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

Support to stay from those family and friends network, not support from the state.

Maybe in some other areas, the set up.thay the OP wants for her family is available as housing prices are lower.
Some councils in key tourist areas are putting extra taxes for second homes. I don't believe this happens in London?

I mean it's a different point. But I have the utmost sympathy for communities in Cornwall where young people can't get on the housing ladder because of second home owners.

Maybe it's the same in the area iñLondon where OP lives?

Well, the support clearly isn't enough, is it?
Maybe a cheaper area and a cheaper house would mean she has more money for childcare.

I actually think OP does have a point on this. If all her family and support network are nearby then there should be support to stay.

👆🫶 the truth! We all have choices. Some people can’t be assed to make them.

Meanwhile, elsewhere in London, people earning £100k+ a year and both working 40 hours a week, are opting to have one child, because they cannot afford to buy a 3-bed property.

This

I think people should try a lot harder to make marriage work where there are children involved and not put their romantic desires or their objection to boredom above the needs of children for a stable home.

Obviously no one should stay in a marriage where there are issues of control or violence, but it's almost guaranteed in a long marriage that at some point each partner will fall out of love with the other for a while, and each partner will at some point be hard to live with due to stress or illness or bouts of depression or preoccupation with children or work or elderly parents.

We need to learn to stay kind and respectful to our spouses and recognise how to value sticking at a marriage long term, work hard at having fun together and raising a family together, and enjoy the shock when you fall back in love.

I see too many people split up because they think with their groin or they crave excitement and create drama by splitting up instead of finding excitement in the marriage or through things that won't destroy the family.

This is crazy. It doesn't mean you work less, you work around your child.

As for the nonsense of 50/50, it's incredibly rare. Giving them the 'opportunity' is just handing them free money as many wouldn't step up.

From a single mum with a far better house and income than I had when married, with an ex who 'wanted 50/50' but, ahead of going back to family court and having done the maths, has had contact just 1.5% of the year.

No. They don’t need a home with each parent.

Children just need one home. Having two loving and involved parents isn’t dependent on having overnights.

I mean I do agree with you in principle OP, that finances are tougher if you split up, and your version would be better for the family. Especially where there is abuse and the other partner feels trapped due to finance.

But we don't have unlimited money as a country, and we're really struggling to provide functional health, social care and education systems. So I think having the state fund two homes for one set of kids is going to be so far down the list of priorities that it will never happen.

It’s not being punished for splitting up. Do what you want but don’t expect someone else to pay for it.

Oh so you are looking at the state to fund housing for your children in two households.,.

No. If you need 2 x 3 bed houses so your children can spend 50% of their time in each home, then the state shouldn't fund this. Parents should.

Neither of you have the kids full time- so you can work more hours when you don't have them.

No absolutely not, sorry. Why should the state pay to support two houses for kids. People make choices, I’m sick of entitled attitudes that think the state should pick up the cost of everything when actually it’s people’s choices and actions that have led to many situations and people need to take responsibility for their own situation and provide for their own kids. It is not on to expect the state, and therefore the population, to support two houses.

Don’t be so entitled and blind.
Its not my fault I had children with him (blub blub)
Its not my fault we split up (blub blub)
Its not good for mental health to be sharing a small flat (blub blub)
We should both get enough money from tax payers to maintain the lifestyle we had while we were together for our children (blub blub)

How about no!!! I’d sooner pay MP’s a higher wage.

The parents could each stay in the home that houses the children and move to the other property when they don't have the children. No need for 2 large properties.

Out of interest OP, as people may be able to suggest some help.

What is your income / UC / child benefit / childcare cost etc? Do you get support for housing currently? Have you looked at claiming additional childcare cost help? This might make it feel more worthwhile working more hours.

No-one is being "punished".

How do you think everyone else (and particularly single parents) do it OP?

You work when your child is at school / nursery.

You work when they’re at the other parents house.

You use childcare (for which it sounds like you may be able to claim funding up to 85%). Your relatives help out if they can.

As a single parent, with young children, relying on state support, in an expensive part of the country… it’s going to be hard.

They would never be there together so they're not really sharing in that sense. Obviously, it's difficult which is why no-one does it, but it does make sense from a financial and practical view.

I think you are looking at an ideal that doesn't exist and will never happen.

People can take care of their children even if they have to commute to see their children.

Granted, 50/50 doesn't always work, but it's down to the parents to find a solution for their individual situation.

A better way to spend government funds is to make NRP pay for their children

Case Study:
DH used to do a 6 hour round trip to see his DC every other Weekend, sometimes bringing DC back to us and sometimes staying in a B&B... this was because mum moved back to her home town, which had cheaper rents at the time.

It cost time and money and we had to sacrifice some things in order to see DC.
DC is in their 20's, still comes to visit or we go see them.

So, it's all possible without a 2nd set of benefits if someone wants it enough.

Well, that's the system. Unfortunately.
When my husband became critically ill, and then disabled, we were hit very badly financially. We had young children and a massively reduced income. We sold our house in London and moved somewhere cheaper to release capital. We didn't want to move, but what was the alternative? Should I have expected taxpayer funding to stay put and carry on with my lifestyle?

Are you 500 years old? Lots of people move out of London because it’s expensive, even people whose families rebuilt after the Iceni. You don’t have a taxpayer funded birthright to live in an expensive place. If you want to live in London, pay for it. It you want a single income household, pay for it. Everyone else has to make choices and compromises. You chose to live in a place you can’t afford, you chose to marry a man you dislike, you decide your kids need two bedrooms, you decide I will sub you instead if you having to either earn more or manage with less. How about I move back to London and you pay my rent? I have 4dc so I’ll need a 9 bedroom house, thanks.

No, the parents would fund two half homes each. Each pays half for the family home and each pays half for the small flat. This is obviously more expensive than living together, but can't be avoided if they want to live separately. It's considerably cheaper than running two family homes, which is what you're arguing for.