To think we have to stop punishing parents for splitting up.

OP - sorry, no.
I am what you would classify as a rich single parent. I earn roughly 80K - so I can afford to house, clothe, feed and entertain my family - 2DCs. My monthly take home is roughly 4K.
By the time mortgage, car, insurances, petrol commuting, household bills, food for 2 teen boys etc - there is not a lot left ( yes I do pay into a pension)

On mumsnet - there are people who will then advocate that my Ex should not have to contribute as the second family with the part time mum, who has 2 unrelated DCS to the EX needs the monies more than I do. He pays way under minimum he should.

I listen to what people get in benefits - rent, c tax, universal credit etc, free child care, child benefit etc and some are actually taking home more than me. How can a system be right that lets either single parents or married couples have the equivalent of a take home salary of someone working and earning £80K. For you to then advocate that the country should pay two parents to have that standard of living is bonkers.

Benefits should not be at a level where people have no incentive to work or provide for their family. When we have so many people saying it is not worth getting a job because I will then lose my benefits and am no better off - we know this country has got it wrong. My children, my responsibility - my 2 DCs shared a room at their Dads in a 5 bed room house because the resident children needed a play room - his choice, his decision - not the tax payer to subsidise more.

I think the time to worry about being punished for splitting up is before have children. It is best for children to be in stable families with two parents so there should be a disincentive to just chop and change the whole time.

Especially if the situation was toxic or even abusive.

If the situation is abusive, why are kids being forced to stay with an abusive person half the time?

So then the parents would need to each fund 1.5 homes each. One where the kids live and they split the costs, and then another place they stay on their off days. Instead of each parent having one home. This would make it even worse for women.

Why would it? Sounds like a great solution. Both parents still live in the family home half the time, but swap between a studio flat when the other parent has the kids.

If we expect children, who aren't fully formed and have all sorts of shit going on in their lives, to be ok with upping sticks and moving between two houses every week, not having one place that they are putting down roots, why do we suggest adults can't do the same?

splitting up often puts families and parents in a worse financial position- but it’s not up to the rest of us to co tribute to help YOU out, OP!

A real parent would do those things and find a way to spend time with his kids regardless. This sounds like a bunch of lame excuses a guy would use to get out of it, and be living somewhere miles away on purpose.

You know in a lot of other cultures a healthy man would be laughed at or pitied at the idea he couldn't wouldn't provide properly for his family. Some people actually take pride in being able to do that instead of making excuses to run away from their responsibilities and try to get someone else to foot the bill as much as possible. This country would be a lot healthier and more productive if people had more personal responsibility.

Also this.

Exactly!

This is a benefits issue

where should the benefits stop? The children have a home, its nt benefits issue to provide 2 homes for the same children when some children don't have any home

It's not punishment, it's consequences. We all have to take responsibility for our choices which could ultimately impact any children we choose to have. If you've picked the wrong person or can't make your marriage work whilst DC are under 18, then some support may be needed, but no, a bigger burden should not be put on the state to pay for your life choices. The consequence, not punishment, is that you all have to live in a restricted, less than ideal way.

Luckily we both have decent salaries and can afford to pay for the children we have. I’d say his children probably cost us £1500 a month if you factor in the bigger house, extra council tax, bigger car, CMS and everything else. His ex gets £3000 a month towards raising the children, we get -£500.

If we were to separate, DH would struggle to pay for everything on just his salary alone and would be ineligible for state support. If the children didn’t have their own bedrooms and fun activities they would probably be less keen to spend time at his home and the relationship would suffer. So I do see where OP is coming from. But that’s life. You have a better standard of living when in a couple. As a PP said, the benefits are to house the children, not the parents.

@lateatwork I'm from Edinburgh. Edinburgh is extraordinary expensive. I can't afford a family home in Edinburgh. Am I entitled to extra help? No, obviously. It was my choice to have children. If I can't afford my choices I look at plan B, that is life.

Absolutely. Also "other women".

Every time "the state" is used in a post, I suggest substituting, "my friends, acquaintances and neighbours," since they are among the people who actually foot the bill for whatever is suggested. Then see how you feel about the statement and its fairness.

@pickledpoppetpickle I think you may have misread the last part of my post. I was saying I think most change in this area needs to come from men, precisely because of the kind of example you gave, which seems to be a common scenario sadly. I agree society as a whole needs to see children as a fully shared responsibility and agree completely that men who abandon their kids, don't pull their weight or don't pay their share should be very poorly thought of whereas historically it has been single mothers who were stigmatised and shamed. So I'm saying I think the state has a role to play in driving change in terms of attitudes and so on but frankly the majority of actual change needs to come from men.

Wouldn't that discriminate against incomers and migrants? Why should she be supported to stay in London more so than a woman who has built a life in the capital after arriving from, say, India?

Taxpayers shouldn’t have to step in twice when parents split up.

I'm not discounting what you're saying, I think your points are valid, but that's another thing left to state education. All teachers can do is deliver the curriculum, support good behaviour, model good adult behaviour and intervene with bullying. They can't "teach" about relationships. I do think, however, that many women are somewhat drawn into romantic notions and fairy tales, more so than when I was young. Many threads on here about waiting for a man to propose, wanting a lavish wedding etc. so many threads with men who don't do anything, are reluctant to parent, who are lazy and disrespectful. There's a bit of a malaise, really.

I do think OP has a case for special treatment.

Cost of housing in London is much higher than other parts of the UK. London weighting on wages is quickly eaten up by higher living costs.

Family and community are important.

Someone who can demonstrate that they have generational ties to the area (in OPs case back to 1700...) I think should be enabled to stay.

In other areas, the set up OP is looking at may be affordable.

You want to live in a country where workers and businesses are taxed at a higher rate, and then those additional funds are redistributed to single parents to pay for a higher living standard in two homes. Thereby expanding the welfare state and paying higher benefits to non working and lower earning individuals.

The majority of people (voters) would need to be content with that. And the reality is the majority of people probably wouldn’t.

It all comes down to the type of society people want to live in. Your arguments have to seem reasonable to both those who would be in receipt of higher benefits and those who are expected to pay for them.

@TheTealLemur you make good points...

I agree to an extent @Corinthiana but I think we need to recognise that at the moment lots of parents simply aren't equipped to do this well so they need support to get better at it if we want things to change. Plus I think some of what I mentioned absolutely should be a core part of state education and health offerings.

Saying that, the people I know who are most determined to make their families work are those who went through this in the 80s / 90s and are determined to do things differently. Unfortunately determination alone might not get you there.

It’s not the state’s responsibility to maintain twice the standard of living you previously had (ie 2 family homes).

I always find it baffling that people don’t realise that halving their income by splitting up will result in a lower standard of living.