Aibu or does anyone else think the system is set up to fail single mothers ?

[Ems8818]

So I’m a single mum to 4 . Three eldest from one dad who does see them at all and occasionally pays £18 a month Maintance, he has £13000 dept with csa which is never enforced as when ever they catch up with him he’s unemployed.
My youngest is only 5months and receives £160 a month maintenance. This is equivalent to 8% of his dads income .
Am I the only one who thinks the way child maintenance is calculated is wrong ? I’ve received a really good job offer which will provide long term security to me and my kids however im going have to turn it down as to be able to take the job my childcare costs will be £450 a week , tax credits will only pay £220 so the extra will need to come from my wages .
The baby’s dad will not have him at all to try and reduce the cost . Surly it would be more fair if cms considered things like this when working out they’re maintenance

Of course it’s the feckless fathers fault and the blame should lie with them, but it is ‘the system’ ie csa or cms as it’s called now that are enabling the feckless fathers to shirk their responsibilities. by not having a competent system in place to ensure the nrp pays their share.

There’s a system in place that can fine and prosecute people for not having a poxy tv licence ffs. Why is that deemed more important?

Allineedyoutodios I agree completely and childcare cost are crippling everyone .
it’s just the way child maintenance is worked out is that for a absent parent they don’t need to worry about these things .
I’ve asked the baby’s dad to ask for one set day off a week (he work 4 on 4 off) and look after the baby for that one day which I don’t think is unreasonable however he said he doesn’t want to , I’ve asked him to pay for one day childcare but he says it’s not his responsibility it’s mine .
He also has no interest in what the baby’s real costs are as csa have said £160 is adequate to support the baby a month so in his opinion he’s doing exactly as he should as that’s what the government said . And this is what makes me say the system is failing our children now if the government said to the baby’s father he has to pay for say half the childcare costs then I’m sure he would either take that one day off or pay for it .
The csa is calculated wrong it shouldn’t focus on protecting absent parents but look at supporting and protecting the children

Hi all,
We have had several reports about this thread, and made several deletions of posts that we consider not in the spirit of MN. We would really appreciate it if everyone could read the thread before responding.

Grannyscobwebs... No I CHOOSE not to work because we'd be worse off. It'd actually COST more in childcare than my salary ( more than double). And for your information before you jump the gun WE DO NOT CLAIM BENIFITS. So I'm not sponging off the government in any way. Get your facts right.

Spotty- Apologies! Your post read differently.

I think we should be encouraging the OP to get take the job that I'm sure in the long run will benefit her and her children. Great for independence, confidence etc too.

I hope you have or can find, a good network of friends and family that can help you reduce childcare costs.

Amen to cooking good! Only come onto say the same agree with everything said.

I blame the csa or whatever it is for making it acceptable not to consider the actually needs of a child and making it socially and legal acceptable to shirk responsibility.
Yes ultimately it’s the dads choices and morals but they are supported by a failed system .
Society and the law needs to change and stop blaming the parents who are left trying to progress in life .
Jesus I don’t blame my sons dad if the law and society supported me to only have to give 16% of my income and none of my time or effort to my children and still regard me as a good parent who’s paying my maintenance why would I put myself under pressure and take responsibility.
His opinion is the government and myself will support his short comings and this perfectly fine and acceptable. I think this wrong .
He believes I should not return to work I should throw my career away and scrip and manage on benefits - how can anyone think this system is right

So I'm not sponging off the government in any way

Yeah, thanks for that. Says it all, doesn't it?

For your information, despite having a full time job, a seasonal part-time job and additional ad-hoc work when I can get it (that's 3 jobs), I am still entitled to Tax Credits as a single parent. My well-off, educated ex hasn't paid a penny in 10 years.

Just exactly who is doing the sponging here? Why do you think it acceptable to judge people in that way? Can you not imagine a situation where people in difficult situations are doing the best they can but still need to claim to be able to get by? Because, you know, like you we also need to be paying huge amounts in childcare only even with our sponging, the costs aren't actually fully covered. It would have been far easier to 'be on benefits' for many years but I kept going because I believed in the long-term.

But when I see utter crap like this, I seriously wonder why I bothered because people like you just think I'm no better than dirt under your shoes. You should be ashamed. Sadly, people like you never are.

ohreally

a) the CSA/CMS is highly inefficient.
b) Claiming to be self employed isn't the issue. Actually being genuinely self employed with an accountant is a massive problem. It is perfectly legal to minimize income so as to minimize child support. If it's your business, you simply don't pay it. It takes the CSA/CMS a hell of a long time to catch up with you and when it does, it is forced to use the court system for enforcement. As a result, you can run up £20k and have a judge make you pay it back at £10 a week. In a nutshell, if the HMRC accept the figures, then so do the CSA/CMS.

That's my point, if it isn't enforced by the people in power how is it expected to get any better? They the Nrps are getting away with blue murder.

Read this thread on and off and one thing keeps popping into my head with regard to my own situation as a single parent. I work full time, have done since DD was 3 months old, have had a year when due to closure of childcare suddenly, I couldn't and worked part time. Her father made it clear from the second we split up that as I'd recieve 'all that money' from the government, anything he gave would be funding my fantastic lifestyle (of working and trying to run a house and look after a child - like anyone else) so he never did. CSA was worse than useless, I spoke to a solicitor and ultimately what I'd possibly gain financially I'd be paying the legal bill off with so utterly pointless. I claim wtc and ctc and if
A) the father paid his share and
B) the wages I recieve in any way reflected the cost of living
I wouldn't need to claim anything, because between the two I'd have enough to manage my 'fantastic lifestyle'.
Only they're not an option so I have to take the third option of claiming benefits to live. But who gets the bad name? Who gets told to get a better job? Who gets told I should never have had a baby with someone so feckless - like I could see in to the future and know that actually despite the fact we both planned this life to happen and of our own free will, he was going to change his mind and run away from it all. If I'd known that then no I'd not have willingly had a baby knowing what faced me and her in the future.

Ohreally. You need to stop being so angry at your own situation. My response was to someone saying that tax payers end up paying for people with attitudes like mine..as to a reference I choose not to work. .but this has been corrected as I don't claim benefits. You're getting everything muddled in your own anger.

I'm a single mother to a five year old and was unemployed for many years during that time. But I finally got a perfect job, in my daughters school, during school hours. It isn't a big career, but that never mattered to me anyway. The system however is stupid, I agree. Not just for single mothers, but for everyone. There is no flexibility for circumstances.

Not angry at all about my situation. You have that very wrong.

I am very angry about being told what a shit person I am by virtue of my single parent status. This thread is full of it. I am also angry at the depth of misogyny that exists on this forum which clearly states I am personally to blame for my ex's shortcomings.

And yet that is what every thread on single parenting does. It is never constructive or supportive, just happy to make assumptions and tell me how crap I am with those little 'sponging/scrounging/scum' comments.

ohreally

I don't think I'd be alone in saying, that as a single parent working 2/3 jobs- you should be entitled to help if your income is low. The government are not doing enough to enforce the dad to pay therefore must assist you elsewhere.

I'd feel differently if you had chosen not to work and relied solely on benefits but I'm not sure that you could do more?
You'd only be judged for not being around for your child if you worked more anyway.

I hope your situation improves one day and I applaud you for everything that you're doing right now.

Ohreally. I can't see any comments with those horrible words on. Genuine people know that people need to claim benefits tax credits and all that's available to them etc. I for one do not think that of a single parent probably because I used to be one. I know what it feels like but you're only receiving what's due to you to support you. It's not sponging. Some people however do abuse the system by knowing full well they will be ' looked after ' by benefits and by not working therefore can give single parents a bad name and that they've have it all cushy yet it's far from the truth.
In my own personal circumstances a few years ago however i was better off financially then,than I am now which you can see the flip side of households with two parents working for example.

I can’t comment on what it’s like living with other parent as it’s been many years since I have and even then things where different as I was a sahm.
However in my theory if the system expected absent parents to take more responsibility for they’re children this would increase the income of single parents and require less financial support from government which you never know may reduce taxes or even make help available to more people .
Like wouldn’t it be good if the absent parents paid more and then the government took the savings from they’re support and put it into help childcare costs for all - now I know this is far fetched but I’m trying to get everyone to see that getting absent parents to take equal responsibility even if it can only benefit financially would be a better world for all

Absolutely agree. Fathers should be forced to pay maintenance, it’s so often not enforced. They should also have to share child care costs.

I would love to have their responsibilities as a parent enforced too, but sadly I think there are a lot of awful fathers out there’s that kids are better off not having in their lives. It’s just terrible how many men get to walk away from their kids, and never see them or pay a penny for them again. I really feel they should be in prison for neglect, but I also know that’s not realistic.

I've always questioned how maintenance amounts are calculated. The collection is terrible but really the maintenance should be split in two parts, childcare and 'cost of keeping a child' (i.e. Their food, clothes, home etc.). A self employed person making less than minimum wage based on FT working hours would need to look after the child themselves. Those self employed making less than £50k a year would need to either pay for 2.5 days or work PT and look after their child themselves for 2.5 days of the week. Mothers are expected to go PT so they can fulfill childcare responsibilities. I don't see why the same standards can't be applied to fathers.

I don't see the problem with employees compared to self employed.

Total agreement about shared childcare costs on top of regular maintenance. It would improve the lives of so many children.

I don't see the problem with employees compared to self employed

I am not sure what you mean by this but if it's you don't understand why self employed people can't be compelled to support their children financially, it's because the laws around self employment, company law, tax law etc. etc. are all biased in favour of a business owner ultimately being able to manage and grow a business (and hopefully employ people, generate more tax, etc. etc. ). That's the legal side of it which ensures many children are legally unsupported. Don't even get me started on what can be done on the side - cash in hand, tweaking of payslips etc. etc. Call me cynical, but no Government is going to make self-employment conditions any more difficult by enforcing child maintenance or people wouldn't bother which is bad for the economy as a whole. It will always be a get out of jail free card for those who hate the ex more than they love their children.

Sorry - not being clear. Benefits (working tax credits - not housing bens) takes into account private rental cost (as in everyone is in private rental). Therefore anyone on social housing gets paid the same as those in private rental - so those in social housing are £500+ better of on tax credits.

Tax credits have nothing to do with housing costs. They're solely based on income.

I don’t like how this thread is turning into a man/dad bashing thread. I thought we are above this by now. Ffs. It’s 2018. Equality means just that.

But it's not equal, is it? Single dads made up less than 10% of single parents last time I checked.

The vast majority of people paying housing costs for a family out of one income because they are single parents are women, those struggling to pay childcare out of one income are mostly women, trying to feed and clothe a growing family on one income - mostly women.

It seems remarkably easy for NRPs to avoid paying a meaningful amount of child support, from the slackers on benefits paying £5pw to those who are canny business people who pay themselves a paltry salary to reduce the amount. And don't get me started on the ones who have a lucrative business which folds and then end up working for min wage for a very similar business, which just happens to be in the name of a new partner or family member.

Men still earn more than women, too, so they are doubly disadvantaged.

Living in a street with a few other single parents (who just happen to be male have a penis). When its the mother who is the non resident parent they can be just as shitty paying maintenance to the resident parent. Don't think its confined to men, it just happens that men are more likely to be the non resident parent.

ohreally My point is that a forged payslip is easier to find. Income should come from the last 12 months of an employee per HMRC. Self employed people can easily manipulate their income therefore if a non resident parent is paying themselves £15k a year for their business, say a trade, you know that's probably their income for 1-2 days of work. Based on that income they can either remain self employed and look after the children 2.5 days a week or get a FT job and costs are calculated as an employee.

For those saying deadbeat nrp should go to prison: tax payer pays 50k p.a. to keep someone in prison (and in relative terms they get to put their feet up in there). I am sure most resident parents would prefer the state to pay them the 50k instead.....

Community sentence/hard labour is a far better idea!!

In Germany there are govt set rates for what a kid needs. If nrp doesn't pay, state pays but claws it back. Initially expensive to set up but very effective as most single parents don't need benefits as a result.