To think this is scandalous yet in plain sight because the patriarchy has no shame

Sorry, the poster I was responding to said men should be forced to pay when they abandon their families. What about the men who don't abandon their families, have no intention of abandoning their families, but their wife/partner leaves them. Or are they just the bastard because they have a penis, and should be forced to pay every penny they earn anyway?

If he had them 50/50 he wouldn't have to pay. If he doesn't have them 50/50 its probably because he never did half the parenting in the first place. Too many men only decide they want to be daddy when they have to alternative is to pay up.

As long as you see it as paying for women's choices and not for their own children, you'll have nothing to contribute to this discussion.

What about the father, who would like his children to stay with him 50% of the time, but because they don't want to has to pay far more.

What about them? The only relevant choice is the one made 9 months before the baby arrived. His opt out is a condom.

I totally agree that it's irresponsible to have kids with no financial plan in place at all. I also agree having £10k in savings is a fantastic buffer, albeit I understand that not everyone is able to do this and a "more likely healthy pregnancy younger" is potentially better than a "less likely healthy pregnancy delayed whilst I save £10k".

However, what you specifically said was that you think it's irresponsible to not have enough savings to cover 7 YEARS of your child's life, before having children. Per my previous post, that is hugely more than £10k!! In fact, the quoted study found £10k wouldn't even cover one year of costs unless your child is already over 5yrs old. And as a PP has pointed out, if you're married your assets are divided up if you divorce!

What about when women abandon their men, and then want to force men to pay for their choices?

You can do everything right in picking a partner / father for your child.
They can still just fuck off when they feel something better has come along.
they probably wanted the kids at the time

In theory yes but in reality they lie.

I was married over 10 years before we had kids...he was desperate to have them and went for IVF. We waited until we were financially secure and I had a good career. There was nothing else I could have done to protect myself. Turns out the sleepless nights were too much hassle and that's when the dv started.

He's been absent now for years and I had to take him to court for child support and the dv. My career ruined, savings gone and he gets off Scott free. My friendship group are all the same. Well educated, successful women who have been forced to pick up the slack for deadbeat fathers.

Men need to be held to account and it won't happen until the rules aren't designed by the patriarchy themselves.

If men don't want kids and don't want to use condoms they are free to have a vasectomy which can be reversed if they ever change their mind. Abortion is not a form of contraception. If they don't want a vasectomy they'd better be prepared to pay up or do 50% care

It saddens me that this has become acceptable, that families and friends know these shirker fathers yet say nothing….these men are not held accountable…..my ex payed the minimum amount through CSA for as long as he was legally obliged to and nothing more, despite me juggling working as a nurse and being the primary carer for our Autistic son with learning disabilities….he always earned more, and has always had more…which is why we are in a 2 bedroom flat and he’s in a 5 bedroom house and moved hours away to be with someone else so that he couldn’t help with childcare….it makes me so angry….I am no Katie Price fan, but all the stuff that has been written about her and Harvey over the years….why did nobody come out in the media regarding his father, a well known footballer at the time, never acknowledging him or supporting him? How is this allowed to happen still??

You can’t legislate but it really needs to recognised that many men don’t really want or are completely indifferent to having children …they just don’t have a spine so go along with it or allow themselves to get cajoled into it…..then they walk out when reality sets in, it gets a bit tough or they are, shock horror, asked to actually contribute to parenting….and the ones that say they do want kids? What most of them actually mean is they want kids but only if the woman does all the work, so they too walk out when it’s gets hard or they’re asked to contribute. It’s rare to find a man that actually, truly wants to be a fully active and involved father in all ways, including financially supporting them.

If women want kids they really need to think about themselves (like men do), and their future kids and prepare for having them properly. That means having difficult conversations, setting out and agreeing expectations and division of labour before getting pregnant, planning for future financial security, saving for childcare costs and tbh planning what/how things will be managed when it inevitably goes tits up. It sounds cynical but that’s how you need to view things nowadays unfortunately. What is your plan B when the feckless twat has finally shown himself and decides to abandon his kids? You have to expect that to happen now and plan accordingly imo.

at one point I was paying £14k a year for childcare while XP paid £240 pcm "maintenance".

I was punished for keeping working - chilcare was seen as entirely my responsibility though both parents were working, as they lived with me.

Its entirely overlooked by our laws & provisions.

The calculator is how many nights each parent has the children. So if he were truly 50/50 he wouldn't have to pay and that would be honoured in court

There should be presumption of minimum income. Unless someone is actually unable to work, they should be able to pay maintenance based on a full-time minimum wage job.

Things like a parent becoming a sahp and living off a new spouses income, off of savings, or inheritance, simply not be allowed. If someone voluntarily leaves the workforce, they should have to plan for how to continue maintenance payments without the previous income. If they can’t afford to do that, they can’t afford to stop working.

That can happen. If the mother is resident parent. 50 50 is not the same as 'shared care'.

How to pick the right man to have a child with - should be taught in school

There are occasions when mothers don't want the fathers to have the children and it's generally because:

1. They don't trust the father to look after the children properly. Or the father is abusive.

2. They have poorly paid jobs and need child support money.

Generally, a woman has a poorly paid job because

a) Women traditionally go into badly paid jobs
b) They may have given up better paid jobs to be at home with the children.

Both these issues are because of our patriarchal society.

There are then a handful of women who aren't actually very nice and it is the one bit of control that they have - to restrict a father's time with the children.

But, I observe 1) and 2) mostly.

That's not the law so he was doing it optionally or he was telling you porkies

Despite having 50/50 custody and her earning more than him and her receiving all the benefits and her having a second household income from her new bloke, he still had to pay her money.

I think as children grow up feelings change. As babies I wanted then with me at all times. Teenagers... Can live without them being around all the time! Also, they are out doing there own thing a lot.

If they had 50/50 custody then he wouldn't have been paying maintenance.

There is a formula to how much kids cost though. I might not have it, but it exits. It is used to calculate universal credit for example. Parenting and/or paying for kids has to be 50/50. Whilst I'm sure plenty of people have anecdotes of dad's getting a raw deal, it is by and large mums who struggle to get by, put their careers on hold, forgo their pension contributions, take time off work for sickness or parents evening etc. This needs to be corrected.

What a child actually costs is subjective a %of income is measurable
If NRP drops hours so that they can do pick up and drop off at school that is to ensure their child sees their NRP and the NRP is involved in day to day life.
Dropping hours means a drop in income so this results in a drop in maintenance. But the drop in maintenance is small.compared to the drop the NRP has.
If NRP is managing in less then they can't magic extra money for RP.

NRP need to house and feed the children (provide toys, clothes and everything else a child needs at their house too)
So assuming the NRP has the child fro to Monday every other week and we'd after school to Thursday at school. RP has an extra 3 nights a week and 3 mornings a week
The maintenance covers the extras that those extra meals times cost.
The % is based on income and overnights so if the overnights is more the payment goes down but if overnights is less the payment is more.

The issue is NRP who do no overnights as they pursumbly don't have housing, clothing, food, essential costs that a NRP that has even one over night a week would.have

But because some RP would stop contact if the money jumped up it makes it very tricky to manage.

Bad RP and bad NRP make it easier to have one system.
Those deliberately hiding earnings should be chased

This happened back in 2010, so the system might have changed, but I lived in a shared house with a man going through a divorce. His wife had decided she 'wasn't happy' and he'd had to leave their home and newborn child. They eventually ended up with 50/50 childcare. She kept the house and moved in her new fella from work. She got all the benefits and, despite her earning more than him, he still had to pay her maintenance. He initially rented a flat, but couldn't afford it (i visited one night and the cupboards were literally bare with no food in the fridge). He ended up basically destitute and eventually became a lodger in somebody's house.

I can guarantee he did not pay 'her' maintenance.
He will have paid something towards his children.