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

It should. But, in the US, lone mothers are also pushed into Welfare to Work. No work, no welfare is the normal thing.

The system there forces both parents to financially support their kids.

It is an utter disgrace and probably the main cause of child poverty in this country. Taxpayers are expected to subsidise through benefits while men skip off into the sunset. There need to be much stronger sanctions on men who do this and much greater stigmatisation of men BY OTHER MEN.

I've said this before

When parents split up the 'supporting' parent (ie where the child lives) should get a set amount from the government.

The non resident parent should get a bill for the same amount, if they don't pay then it ears interest, a bit like a student loan but with no way to wipe it even if you are an OAP and if you have any assets when you die that should go to pay the debt off.

Add a tax break for the NRP if they pay any extra to the other parent.

My exH ran off with my wealthy friend when he realised there was no money from my Father after he died. 3 young children. Paid no maintenance for 6 years. Forged a career whilst I struggled with everything. Disney dad once a fortnight.
I hate it. I have never, ever recovered financially and though I have a good career now, the injustice of it all enrages me.
I also believe that many men set out to do this. Choose a woman they know will raise the children. Run off with a childless one. Take the glory of being a father. Next to no parenting or upheaval.

I agree @Spirallingdownwards it’s no secret that being a single parent is financially very challenging.

I think the issue is that many fathers think CMS isn't spent directly on the children so do what they can to avoid it

There should be mechanisms for example that it is paid directly to childcare etc

I know many mothers in receipt of over a £1000 CMs - no childcare - it doesn't cost that to raise say a 13 year old per month therefore it stands to reason thay it is in part funding the mothers wider expenses and living costs not the child's

And women don't really want men around
.

It’s appalling. Paying for your dc should be legally enforced and should consider childcare costs.

See here I do disagree. It takes 2 to tango yes but if it results in an accidental pregnancy if either wish to terminate it should happen. The same 2 to decide rule has to apply.

I think it is more interesting that despite the massive publicity around how tough it is to be a single mother that OP only "discovered" this and the low maintenance issues when she was in that situation as it is by no means a secret. I think its not just the patriarchy but other women having their heads in the sand when it isn't impacting them too.

Because 99.9% of men don’t want children is a made up, fictional statistic.
We all know most men want children, and the problem is that a much smaller number of men want to actually raise their children.

Because it's so easy for them to walk away?

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/feb/16/cost-of-raising-children-in-uk-higher-than-ever

According to this article, that would mean saving about £76k. Alongside trying to get on the property ladder and probably being on the lower end of your payscale, a tonne of people would be out of time to conceive before they got near this!

Then why don't those 99.9% of men have a vasectomy or even take a tiny bit of responsibility for their own contraception?

Yes I'm in the same position - £2k alone childcare fees for twins and ex husband pays £350 per month for 3 children - but he physically can't pay more as he doesn't earn a high wage and is already living in a shared house ....

I was always the higher earner but I think the situation is worse for women who were traditionally the lower earner and whose partners/husbands therefore paid the majority of the bills and when they split they have to pay their own costs plus the majority of the children's

Cms should be able to suspend driving license and/or their passport. That would solve some of it.

I believe this to be one of the reasons the birth rate is falling.

Having children hugely and disproportionately disadvantages women.

Now there is more awareness of this (because women talk about it, on internet forums, for one thing), fewer and fewer women are falling for it.

Angela Rayner was on breakfast tv talking about Labour's desire to reduce child poverty. So pressurise your MP to do something about this, try and get mumsnet to start a campaign about it. Copy any emails to Bridget Philipson and Annelise Dodds and demand they support change. Post in the womens rights section of mumsnet.

@billyt

If only it was that simple in the USA, my friend couldn't get anywhere near enough out of her ex in the USA

No we aren't. We are in it because the government has decided for some reason that it is easier for tax payers to pick up the tab for absent parents than to implement a system to make them pay. It appears from other posts that many other countries have managed to do this so I don't see why we shouldn't.

I don’t know how many people noticed that removing most of the CMS’s legal powers and making them a mediator only was one of Reform’s policies in the recent election.

Tell me you’re a party for men without telling me…

What do you base that upon?

If they don't wish for children, I'm surprised that more don't opt for permanent solutions or become hypercautious and use contraception options available to them rather than relying upon a woman's.

Someone could start a petition for a debate in Parliament once they get the Petitions Committee back up and running.

@SugarandSpiceandAllThingsNaice are you serious?? That's a new level.of bling women for shit, selfish, lazy men. The situation you're talking about is going back into the 19th century and usually involved property rights and inheritance. Ordinary families, it was still the women left holding the baby ... Ridiculous to blame feminism for this.

Everyone thinks the feckless fathers are the unemployed or down and outs...the reality is more frightening - they earn more, they have more career potential and society favours them but the children are left with mothers, not contributed to, not socialised with, seen as baggage, ditched in favour of the latest flirt in their lives and fundamentally they are shirking their responsibilities and society is paying the price but somehow when they are with the children they are seen as superheroes for looking after them for 10 minutes. Grrrrrrrrr

Well if that's the case, they shouldn't dip their wicks!