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

There should be threat of court action/imprisonment just as there is for not paying council tax ( which is a lesser crime than not providing for your children).

Why would he need to have a say in the facility? He either does half the childcare or pays for half. That's the only choice he should have. I'd go as far as to have them on the hook for weekend babysitting too if they're doing less than half the parenting.
Inexcusable that we let men get away with this.

Yes I agree.
if you didn’t pay for the things she needs, heating, food, clean clothes etc youd be up for neglect, so the resident parent has to make cuts, sacrifices - to extremes in some cases of things like eating one meal a day.

Men need to start paying the fair cost of childcare.

Not sure if we can blame the patriarchy for this. It wasn’t too long ago that if a couple split, the man automatically got the children because he was the main breadwinner and could support them. What we have today is due to women demanding the children and the man’s money. The problem is that when you go from funding one household to funding two households, the living standard drops massively for the children who shuttle between two homes that must still be large enough for them.

The current situation is pretty shitty, but we are in it now because of first wave feminism.

If you cannot get any help whatsoever towards your childcare bill, then yes, but unless you earn over £100k, you can claim something. Are you?

Your case does sound very unfair and that the father should be contributing a lot more. Having said that, there are two strands, income and capital. You don’t mention how the assets were split on divorce.

But it isn’t the patriarchy and, as someone else posted above, the reverse also can apply when the father is the main carer or when the CSA amount is large and the mother (or father) chooses not to spend it on the children.

Both parents should always make an equal contribution (assets and income taken together) to a child’s needs. What is more controversial is where one parent wants more things for their children and the other doesn’t see them as necessities (before I am jumped on, I am the one who funds virtually all my children’s hobbies).

It’s a disgrace but women don’t even band together.

You see the second wives club on here often saying how the lazy crazy ex is living the life of Riley on the kids CMS while dad has them every other weekend and bought a pair of school shoes last year on top. These men get praised by women for paying their piddly amount on time and doing the bare minimum.

Beggars belief!

Child poverty must be high on Labour’s agenda. Perhaps everyone who cares about this issue should write to their MP? I’d be happy to support the cause even though I’ve not been in that position. Children in ‘single’ parent families are proportionally more likely to be in poverty, even though they usually do have two parents. How some NR parents get away with providing little or no support is appalling!

It's not a punishment for the parents, it's about making sure both parents contribute fully to bringing up their children. Something not all men seem to want to do.

To get children out of poverty, if I was in charge this is what would happen.
Fathers would always be responsible for 50% of childcare costs or arrangements, regardless of financial circumstances. Childcare would be separate and on top of CMS, and CMS would at least have to cover 50% of basic food, clothing, nappies, their share of household bills. Again regardless of financial circumstances.
Men wouldn't have a get out based on employment status; if they don't pay due to unemployment then their bill racks up. If they have a low paid day job, then they need a top up extra job.

My loser ex is retired years ago in his 40s and pays nothing as it's all hidden away and crypto etc. It is unfair.

CMS have very strong powers, but lack the resources, skill and will to exercise them. Should definitely be linked to HMRC more. They crucified my self-employed friend who was open and honest with them, unlike most men who are entitled, lying shits - and who are protected/supported by other men to be that way. Absolute fucking disgrace.

Then why have them? That's such a pathetic argument. We are usually talking here about men who were married, planned the children with their wives, were actually decent dads til the novelty wore off. I know of women whose children were the result of IVF ..most definitely wanted by both parties often at considerable cost who were STILL left without maintenance. It's part of the narrative lots of men give when they leave "I never really wanted them anyway"..well tough, you didn't grow enough of a backbone to say that at the time, they're here now and need food, clothes, hobbies, childcare, laptops, pocket money, braces....

I got about £15 for two children, because we have 50:50 in the court order. He doesn't see one and sees the other for a few hours when it suits. He works part time in min wage job for absolutely no reason other than "he gives me enough of his money".

And yet they still have them with a large amount actively agreeing to have them.

There's an automatic responsibility of sperm meeting egg after sex (contraception used or not) put upon woman, as they are the ones who physically produce the baby. This lack of responsibility of men for pregnancy leads to a belief men do not have choice about pregnancy and so shouldn't be held accountable. Meaning we live in a society that believes men don't really want children (even if they agreed to having them) and therefore have the right to walk away at any point in that child's life.

If the responsibility of pregnancy was put upon allowing the chance for sperm to meet egg, in other words by having sex, then we would live in a society that believed both men and women are equally accountable for the child's life. Also if we did live in that society in which when a man fathered a child and was 50% responsible - financially and logistically - that would be the deterrent for people having children "willy nilly".

I find the set up in the UK is absolutely ridiculous. The amount you get is tiny compared to other countries. Also, there is literally no punishment for not paying child support. In other countries you can, for example, lose your driver's licence or would not be allowed to leave the country if you have a huge CSA debt.

Also, what pisses me off - CSA never know anything. They never know how much your ex earns, where he works - unless you tell them. They don't seem to have access to HRMC or any other databases (property ownership, election rolls etc), like similar agencies in the US have, for example. They never have in person meetings and you never get the same person to talk to. I mean, they do make things happen, but it takes forever.

I really feel for you, OP. I also had a massive hit financially because of being a single parent, and even though my ex pays what he is told, its still a drop in the ocean. And every time I ask for help with something child related, I get the same answer - "I'm paying child support, that should cover it"...

I've proposed something along these lines before. CMS should be part of HMRC for a start and properly funded. Non payment below X amount should be gathered as debt to the non payer and ultimately taken off state pension if it's never paid. The resident parent should get the funds from the state to whom the debt is then owed. But there is zero interest at a government level to do anything about this ..it's in the "too hard" pile, plus it flies in the face of the comfortable narrative of feckless women having kids "willy nilly", trapping poor men with their evil wiles. Something like 97% of single parents are female. Most of us would love 50/50 care or something far closer to that then 4/30 nights a month but the father doesnt want it. Often they have walked out on the family because of the drudge of childcare so they're unlikely to ask for it. There will always be exceptions but the stats are clear.

I was married for 10 years. 2 DC. Divorced now 5 years and ExH does not pay a single penny! My children are 12 and 15 and I work full time but it's a struggle. He works as a self employed builder but nothing goes through the books so CMS calculate he owes me £14 per week. He won't pay that, I've moved to collect and pay via CMS, still nothing. The whole system is a joke.

Yes obviously the sex is irrelevant and all absent parents should pay up. People are just saying men because they are in the majority here.

And do not talk to me about poor men not having a choice. Men can wear condoms and they need to realise that sex is an act with serious implications not a harmless leisure activity.

Anyway who should pay? The father or some random people on the street.

My understanding is that child maintenance is so unreliable it currently isn't taken into account when calculating benefits. So we are literally all subsiding these feckless absent parents.

This is pretty much the nub of it.

Bit late if you divorce when children are already born or are you suggesting that if a mother can’t afford to look after her children on £360 per month then she can just get rid of them?

How on Earth are you determining when you will get pregnant in this scenario? Even whether you get pregnant is wildly unpredictable, let alone when.

It's not just men though is it?
My stepson was left by his fiance with their 3 under 5s - she just upped and left and refuses to have the kids alone. He's left with 3 fairly traumatised children, had to quit his job as they wouldn't go to childcare without screaming the place down, she doesn't pay a penny.ALL parents should be responsible for at least 50% of time with their children or footing the bill for it.