To be shocked that the resident parent has to foot the nursery bill?

Largely I agree but we do need to recognise that there is not an equal choice in having children. In cases where two people equally chose to make and have a child then of course both parents should contribute equally. But women do get the final say as to whether to continue a pregnancy in the case of an accident. Yes, men should also bear this burden and be responsible for protection etc but I do think if you are choosing to have a child with someone who did not intend to have one with you and is clear that they don’t want to have them, it’s unreasonable to expect them to contribute more than the bare minimum. Good men will do so anyway, others won’t. It is important that we consider the child when we consider who to have a baby with. There should also be other ways for young women to get their own accommodation without extortionate deposits etc because it’s set up that women from more deprived backgrounds can see children as a way to get out of their current environment (understandably).
It’s not fair to women or single parents and parents should be held to account for their kids but trust me, if women can avoid paying for their kids, they do too, it’s just a lot easier for men to walk away. My DSS’ mum hasn’t paid a penny for his care since he moved to live with us nearly four years ago and is now having her fourth baby with her fourth dad who didn’t want a baby and she isn’t in a relationship with. Yes they clearly should have known better but that’s also not okay.
I don’t think anyone should have a child that they aren’t ready to take on and support on their own as you can never know what life will bring.

The issues are deeply entrenched and include the gender pay gap, gender expectations etc… it’s not a single issue. Everything together adds up to women getting a shit deal compared to men.

I've read enough threads here to be able to say with certainty, not many of the ones posted about here are capable of watching a child 50% of the time.

I mean, when would they have time to be at the pub "with the boys", go to matches, get drunk after (during) and other such "manly" endeavors?

I would guess that 75% of divorces are because a man still wants to do single man activities whilst married. The woman might start the procedure, but it's the man's behavior that is a catalyst.

Er..except the dads refuse to have them. Of course every situation is different but do you really think 85% of single parents are women because we're so good at winning our own way from a patriarchal society? Or could it be because many many men see buggering off and leaving children behind as a viable option and most women don't..and our society backs up this view. Women who dumped their kids and saw them a couple of times a month and paid a pittance towards them would be vilified. Men are "great dads" if they do likewise. Women in here are told they are lucky if they get the bare minimum CMS. Utterly depressing.

Well, if you want to bring up the "working", here it goes.

If derelict daddy doesn't want to pay half of childcare, then derelict daddy should have to pay spousal maintenance until HIS child goes to school. Then it doesn't become, "the one who needs childcare pays for it". Which, by the way, is about the stupidest thing I can imagine, which is why men love the idea.

Both should pay equally and at an accredited childcare facility, not some drunk old aunt of a cousin's brother's best friend's neighbor.

Who do you think would be responsible for paying for it in another country?

Well, this thread makes for depressing reading.. I personally don't see what's so controversial around 'each parent pays half' argument. The RP needs to work and the NRP is only able to work as the DC are with the RP.

The number of posters on this thread spouting 'but benefits', 'but you get to choose the provider', 'but you chose a shit partner', 'but happens to men too', 'but you clearly did something to deserve being shat on from a great height', should really look at how blinded they are to the inequity in this wonderful society of ours.

85% of lone-parent families in the UK are headed by a mother. Women are disproportionately impacted by a shit child maintenance system and attitudes like many on this thread... and yet there will always be lots of voices, shouting for the status quo, tying themselves into knots to claim its fair, just suck it up buttercup... just depressing!

And I should imagine they choose to be the resident parent in many cases. Nothing stopping them leaving the kids with their dad

Well the answer to this is true 50:50 custody and each pay for any child are they need. In reality that doesn’t often happen but often UC will pay 85% of childcare costs.

The resident parent is the mother in the vast majority of cases though. And if they can’t afford childcare the state pays.

Yes this.

It's nothing to do with women per se. It's the resident parent ( of either sex) that is affected

Are there really some people who think 'well the government top up with 80%, or UC, or DLA for kids' actually excuses the NRP from sharing the costs of their flesh & blood?
The current system is not geared up to benefit the RP (usually a woman) regardless of why her relationship has broken down.
I'm disgusted by the 'well you picked a shit dad for your kids' comments too.
I hope you don't develop vertigo up there in your ivory towers.

The non resident parents financial contribution is maintenance. Childcare for lower paid parents is subsidized. I say all this as a single mum - it’s completely impractical to get non resident parents to pay for childcare so resident parents can work. If we could actually enforce maintenance that would be something

It doesnt bother me I am not nor ever would chose to be in a blended family but I wonder how many on here would be ok if the man they chose to have children with was already paying 50% child care on the previous children? again not my problem I wouldn't chose to be in that situation in the first place

So?
If a man got a child and he cannot finance any more children, he should not gave more children.
There is no lack of humans in this world so no rason for blokes going around making babies they cannot pay for 50%.

Well I guess if fathers are made to pay 50% for the first lot of children they have then this would put off blended families so the next woman would not be able to afford child care if he is already paying for the first lot?

I've understood that the idea is that the parent needing the childcare pays for it. If the non-resident parent doesn't need childcare then they don't have to contribute. The fees in the UK are ridiculous and it is such a shame that every other weekend dad can get away with paying fuckall.

Both parents NEED childcare in order to work. However in many cases the dad has dumped the kids on the woman so does he have the right to say he longer no needs the childcare?
He only doesn't need it because the woman has the kids!
If she wants to work then she needs to take 5 days of childcare and pay?

Why?

Do you mean the children the mother decided to have? having children is a choice and also realising when deciding to have children what implications that will have if you choose to have them and become a single parent, yes both parents should think carefully before having children but of course they dont

the world is not ideal but it is what it is so people have to work with that and make better choices

If your child is disabled and needs care you should also be getting DLA and disabled child element of UC.

Under the current system yes, but if absent fathers were more financially accountable the state wouldn't have to step in and pay the balance.

That’s not true - CMS isn’t means tested. You can claim full benefits and get hundred / thousands in CMS on top.

Maintenance should be much much higher to ensure it is really like an actual obligation for half of reasonable costs of child. And done as a debt against the absent parent that is never forgotten and needs to be paid off like a consumer debt. It should affect their credit rating and it should be recoverable by bailiffs.

If their father contributed more, the taxpayer would pick up less