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

That's because it's not happening to his body. And...? Are you suggesting unwilling fathers should be able to force the mothers to have abortions?

These children need to be supported. The alternative to parental support is the state, which means everybody has to pay. Would you prefer we all have to pay just so men can have sex without consequences?

Condom?

I got £10.96 a week for my son from 97 to when he turned 18.

Then I got a letter saying I owed his dad £140!

His dad remarried has 2 daughters and got on the property ladder due to me being a naive 21 year and signing the house over to him just to get shot of him.

His dad abandoned him, never saw him so I felt very proud when my son said he'd go and chuck £140 at him from his own wages.

I did try and appeal, god knows how he squirmed out of that one. It just about covered packed lunch.

Oh well!

Abortion is not a valid birth control method. If the guy doesn't want a pregnancy from sex, he needs to take responsibility for his own birth control and not leave it up to the woman.

OP's child was at nursery when the dad left. I think it's a bit late to terminate by then..

@TansySorrel knowledge that life will be more difficult is a deterrent

What sort of deterrent?

@Webjisroommate
The mother has the choice to terminate - the father does not

I’m pretty sure that some states attach the delinquent dads’ bank accounts.
If that doesn’t work, they’re jailed until they pay up.
They continue to attach their bank and patroll accounts and I’m pretty sure the dads are required to maintain employment.
I don’t remember exactly, but the government makes it miserable for deadbeat dads.
Which is exactly as it should be.

I think the default should be a minimum rate to raise a child, including accommodation, food, clothing, that each parent has to contribute 50/50 to, either through cash or shared care. The amount payable should not be dependent on parental income. Rather it should reflect the needs of the child. It shouldn't be an extravagant amount, but it should be realistic.

At present, more frequently than not, the primary carer shoulders the financial burden of children as well as the career limitations associated with having the children the majority of the time. The other parent generally has no limitations on their career, as they're essentially child free during work hours, and often the amount paid in child support wouldn't feed the child for a week, let alone provide clothing and accommodation.

That's what needs to change. Not how much do you earn, well we can't let you starve, so just pay a pittance while the other parent carries nearly all child related costs. It needs to be a kid costs 170 a week so both parents pay 85 each, or whatever the actual cost is based on the age of the child.

You are right, it's a disgrace. How does he get away with not only not contributing his time, leaving his career uninterrupted, but hardly any of her costs as well.

First their wages are garnished and any tax refunds are taken and applied to the balance owed. If they somehow manage to avoid that, then their licenses can be suspended. It's surprising that the UK doesn't handle it this way.

Indeed. I have been at the sharp end of both of these.

there needs to be a deterrent to stop people having children with whoever Willy nilly

Good luck with that one.

When you are old you will have 3 DC who care about and love you. You might have DGC if you are lucky. He will be alone and very unlikely his DC will want anything to do with him. It will serve him right if he gets old and lonely and realises his mistake too late.

Because 99.9% of men don't want children in the first place.

All the single mums I know, including myself, were long time married before their exes dumped their planned for children and ran.

I don't see how you could legislate against men being arseholes.

When a couple separates their resources are split - it's inevitable that both of you will end up less well off financially. Instead of two people funding one household together, they're now funding one each. I'm not sure how much you think he should be paying, but ~15% of his net income doesn't seem that bad.

It's shit that he's only seeing his dd one day a week though - every other weekend should be the absolute minimum. So I can see the argument that he should be covering a bigger share of the childcare bill in lieu of his care being less than 50/50.

And it's not just fathers that shirk their responsibilities - I've never had a penny of child maintenance from my ex towards our 3 dc.

It's probably about time the UK adopted the US way. If the father doesn't pay his dues, driving license gets suspended. That would wake the losers up.

It really gets my goat when deadbeat dads don't pay their dues. And I'm a dad who would hate to think my (now grown up)girls were suffering because I'm selfish.

Luckily my wife couldn't get rid of me

This is where women have to sit up and take notice of what is happening to other women. Maybe it is time to make sure an account is opened and childcare costs are saved by both parents to be before a baby is conceived.

No, no, us feckless women bleed men dry so they have to live in bed sits and spend our ill gotten gains on handbags silly.

I honestly wonder when this will ever change because it's been going on for decades.

When I unexpectedly got pregnant 36 years ago, my then partner's mother told me that women are always left 'holding the baby' (i.e. shouldering all or most of the responsibility).

I don't think things have moved very much since then.

I agree it's disgusting.
Some of the men in power will be the kind to dodge their responsibilities, so no incentive to improve the system.