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

Well that's not subsidising anything is it? Exactly how much do you think children cost?

@GentlemanJay Even for 1 child that is not more than it costs to raise a child. Costs per month for 1 child are between 938 and 1030 on average. So you can reassure your friend he still isn't covering half the cost of raising his child, let alone subsidising his ex!

And how old?

For how many kids?

He was paying £450 a month. He was on 35k a year. Not a big earner.

How much was he paying a month?

ALL absent fathers claim that they’re subsiding their ex’s lifestyle. Mine paid £50 a week (for three kids). That’s less than £17 per WEEK per child or £2.20 per DAY. It wasn’t even a tiny fraction of what it cost to raise them, never mind an equal contribution with me skimming money off the top. He’d still tell his friends and anyone that would listen that I was “rinsing” him for maintenance.

If she was working less than full time to enable her to be a present parent then no that is not "subsidising her lifestyle". I actually really enjoy my full time job and wouldn't choose part time but this year my teen kids with ASD and various other issues have made it incredibly hard to work FT. If I could have fewer hours / days to be there for them both physically and emotionally they would benefit. Sadly ex only pays the legal.minimum he can and does fuck all. If he did contribute more fairly our kids would have at least one parent who can properly support them in time and energy.

It's utterly shameful.

If he did half the parenting he wouldn't have been "subsidising" anything.

@CornishIrish both men and women. Unfortunately there are natural consequences for both when wrong choices are made around choosing a partner or to have children

@PippyLongTits I wrote to my MP yesterday. Although I have never been a lone parent, I believe the system needs to change.

Yes. He was subsidising her lifestyle. That’s my point. Not popular opinion on here.

It is allowed to continue because more people post on here about it than contact their government representatives. There are 400 replies to this post - how many have written to their MP or to the Minister for Women and Equalities?

Why do women have to jump through hoops to claim it anyway? Why can't the onus be on the man to declare it to the employer so that money is taken at source (with penalties for not declaring to his employer that he has non-resident children?)

If anyone wants to change things, write to the minister for women and equalities:
www.gov.uk/government/ministers/minister-for-women-and-equalities--3

In theory my kids see their dad 2/7 days and that's the rate of maintenance he pays. Except they don't - they see him for chunks of time in the school holidays that just barely scrapes over the line into the 2/7 category. He hasn't bought them shoes or coats for years as they just sat there getting too small. They have a few clothes at his but generally prefer the stuff they have chosen and are used to wearing at mine. I have just pretty much kitted them out for the holiday he is taking them on. I pay for their hobbies, phone contracts, laptops, uniform, trips, pocket money (which they spend on days out with him as he won't pay their entry to a fun activity) . I'm about to pay for a gym membership for DS. The reduction he gets for these nights implies that he has them 2 nights a week. If that were true the above would be more fairly split as he'd be right there in the mix. I should add this arrangement was his choice, not mine. The no of nights is a terrible way of calculating what is owed - I said this pages ago that actually you need bespoke calculations and a more nuanced system backed up with sufficient well trained staff to administer it.

Maybe, but either way it wasn't down to the fact that the kids dad deigned to pay some maintenance.

Both parents have housing cost, birthday and Christmas costs and cost of days out. Both provide clothing, toiletries and food while the children are with them
The additional cost is towards the extra time spent with the RP compared to NRP. If the split is 2 : 5 then the extra cost is 3 more days food and share of bills (heating etc)
If the split is 3:4 then the difference is one day and so the amount is adjusted accordingly.

The issue is when the NRP opts out of any day to day care. Then the figures don't add up

She may have got lots of top up benefits by working less hours so not doing so due to sacrifices

Or... the money he paid supported his children and the sacrifices she made allowed her to work less hours. Unless he paid more in maintenance than it cost to raise the kids, which is highly unlikely, he isn't subsidising her lifestyle.

Yes, suspending driving licences, and also passports. If you can't afford to raise your children properly then you can't afford trips abroad so would have no need for one.

And similar penalities applied as for non-payment of tax - large fines or if repeated offences imprisonment.

It should be treated in a criminal manner.

I'm not sure how much you think he should be paying, but ~15% of his net income doesn't seem that bad.

50% of the costs of housing, feeding, clothing the child, school trips and childcare and a decent amount of extracurricular activities, birthday and Christmas presents, days out efc. 50% of the cost of raising a child. Why would any less be acceptable?

That sounds great.

What? Who is having children “Willy nilly” here for which a deterrent works? Women? Am I just misunderstanding your comment.

You are right OP, the system is a disgrace.

As others have said, it’s the high cost of living and childcare that makes the UK so expensive. Setting a minimum cost per child in various circumstances might work, and each parent pays half, regardless of who has custody. Then pursue vigorously at source, ie through the tax code system.

A very unpopular opinion but I think we need to judge parents who don’t step up to pay 50% much harder. They get away with it and claim their partner is “toxic” or makes it hard to see the kids. Ultimately it’s the resident parent or tax payer that picks up the tab.