AIBU to think that separated parents should support their children equally

[Thinkofthekids]

I've been reading a couple of threads recently where separated parents raising their children are getting very little support from the other parent, either childcare or financial support.

"He has the children 4 nights a month, rearranges whenever it suits him and pays me £30 a week" seems to be a common complaint.

One of my close friends is in this position, only her ex has never had their child overnight and won't have him alone (without my friend being there) as it's too much hassle for him. She works 3 days a week and relies on government help to pay for childcare. She gets £30 a month from him, which he pays irregularly. Another friend is wfh nights doing data entry. She looks after her child all day, starts work after he goes to bed and finishes around 3am. Sometimes she does shift work during the day, while trying to care for him at the same time.

AIBU to be absolutely furious on the children's behalf? The NRPs go on about how the RP (usually but not always a woman) 'needs to get of her arse and get a job' and 'shouldn't expect a free lunch', and it makes me so cross. She's often working at least 1.5 jobs anyway (looking after the kids and then trying to fit paid work around them), while they are doing sweet FA for their children.

My DH and I have all these plans for our kids, lots of stuff we want them to experience and get a chance to do in life. Don't all parents have these plans, even if their relationship doesn't work out and they split up? Don't the children still deserve a decent life, not the bare minimum? Why is it acceptable to leave your kids in difficult circumstances and your ex unable to get a decent well-paid job due to childcare commitments and then claim to be a good dad because you pay £30 a week and have the kids a few nights a month (cancelling whenever it suits you)?

AIBU to say that a decent parent is responsible for 50% of their children's day-to-day care and 50% of their expenses? And if they are not providing regular, committed childcare, they should pay closer to 100% of the children's expenses? Otherwise, they are not a decent parent. Being a parent brings many joys but it is also a huge commitment and burden. The burden of parenting should be shared equally by both parents, and we need a system which achieves this.

@Velvian

I stayed in bed until midday at the weekends and sometimes watched a box set in my pyjamas eating snacks instead of making any meals. Then I had a baby and they needed feeding, clean clothes, personal care, entertaining, exercising...

. Ha, ha, I was exactly the same! So was DH. Having our son was a complete shock. Most of the arguments we have at the moment are because, even a couple of years later, he is much less acclimatised to the new reality (up by 7 every morning, night wakings, house clean, having to play and do activities or get child ready for nursery) than I am.

Ffs genie, you are still 'what abouting'. We are talking about the responsibility of both parents to provide adequately for their kids and how to enforce that. You keep trying to move the discussion elsewhere. What I haven't heard from you yet are any positive specific suggestions on how to enforce cms payments and how they should be calculated.

And yes it's likely the RP will choose the childcare because they are the one managing the drop off and pick up, getting to and from their place of work and home. In an amicable split, if the nrp is really hands on and involved it absolutely could and should be a joint decision.

huge but somebody has to do the min wage jobs ffs. Not everyone can or wants to train or whatever. You're being deliberately obtuse.

I'm not "whatabouting" at all. I'm telling you why this couldn't or wouldn't work in real life. In your Dreamworld where everyone gets on yeah it would be great!

I've already said CMS should use the powers they already have.

It should be calculated as they calculate it now. I don't think it should be a higher % or a set rate. I don't think they should build up some kind of random debt based on someone's decision of what it costs to bring up a child' and I don't think step parents wages should be involved.

I think they need to ensure people pay first and foremost. Why can't they just take it straight from wages like another tax for instance?

In an amicable split, if the nrp is really hands on and involved it absolutely could and should be a joint decision

Yes obviously but most splits aren't amicable. And you can still be an involved parent and yet not have had an amicable split. This would just be another issue to argue about which doesn't help the child at all.

Oh trust me. Mine wasnt and isn't amicable. I wish it was and it makes things much harder that it isn't. Again, we are talking about those who wilfully choose not to do all they can, including taking on extra work to adequately provide. Some pp have said they accept that their exs can't contribute and if they want to do that, that's fine. I think the % should be no lower than 20% and the minimum should be 20% of nnw at 35hrs. Its then up to the nrp to make whatever arrangements they need to to mee that. If they can't, outside of genuine PIP etc as previously discussed, it should be paid by the gov and counted as debt. Why do you think steparents should never pay? Surely if an NRP is choosing not to work and living off the steparent, the step parent has to take on his financial obligations.. Its their joint choice. If they don't want to do that he should continue to work.

Why do you think steparents should never pay?
Because it's not their child. It wasn't their choice to have that child.

I don't think the minimum is a bad idea to ensure that people who can work, do. I'm not sure I agree with 20% but the concept certainly.

The thing about taking on extra work is basically just saying the rp looks after the child and the nrp funds it. I don't think people should be forced to work all the hours under the sun just to survive though personally.

It will just force more nrps into having less contact because as well as a bigger amount of maintenance they're expected to provide a bedroom for every child. The two aren't compatible unless you're very well paid.

The nrp is very welcome to look after the child 50% instead. They just very often choose not to. How would you address the scenario I described where the nrp stops working and lives off their new partner? Legally, at the moment they can do that and pay zero maintenance. That cannot be OK, so how would address it?

Less contact than 4 days a month which is pretty standard? You can have kids share rooms you know, certainly up to secondary age even if different sexes. And noone is, saying they should pay for everything, just 50%.

@HugeAckmansWife

The nrp is very welcome to look after the child 50% instead. They just very often choose not to. How would you address the scenario I described where the nrp stops working and lives off their new partner? Legally, at the moment they can do that and pay zero maintenance. That cannot be OK, so how would address it?

Well using your own idea! They are still expected to pay the minimum which you advise should be 20% of nmw at 35hrs. They get in debt if they don't pay it.

It is not their partners responsibility to pay. So they either get in debt, or they get a job and pay.

Saying that a man should accept fatherhood no matter what the circumstances is totally sexist. If that's the case, abortions should it be considered where there is a health issue. Why is it ok for women to chose but not men?

And if the issue is really childcare why not starting at rest about how men should be made to have 50/50 care? Funilly, I've never seen such a thread.

@HugeAckmansWife

Less contact than 4 days a month which is pretty standard? You can have kids share rooms you know, certainly up to secondary age even if different sexes. And noone is, saying they should pay for everything, just 50%.

Haha on MN you're the devil incarnate if your kids don't have their own rooms when you're the nrp.

I know you're not saying pay for everything... I've just pointed out why I don't think it would work.

Wrt contact what happens when court awards eow and 1 day a week and the nrp would happily have more? Or when the rp won't allow it? They pay more even though they're willing to do the 50%?

[quote Waxonwaxoff0]@Elizadoeslittle19 I get £500pm from my ex, he is on a salary of £50k. I don't think £200pm for someone in his situation would be fair as he has plenty of disposable income even after paying me the £500. For us, it's about the lifestyle that we want for DS - my ex and his partner earn well, they have a 4 bedroom house and go on lots of holidays. My ex wants DS to have the same lifestyle as he has, he doesn't want to see DS go without. I am the one doing the majority of the parenting so I do a low paid job that allows me to be flexible for school runs etc. My ex's job does not have flexibility and has unsociable hours so he does much less of the day to day parenting (this is his choice as his job is important to him) and more of the financial contributing. We are both happy with the situation.[/quote]
You and your ex are behaving like responsible parents. So often one or both parents don't act in such a responsible way. Perhaps when a child is born, the NI numbers of both parents should be recorded as standard. That might make it easier to track a NR parent who doesn't step up.

Things are moving more to 50/50 if the nrp can show that he was largely involved before the split, or can show he's put plans in place for childcare etc on his days. He won't get it if he was mostly at work with the mum at home and somehow suddenly thinks he can do 50% just because.
Re step parents, if the rules were changed to my scenario so the child did not lose the maintenance because the gov steps in and the guy incurs the debt then fine yes, they shouldn't pay. But as things stand now, if someone chooses to get involved with a. Nrp and they choose to have him give up work, she should be obliged to pick up his obligations. If she doesn't want to, she should leave him, or not support him so he has to work.

@dontdisturbme we covered this earlier. Noone is forced into fatherhood. It's called condoms or abstinence.

A large part of the problem is that we don't view childcare as 'work'....It is meant to be a joy and a privilege, so (mostly) mothers aren't allowed to complain about being left with the bulk of it.

This is nonsense, of course. It is joyful at times, but it is also tiring, draining, hard work, especially when very young children are involved. This is why we don't expect nursery workers, teachers, babysitters, nannies etc. to work for free (I mean, they are underpaid but that is another argument). The result of not accepting that parents are working when caring for their children is that we can't agree that parents who fail to do 50% of the childcare should 'pay' the other parent for their labour.

I agree with @Velvian that far too many NRPs, while being shit, they also devalue, criticise and undermine the work done by women to raise their children so that they can carry on being shit with impunity.

You can assess the financial value of the caring 'work' done by RPs (whether working or not) by looking at what would happen if, god forbid, they got run over by a bus. Unless there were relatives willing to take the children, they would require foster care placements costing the state over £30,000 per child annually.

You can assess the financial value of a non-working NRP by looking at the similar situation. If they were run over by a bus, there would be no financial loss to the state or their children. Indeed, if they are themselves reliant on benefits, there would be a saving.

Things are moving more to 50/50 if the nrp can show that he was largely involved before the split, or can show he's put plans in place for childcare etc on his days. He won't get it if he was mostly at work with the mum at home and somehow suddenly thinks he can do 50% just because

This is ridiculous. Of course someone who usually works full time can do 50/50 ffs. And it's penalising men really isn't it because it's not the norm for them to work pt and stay at home and that's usually a financial decision made by the couple. It's not fair to then say oh well you can't do it then.

Re step parents, if the rules were changed to my scenario so the child did not lose the maintenance because the gov steps in and the guy incurs the debt then fine yes, they shouldn't pay. But as things stand now, if someone chooses to get involved with a. Nrp and they choose to have him give up work, she should be obliged to pick up his obligations. If she doesn't want to, she should leave him, or not support him so he has to work

Nope. Don't agree. Not your child not your bill under any circumstances. I say that as someone who's stepchild has lived with them and I have therefore footed lots of bills that weren't necessarily mine but no way in hell would I pay maintenance.

If someone allows their partner to live off you and stop contributing anything to his child, that's absolutely outrageous. It's indefensible. And I'm not saying they can't work full time. I don26/30 days parenting and work full time. I'm saying that they need to show they've thought about how they will do it.. Demonstrate that they've researched and secured a place at a childcare setting.

Thank you @Gran22 DS's well being is the most important thing to us both. Unfortunately we do seem to be in the minority, none of my single parent friends receive much help or support from their exes.

If someone allows their partner to live off you and stop contributing anything to his child, that's absolutely outrageous.

Agree. I think at that point I'd be tempted to dump the kids on the doorstep and run away until the maintenance was reinstated. I wouldn't of course, but it would be tempting...

I'm saying that they need to show they've thought about how they will do it.. Demonstrate that they've researched and secured a place at a childcare setting

That's not hard is it? Well other than securing a childcare place before youve even got access is a bit silly but I see where you're coming from.

I don't agree with partners funding parents who don't pay. But I don't agree with partners paying for children that aren't theirs either.

@Thinkofthekids sorry completely off topic. Do you know what company your friend does data entry for? I had looked into it before but was worried it was a scam. Pm me if you prefer.

Really sorry for the derail. I agree with you completely btw, my relative’s partner (who has a very good job incidentally) moved to another country with her before she found out he had a kid he’d never seen, and never paid for! My relative is still with the cunt. He was tricked 🙄.

@Thinkofthekids looking after your own children is not work.

The fixed costs ie housing utilities are more likely to be same cost for both rp and NRP.

The only real difference is food clothing etc.

Now what happens in alot of splits is parents are not amicable and the money is a big thing. Why should a NRP pay more to the RP because they only want to work part time?

So for example a NRP pays the 400 quid for maintenance. Is he then expected to pay for clothes at his home as well or should the clothes be allowed to go in between homes.

@TheBusDriver often a lot of RPs don't have the choice. The NRP is able to work full time because they do less childcare. In my case, for example, my ex is unwilling to give up his well paid job as then he would have less money. So that means he can only see DS on his days off, and means I have to work around HIS schedule and do a job that allows me to have flexibility for childcare. Which is fine, but I expect him to pay maintenance in proportion to that, which he also agrees with.

He doesn't buy DS clothes, I do the clothes shopping. He gives me extra money when it's Christmas time, birthday time or new school uniform time.

What's everyone's opinion on a model similar to the Swedish one? I think that's probably better than ours.

@dontdisturbmenow
I come from a country where it is legal and relatively easy for the man to legally give up parental rights (and responsibilities such as child support) at any point. Effectively, the same as giving the child up for adoption, only there's no adoptive parents, just the mother. In this way they are not burdened with the fatherhood they did not want. Fair? Fair.
Guess what - no one chooses to do this, but non-payment of child maintenance and absence from the childrens' lives is as endemic as it is in the UK.