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

Non-parent so this is just wild to me. It’s weird that the resident parent is saddled with so much of the cost of child rearing.

If the other parent does not want to pay towards childcare then they should be offering other ways of helping to other parent to continue to work.

I think OP was referring to "this country", as in the society we live in. It wasn't an invitation for snarky comments about her ex-partner.

50% of the child’s costs surely?

Well yes it does, that was the point of the OP. You may have a choice between expensive childcare or very expensive childcare, you still need an option to work.

It's financial abuse of the resident parent. My brother gets just as much of a raw deal despite his ownership of a penis.

Nursery and wrap around childcare costs should be paid in addition to maintenance IMO. My DH paid nursery costs for 2 years with no contribution from their mother (she paid no CM either) and 6 years (and counting) of wrap around care for their 2 kids.

There’s usually more than one provider of childcare so choose means picking a provider not choosing to work.

Haven't read the whole thread - but even splitting childcare costs equally between parents still leaves the resident parent at a disadvantage - they'd still be putting in a hell of a lot more time, energy and money than the non-resident one ...

A completely fucked-up system and nobody bats an eyelid - i.e. we've become totally conditioned to accept this kind of crap as 'normal' - laws, rules and regulations implemented by (mostly) men ....

You don't "choose", you need childcare to work. Each parent should be paying 50%, which maintenance does not cover.

It’s patently sexist and unfair that only one parent has to pay to work, and is the natural extension of the antediluvian idea that men’s careers are primary and women can only work if they sort out childcare.

Unfortunately your responses to this thread will be skewed by defensive second wives and stepmothers who are aggressively determined that their Nigel won’t be paying a penny over the CMS minimum requirement.

Totally agree. The whole child maintenance system is shocking and massively disadvantages the resident parent (usually the woman). As well as having to pay for all childcare, many women often end up with nothing as men go self employed and CMS do nothing to chase payment.

You question makes no sense.

generously, assuming you’re not trying to be obtuse, what do you suggest otherwise?

My bet is a lot of women aren't prepared to only see their children 50 percent of the time.

Both parents should pay for it as it enables both parents to work.

It's a maximum of 85% when my childcare costs were £1900 per month the then £977.33 (max payable then now £1014.63) was nowhere near most. Ended up having to quit my job because I couldn't afford to live and pay that bill

This is why women should be very judicious about when, and with whom, they procreate with.

It should be obvious by now to anyone with an IQ that if things go haywire, it's going to be the woman whose career, finances, energy, health, living arrangements, etc., are most likely to suffer. And yet .... people go merrily forward having child after child without considering or planning for the worst case scenarios that are so common.

I don't think NRP should be forced to pay any expenses the RP dreams up, though. What if they select the most expensive nursery option or refuse to seek family support?

If dad had the child 50/50 then he could use the £800 nursery and mum could use the £1000 nursery and they both pay for their days.

Many men pay child maintenance rather than nursery fees because it’s much cheaper and less hassle. Having to do nursery runs is a hassle that can interfere with career progression and free time for those time consuming hobbies that men like to have on here.

If OP wants to see a decrease in her nursery fees then hoping that her ex gets together with a new gf who will do his share of the childcare is her best bet. Depressing but often very true.

The people stating 85% of costs get paid really don’t have a clue either.
85% of the cost gets added into your UC entitlement for the month, but your wage also gets taken into account.
My nursery bill of £1400+ a month gets a grand total of £400 in help from UC and my child’s father has to pay fuck all else from the other 1k required to meet her needs whilst he is ALSO in work (due to the fact that I solely pay for our child’s care with a 50/50 child arrangement order).
The CMS needs a complete overhaul and to not assume that all children of separated parents are 3+ with the exact same needs.

My ex’s solution to this was to quit his job when I looked into childcare to return to work.

That was helpful….

You’re not wrong about the law failing to do enough to ensure that both parents pay for their children. The problem with paying for child care is that from the providers perspective, they have to take more risk and do more admin if they have a contract with two separated parents, and that’s assuming two parents are willing to pay. They can’t enforce payment from a parent who has t chosen to use their facility and sign a contract.

IMO the state should pay for children upfront, including CM, and then recoup the costs from the parents. If they can enforce council tax a parking fines, they can enforce parents paying for their children.

I get the impression that universal credit is slightly worse than tax credits as it pays childcare in arrears.

Back in 2010 I was able to get the childcare fees paid on time via tax credits.

I suspect a lot of those dads would suddenly disappear never to be seen again! However yes I agree the ideal solution is 50/50 residence and each parent pays for any childcare they need.

Exactly this.