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

In the Republic of Ireland, not paying for CM will give you record. So if my ex "forgets " I contact the court and they kindly remind him. And immediately he remembers.

Affordable childcare is the greatest of all assets and benefits to women generally.
Families are not as able are willing to provide it.
Many women in their 60's whom have had 40 year careers are simply not prepared to turn around and provide it.

It may be unpalatable for many on here, but it is reality for many familys and it definitely is in my circle.

The state ultimately benefits from a well educated work force of tax paying women.
Therefore it should be the state that invests and provides it, to support their work force.

They don't though.

Women have to protect themselves sadly.
Having children and working FT is brutal.
But it ultimately will lead to a better lifestyle for women and their children.
The system is broken.

But women whom have planned children with mean men cannot be surprised when they want no part of paying exorbitant childcare.

A lovely friend of mine had a huge falling out with her daughter who was married, lovely home, excellent career, who had a planned pregnancy and was genuinely reeling and majorly put out when her stunned mother told her that No, she had absolutely zero intention of providing 40+ hours of childcare.
They had never had a single conversation about it, but her daughter just assumed.
The entitled delusional cheeky fxxkery of it.
Not her husbands mother mind, but hers!
Her MIL had zero interest either.
The relationship is cooler as a result but my friend said so be it.
She was not providing free childcare.

Women have to think ahead and plan unfortunately in our society.
They can't depend on the state, men or their mums to provide childcare. Therefore they have to plan and be prepared, if they don't it is them who will pay the huge price.

It's awful, I don't agree with it, but it is the brutal reality of having children.

I suspect the figure of 15% is used because most people won't have more than 20% of their income remaining after paying their essential costs, such as housing, bills and food.

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.

Basically, he got completely shafted by the system, while she was sitting pretty.

Unfortunately, there are men that refuse to support their kids, but there are also women that play the system to rinse out their former partners.

So say the " fixed" amount is£500 a month. Dad earns £1300 with rent on a 1 bed flat being about £600. Council tax another £120 odd. So that then leaves him £80 to eat transport to work pay gas/electric water etc.

Not feasible.

You're deliberately misunderstanding. There should be a fixed minimum based on what a child actually costs (tapered to account for amount of contact). OR a fixed percentage of income (higher than 15%!). The sum paid would be whichever figure is higher.
That way men cannot weasel out by dropping their hours or going cash in hand. Failure to pay should mean the amount is deducted from benefits, pensions, and/or become a permanent debt to repaid to the state indefinitely.
The current system is not fit for purpose.

10k would have paid a few months of nursery bills. Not sure where you get a few years from.

Doesn't that mean it's more important than ever? Families are not as close these days, so there usually isn't a full-time grandparent to babysit. So what happens? - dad leaves (as is the topic of this thread), doesn't pay, mum struggles to get a job and/or spends all her money on childcare - every penny counts, corners are cut... child suffers (oversimplification).

Imagine if every woman saved up even £10k before having a child. As other posters have said, women tend to be the ones more interested in them, while men are more "yeah, go on". So building up a nest egg exclusively for the care of that child is actually good motherly planning. Then, say the dad leaves, she has security. That £10k is probably easily enough to take care of a baby for a few years, long enough to get her affairs back in order, find support, etc. So many people these days live close to the breadline... maybe having a few thousand saved, thinking yeah, we'll manage... then car crash, unfaithful husband, redundancy, unplanned medical bills... This is THE most important thing you'll ever do, and people do seriously just go with the flow. I think it's absolutely irresponsible (sorry).

This poster thinks women and kids should be punished for not using abortion as birth control by life being made difficult for them.

@Againlosinghope lots of things are different when you are together. You are a team, pulling in the same direction. When you're divorced, especially if there is a "new family" in the mix, suddenly every request for "extras" is met with suspicion and accusations of greed. I actually think a lot of NRPs are really out of the loop of what their kids need and the impact on them to be told no (not for everything obviously). Years ago my ex refused to swap weekends, not for any particular reason and my dd missed out on a trip she really wanted to go on. she still remembers it. I still remember her distress coming out of the group meeting after the trip when everyone had been on it and she hadn't. But he never saw that. He probably would deny all knowledge. That wasn't about cost but it was about the NRP not having a scooby about the reality of the impact of their actions on the children. Same is true for those who refuse to help with "extras" financially. They don't see the impact.

I'm not saying people should just "wing it" as you put it, but i think it's mad to suggest (given the cost of raising young children) that people are somehow being irresponsible by having kids at all if they don't have over £70k saved up ready to go!

And if you did save it up, it is 'savings' and you can bet the 'leaver' will take at least half with them.

Agree

When did the bar become so low for men

I am not in the same position but I will not allow ds to be told he is lucky (this is often said 🙄) because he is involved (not at all equally). Ds does not need to feel lucky (or myself)

What's 'necessary to live'? People have the basics that are 'necessary to live' in refugee camps. So it's fine for single mothers to be raising multiple kids in a one-bed flat while their ex-partners swan around in designer clothes and brand-new Audis? Lucky you don't work for the family courts then (or perhaps you do, would explain a lot).

Absolutely bizarre to see this attitude on a modern parenting forum.

It's already a % it's not based on what RP says they can afford
CM service us a % so if you think they aren't paying enough you use the service to calculate the %

See I really don't think the State should provide when a father won't - I think the state should ensure that the father provides what he can. More than 15% - did.they pull that figure out of their arse? - but not 100% either. Single mothers keep a roof over their own heads as well as their children's, so they don't spend 100% on their children.

So - add up both parents' income, include the value of all childcare, overnights at a lower general rate than collecting, dropping off, doing parties and trips out, dentist doctor shoes etc. 50/50 split. Should both end up.with same disposable income or free time to the same value.

Fine, it should be a fixed amount, or a percentage, whichever is higher. Not this current nonsense of x% of whatever he says he has spare.

If you were together I assume a discussion on additional costs would happen and both would discuss if it was something affordable at that time.
Just because a RP wants the child to go on a school trip or start music lessons it doesn't mean that the NRP can afford it.
In together parents these discussions happen and sometimes it isn't affordable so the child doesn't do it. Sometimes it is and they do.
Sometimes we buy second hand because we can't afford new. If we separate, then if I can't afford it and Dad can't afford sit it won't happen. If we can share cost or one can afford it then it would happen

How can it be a fixed amount ?

Family A : yearly income £25k (take home approx £400 a week)

Family B : yearly income £100k(take home approx £1300 a week

Family A obviously won't spend the same on their kids as family B

If the parents in either situation then split and assume that's the NRP income only

That means that if you say it costs £200 a week to raise 2 children and both families have 2 children

In family A case mum and Dad both hav only £200 each
Mum will get CB but they both need to house and feed themselves, CT, utilities etc on £200

In family B case dad keeps 1100 a week for himself and mum has to live on £200. In what world is that fair ?

If you say it's £200 a week per child and based on 2 children

Family A RP gets £400 and NRP has to live on the street and fresh air. Not going to be alive for long so money is going to stop pretty quick

Family B RP gets £400 and NRP still keeps £900 a week.

Even in families that are together you can't spend more than you earn

lots of things are not necessary but is that really the bar we are setting for NRPs? They only have to cover a small contributions to bare essentials and everything else that most parents would consider both desirable and beneficial IF POSSIBLE should be up to the RP?

you'd think but there are lots of posters who will testify that their arrangement is technically 50/50 but in reality they (almost always female) continue to be the default parent for all the mental load crap that so many dads just simply don't have on their radar. Its rare that care is 50/50 before divorce so why would it be a genuine split after? Lots of posters complain about their ex encroaching on them by asking for school run favours, hobby pick up as a"one off", 50/50 overnights but the mum does all the wraparound care.

No but the attitude of having rooms for each child a nice house with a garden in a good catchment area etc is not generally a reality for those ( even 2 parent families) who don't have much money anyway. So it doesn't add up that it's a automatic " need". It's a nice want but not necessary to live.

@Againlosinghope how about instead of a one size fits no-one system, we invest in a CMS that is funded so that each case is looked at individually. In an ideal world, if people behaved decently, I would take the 15% rate IF it could relied upon that my ex would also contribute fairly to big one off costs, but he doesn't and no-one can force it. I had the exact argument in mediation. I argued for a higher rate to be paid so that we wouldn't have to constantly have to clash over money - the mediator recommended it as a lower conflict solution but ex refused. So now every time there is a trip or piece of tech or new glasses, braces, therapy, a new hobby, I ask, get silence or an indignant refusal and I pay waaaaay more than 50%.

Where did I say they shouldn’t/wouldn’t?

Thanks

But surely you can see that there is a world of difference between planning for a child (I.e., current income vs current outgoings with some reasonable expectations on what might change in the next 10years) and saving up enough to fully cover the first 7years of your child's life?

I'm not saying people should just "wing it" as you put it, but i think it's mad to suggest (given the cost of raising young children) that people are somehow being irresponsible by having kids at all if they don't have over £70k saved up ready to go!

It should be a fixed amount. Percentages are useless since nrp can decide they don't want to pay as much so don't earn as much. Nursery, Tescos, swimming lessons don't price on percentages of income.
CMS can't "go after" parents who are actually paying the appropriate amount.

Futhermore if dad had the children 50/50 then HE WOULD be paying half wouldn't he