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

My best friend's husband has three children from his first marriage, 2 now graduated adults and the youngest is at sixth form. He has remained very amicable with their mum , he didn't have them 50 50 , it wasn't so much the done thing then and they moved about an hour away (closer to the ex's family so he understood that), he was available every weekend they generally stayed every other but each had phases of every weekend, each had a particular sport they were into which he facilitated and travelled all over the country for, had them half the school holidays, was always flexible if their mum was going away with her second husband etc, even going to stay up there when they went on honeymoon so the children weren't disrupted. He always paid/pays above CMS, half of clubs, childcare, half of school uniforms, carried on supporting them through uni, guarantor for flat shares etc. He has a decent job but not loads especially by MN standards, their stepdad (also really nice guy who treats the children as his own) earns a vast salary and their mum also has a very good job out earning my friend's husband. He always said it took both of us to have them, we're both responsible.

I must admit when she first told me she was dating a man with an ex wife and 3 children I raised an eyebrow. I was wrong. His first wife, her husband and all of the children were at my friend's wedding. It just takes a mature and responsible approach.

Well sometimes it’s a matter of common sense.

If a woman chooses to have a child or multiple children with a man on minimum wage or thereabouts, then common sense should tell her that no, if they split up he’ll probably never be able to pay half their costs plus put a roof over his own head.

A woman on the same minimum wage or thereabouts will also not be paying half the true cost of bringing up her children either by the way; the government will be picking up the tab in terms of UC, housing benefit etc. The man on the other hand won’t be entitled to any of that so will have higher outgoings so yes, it’ll be harder for him to contribute 50/50.

Sometimes it’s not about failure but about not having enough money to go around in the first place.

I highly agree with this, but didn’t until my brother went through it (I am a single parent who doesn’t receive CMS).
My brothers 20 year relationship broke down, he had to rent a 2 bedroom house so his 3 children had a room - we live in an expensive part of the country. He earns 35k and pays £360 maintenance (2-3 nights per week).
He can’t do overtime because that’s when he has the children. He regularly uses food banks because he just doesn’t have enough money.
Unfortunately there are no winners - he couldn’t pay nursery fees if he had them. He can barely afford to feed them on his days and he can’t get cheaper accommodation. His rent alone is £1500, whereas his ex has a council flat.

If you have a disabled child who needs 1to1 or 2 to 1 care it doesn't go far.
Also you forget that your wages are taken into account so you never actually get that.

Oh do sod off with this. Plenty of single mums were married, in long term stable relationships with actually pretty decent men until an OW or a mid life crisis or the trenches of working family life or a combination of them upset the apple cart. The issue is the inequality in expectations after that point. There was an interesting article in the Times on Saturday which broke down the costs of child raising at different stages. Childcare is the factor that makes preschool kids the most expensive. You take that out at teenagers are. Only v high earning NRPs would be contributing half of the figures quoted and despite beliefs to the contrary, not all single mums get benefit or UC if they work a half decent professional job, so they end up with about 80% of the costs and all the work and the limitations on their own earning potential which the NRP does not have.

In my country and jurisdiction it is done proportional to income. Both parents have to contribute. Typically the parents are supposed to agree on a care provider, but if things are acrimonious, a judge will grant decision making power to one party.

it’s absolutely crazy not to have both parents pay for child care. It’s the most expensive part of having a young child. Not having care keeps the residential parent in poverty and dependent on the government.

All the disingenuous comments along the lines of 'who do you think should have to pay, the person who booked it!' are ridiculous.

Society needs to do better. It's tilted to punish women for being primary carers/single parents no matter the circumstances that got them there. Both parents should have to contribute to a sensible amount towards childcare hours per week enabling both parents to work if the primary weekday carer wants/needs to work. On top of maintenance.

I took mine to court I felt so strongly about this. Now he has to provide/pay for childcare on his own days, pay half of all extra curricular activities, half of the passports, half of the uniforms and essentials we share. Then the child maintenance.

I wasn’t about to let him get away with mugging me off and forcing me into destitution.

I deal with this ( divorces) daily and yes you are pretty much right . It’s unfair . Child maintenance should be based on the child’s needs not others wages or lack of them at times .
Its very different in other countries where non residents still have to pay half of the childcare , health and education costs .

But we ARE responsible for the choices we make. Why should we not be?
Women choosing to have children with shit men, for whatever reason, isn't anyone elses fault.
Childcare costs should definitely be a consideration, depending on individual circumstances, available subsidies etc, and it is something that needs to be added/included in any orders in relation to the child/children. Not just another thing to fight over down the line in a, probably already, adversarial relationship.

If the child is in nursery 5 full days a week every week of the year and getting no funded hours, and nursery is £70 a day, then that's £1516, so £1014.63 is still covering most of it.

Unless you have twins, you are unlikely to have two children getting no funded hours at the same time and many nurseries offer a sibling discount.

i agree a lot do this, but honestly there are a lot of dads who also genuinely do 50:50 or have the kids more. I come accross loads in my line of work as a teacher and my DP has always had his kids 50:50 (more in actual fact but officially that on paper). Today he did the school runs for all of our kids, made dinner, took the eldest two to ice-skating lessons and is currently finishing reading them stories. He’s paid for all their music lessons and sports lessons, pays for a maths tutor for the eldest and does all the dentists trips and doctors appointments too. Good dads do 50:50 properly.

The trouble is, what happens if one parent makes the effort to structure their work & use family etc to reduce costs during their time, and the other doesn't?

They could do, but most women argue for the lions share of custody/residency, they dont want 50/50 or god forbid for the father to have main custody. Most women fight against. Sometimes theres good reason for that, other times there might not be.

CMS is too low and too easy to evade, particularly for self-employed parents. pension scheme and other voluntary contributions should not reduce income for the CMS calculation (resident parents don't get to prioritize retirement savings over providing basic care for their children now after all). CMS for children below school age should be at a higher rate to account for childcare costs (both direct costs and the cost to resident parents who reduce work hours to care for children). For children below school age work days should also be weighted heavier than weekend days for CMS calculation purposes so that parents who have mostly or all weekend care pay more to offset childcare costs. And as a society we should absolutely be helping parents more with childcare costs.

But having NRPs pay half of childcare directly isn't an option without them also having an equal say in choosing that childcare, and that will be a net negative for the resident parent and children in far too many cases.

Surely the clincher here is whether you were married? If you were you could claim these costs in the divorce proceedings and ensure they are paid for, either as ongoing agreement or in retrospect via a settlement amount or shares in the house/pension etc. its where marriage comes in handy but being unmarried means the NRP can fly off into the sunset without a backwards glance.

There are plenty of times we make decisions set against tonnes of variables. I agree @Inkap you having the kids whilst he works means he can work. If you want to work then he contributes to childcare its not about who the kids live with but facilitating the family as whole otherwise the resident parent needs to go on benefits because you can't work. How's that good for anyone?

Can you challenge this?

So many stupid rules that disadvantage women and dont get me started on equal retirement ages, how can a pay gap of 15-25% equal retiring at the same age?!

I'm one of several single mums in my professional setting. Every single one of us would happily do 50/50 and every single one of the dads does 2/4 nights a month or less. This has been done to death on here and is always going to descend into anecdata but it is simply not the case that most mums don't want 50/50. What often really happens though, is that the man says 50/50, technically has them for 7/14 nights but somehow the mum still does wraparound on his days and drops the kids off, fed and bathed ready for bed with all the uniform and lunch and permission slips and book day costume sorted. . It's a piss take.

Maybe the other parent who is also going to work and needs childcare? Or did you think the responsibilities of having a child all fall to the mother whereas men should just have rights?

How is childcare the mother’s cost? It’s a cost for the child. Unless what is the father proposing if he does not want childcare while he and his ex are at work?

@Inkap completely agree with you.
the non resident parent wouldn’t be able to work their job without the childcare so they should pay half.

also research shows it’s in the child’s best interest to have continuity so you wouldn’t want both parents sending the child to different childcare facilities on alternate weeks etc.