they want so many children to grow up in poverty continuing the cycle of deprivation?

@Kpo58 its not the government’s job to pay for our child. If it’s a question of cost, the non resident parent should pay 50% of average childcare costs. Job done.

OP posts: