To ask if you would agree with a law forcing absent parents to step up?

Who decides a child’s basic needs in £ terms? Everyone will have a different view on that

there are also many non resident parents who. Do worry about how to pay rent etc.

the problem with this , whether in terms of desire or not to be a parent and what that looks like or whether financial, it’s nuanced to each case hence show horning a one size fits all policy tends to not work. And whether we like it or not, or think it’s best way, single/resident parents get a lot more support ( ie uc, help with rent, free childcare, tax credits etc) than the non resident parent

so is it resident parent who decides costs? Govt ? Some other body ? Is it a flat rate per child ? What if mum
has another child with someelse and stops work? What if it’s flat fee for everyone at an arbitrary amount - eg 250 a month per child - a low earner on min wage can’t support that, while a high earner on 150k it’s pittance ….

Yes exactly. Paying for your own children should be a legal requirement, not optional based on flimsy 'circumstances' . The children need to eat whether or not you are working.

Deliberately having a child with someone you know is going to be a shitty dad is pretty shitty behaviour too, towards the child.

“WiltedLettuce · Today 01:56

Looking at this dispassionately, some people aren't fit to parent. They find it difficult to put their own selfish wants aside and to centre their children's needs. And a larger proportion of these people are men than are women.

I suspect uninvolved parents fall into two categories - there are those who are too lazy to do their share when there is someone else who will pick up their slack but do love and want a good life for their kids so will step in if forced to, and there are those who won't do their share even if there isn't anyone who will do it for them, but are happy to let their children suffer rather than step up.

Your plan might help with the first group but not the second. Not only will the second group never add anything to their children's lives but they often create work, divert attention away from their children and create stress and tension in their children's lives. Their children are often poorer for having them around. Where a mother is a barely adequate parent herself, often a stressful and abusive relationship is what pushes her over the edge into becoming inadequate. Men like these are parasites and no one, especially not children, should have to endure them. It might be galling that no demands are made of this group but it's because they are so useless and toxic that actually they're best kept at arms-length.”

This with bells on. So well put by @WiltedLettuce.

It shouldn’t be based on what they earn / what numbers they give, it should be based on what the child needs to get their basic needs met.

Let’s let the non resident parent worry about how they are going to pay their rent for a change.

I can’t see any benefit to try to force a child to be with a parent to doesn’t want to be there

what I would support is a return to society where family is really valued, people stay together and divorce /separation is rare because people value their families. Not sure how we get there either

Yes that’s fair and could work in some cases. I feel that the law should tip more in favour of the child’s welfare and less in favour of the non resident parent .

No, but more should be done to stop the fiddling of numbers and excuses for not paying to feed and clothe etc your child. Too many pathetic men not paying properly. There should be a minimum amount that absolutely must be paid per child, regardless of who you choose to make a new family with, how many children you go on to have and whether you choose not to work. More accountability would likely make such characters think a little more before making choices others have to make up for.

You don’t seem to grasp that a shit parent is not going to change by being forced to have his / her children. Who suffers? The children.

Financially - yes

Childcare - absolutely categorically NO

A parent not parenting properly/abandoning their child is damaging so we shouldn’t be forcing them to have contact. And we need to stamp out the narrative that mothers who enforce healthy boundaries are protecting their child not being mean to a reckless father. Pure misogynistic ideas.

We need a better maintenance system where a decent amount is enforced and not to be made to feel greedy for expecting maintenance.

They are linked. Being a parent means supporting your child and that includes financially. There's a lack of accountability and responsibility with absentee fathers. Why should the society pick up the cost for these feckless men?

Certainly in the case of drug/alcohol use or criminal behavior; no. Add in those who are physically mentally emotionally and financially abusive; no.
Those parents who are no contact obviously are that way as they are incapable of being decent enough humans they shouldn’t be around children.

My ex husband hasn’t seen our 3 young children in months….i am one of the few that was married over ten years together nearly 20 years …children all planned and no red flags bar the usual niggles of washing not done or clothes on floor.

i don’t want a law forcing him to parent. He made it clear when he left he was leaving because he didn’t want to parent anymore. I want him to have a relationship with his children based on genuine love and desire to spend time with them not one based on a legal minimum requirement

i don’t need a break from my kids. I didn’t have kids to only see them 50% of their lives. I’d rather have no CMS (I don’t get any anyway) and zero break.

if anything I’d rather there be a law where a mother can take the father to court to have his parental responsibility rights removed more easily. My ex husband clearly doesn’t want to see is children or pay for them so he should have any residual “rights” removed - I don’t want to have to ask his permission to take them on bloody holiday!

No but they should be equally responsible if their children suffer neglect

The best thing my child’s bio dad did for them was to disappear out of their life for years,from when they were a tiny baby. My now DH chose to be in their lives and be their parent, he was able to put their needs first in a way their bio dad wasn’t able to do. Being a parent is not all about biology.

Should it be socially acceptable for dads to be able to walk away from their kids? No it shouldn’t be, men who do this should be judged as a mum would be if she abandoned her children.
The dad’s family and friends should think less of him, new potential partners should think twice about getting involved with a man who has already walked away from his kid(s).
if the dad tried the “ I do want to be involved with my kid(s) but my horrible bitch of an ex stops me” nonsense then he should be called out on it, and not treated like he’s some hard done by hero for paying the minimum maintenance he can get away with.

If the father was being forced to pay properly to include at least 50% of childcare costs then you could argue that mum would be able to afford to take some time for a break whilst the children are in childcare

I'm sure arrangements can be made...stop thinking too deep ...it's all talk nothing like this is likely to happen anyway....if by miracle it does then need to work around it I guess.

Looking at this dispassionately, some people aren't fit to parent. They find it difficult to put their own selfish wants aside and to centre their children's needs. And a larger proportion of these people are men than are women.

I suspect uninvolved parents fall into two categories - there are those who are too lazy to do their share when there is someone else who will pick up their slack but do love and want a good life for their kids so will step in if forced to, and there are those who won't do their share even if there isn't anyone who will do it for them, but are happy to let their children suffer rather than step up.

Your plan might help with the first group but not the second. Not only will the second group never add anything to their children's lives but they often create work, divert attention away from their children and create stress and tension in their children's lives. Their children are often poorer for having them around. Where a mother is a barely adequate parent herself, often a stressful and abusive relationship is what pushes her over the edge into becoming inadequate. Men like these are parasites and no one, especially not children, should have to endure them. It might be galling that no demands are made of this group but it's because they are so useless and toxic that actually they're best kept at arms-length.

Well if a child is in a nursery it is sometimes because a mother works so if you want the dad to be the replacement nursery what about his job?

When did I say men & women shouldn't work,

So who is going to pay for all this and you dont think men and woman should work so who pays for the kids?

So you are talking 50/50 care or the kids live with the father, and mothers would just happily go along with this

None of it makes any sense

That is still forcing someone to look after a child. It does not matter if you think they can manage it.
How is this fair on the kid? Children are not like plants. You don't just feed and water them, and let them get on with it. They need love, attention, nurturing, mentoring etc.