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.

I'd love to know how anyone thinks you can't take income into account. I mean you simply cant pay what you don't have!

But the child doesn't stop existing. The RP has to provide too, obviously, and they may do that by claiming UC because they can't work due to childcare issues. That doesn't matter.. They are still providing their share by claiming what they are entitled to as a parent with caring responsibilities. The NRP has much much more freedom to take any job going, work long hours etc and absolutely should be held to a reasonable minimum. If he can't pay it, it gets subbed by the gov and turned into a long term debt. To the pp who said the OPs proposal means the RP pays nothing, that's not right she clearly said the nrp should pay a fair share, not all.

The only problematic thing is calculating what is reasonable costs as everyone has different standards of what is essential. The cms is deliberately vague on what maintenance should cover which has caused many arguments with my ex.

The NRP has much much more freedom to take any job going, work long hours etc and absolutely should be held to a reasonable minimum. If he can't pay it, it gets subbed by the gov and turned into a long term debt

What if they're unable to work?

What's a reasonable minimum?

Too many variables.

In other words, the NRP pays for everything? Whilst the RP sits back and pays nothing? Hardly fair is it?

The RP is not sitting back and contributing nothing, the RP is actually parenting the child. Therefore, allowing the NRP either to go to work or have free time. Childcare has an economic value - look at what nannies/nurseries/childminders are paid.

It's not like the RP can actually go and get a job while simultaneously doing childcare. Hence why they need to be compensated for doing their ex's share of childcare unless the NRP actually steps up and does it themselves.

If care is truly split 50/50 and all child-related expenses (clothing, school trips, activities, presents for parties, travel expenses, haircuts etc.) are also split 50/50, then clearly no money should change hands and no maintenance should be payable.

To answer my own question, I think the only way it can be achieved is if the cultural belief is that parents are 50/50 responsible for children - both in relation to time, parenting and money. If at the outset, both parents feel (and society feels) that each has equal responsibility, from maternity leave onwards, and if society and parents expect that each of them shares care on divorce then it might work.

of course to have this working we need affordable childcare, affordable housing, flexible working. Parity of incomes for men and women. It goes much deeper than the CMS system (which I agree is just not fit for purpose). Look at some of the Scandinavian countries - this works much better there.

I'd love to know how anyone thinks you can't take income into account. I mean you simply cant pay what you don't have!

No, but it can then be turned into a debt that you can be pursued for in the courts and be made bankrupt/your assets seized if you don't pay it.

Clearly, this would only be a last resort where the RP/NRP can't come to an agreement about how to ensure they both make fair contributions to their children. As some of the posters above have mentioned, if both parents are genuinely committed to their children and show that commitment on a day-to-day basis, it matters much less whether 'on paper' each parent is doing 50/50 of care/financial support because the parents are working as a team for the children.

I think the only way it can be achieved is if the cultural belief is that parents are 50/50 responsible for children

Agree absolutely. At the moment, our standards for mothers are too high and our standards for fathers are too low.

No, but it can then be turned into a debt that you can be pursued for in the courts and be made bankrupt/your assets seized if you don't pay it

That sounds horrific and like a punishment for not earning enough.

Also what if assets are joint owned?

Clearly, this would only be a last resort where the RP/NRP can't come to an agreement about how to ensure they both make fair contributions to their children

So a regular occurrence then!

That sounds horrific and like a punishment for not earning enough.

Single parent families across the country have debt issues and bailiffs knocking on the door due in large part to absent fathers not paying an adequate amount for their children. In extreme circumstances, they are evicted and the children end up in unsafe temporary accommodation in B&Bs sharing bathroom and kitchen facilities.

So my heart doesn't bleed. Parents need to step up and pay for their children so they can have a decent life.

Right so putting them in lots of debt is the answer.

There's a reason why this will never happen.

The burden of parenting should be shared equally by both parents, and we need a system which achieves this. DH works full time, I'm sahp as eldest has a few additional needs and we now have 6 mo twins. If we split in 6 mo (to avoid the mat leave scenario) by your logic he'd need to find himself at least a large 2 bed if not a 3 bed property so all 3 kdis can sleep over 7 nights per fortnight but he'd also need to reduce him hours so he could do school run and childcare on his days. He wouldn't pay me any money as he'd have 50% care and costs on his 7 days a fortnight so I'd need to find a job that was opposite days to his to cover all the costs we currnetly split. That just isn't feasible, esp short term.
In reality I'd keep the kids, they'd go to him alt weekends and some days in the week for tea and he'd me money. To afford this he'd end up back at his Mom's and the spare room would have to squish in the kids for his overnights. Life isn't black and white.

Yes nrp should do their share, but just like our house now, thst isn't 50/50 on every item, it's 50/50 on balance overall.

What howabout said. Thoughtful and considered straight talking.
The older we get the more we realise you can't plan or predict everything and some people don't delve far enough into who they partner with.
If you and your partner have all these values on the same page now you can't assume they'll stay the same in the face of adversity (but I hope you will - wouldn't wish misery on anyone).

I don’t believe 50/50 care is necessary or desirable in all circumstances if (and this is a big if) all parties are reasonable and it is best for the child.

I would like to see the CMS exercising more of the options available to them to recoup some of the masses owed in maintenance, the vast majority of which is owed by men.

OP, I agree with you completely. When I think about it too hard it boggles my mind - why shouldn't a child's cost and upbringing be split 50/50. Why is it that one parent often gets away with doing the bare minimum and paying the bare minimum, sometimes meaning the RP has to rely on government help to raise their child. It's bizarre that we are all so conditioned to accept this as the status quo.

@SleepingStandingUp

I agree that there may be very good reasons in individual cases to depart from the 50/50 care/finances scenario. Parents should come up with the solution which suits them the best.

My only point is that 50/50 care/finances should be the responsibility of each parent, so if one parent is providing more care, the other should provide more money (to a level which adequately meets the child's living costs, not the extremely low figures calculated by the CMS). At the moment, a lot of NRPs (though not all) seem to get away with providing less than 10% of the reasonable costs of raising a child, and then have the child EOW if that (so 1/7th of total childcare). That is clearly an unfair arrangement.

I would like to see minimum cost of raising children calculated and nrp have to pay minimum of 50% of that cost no matter what they earn. Just like the rp has to. They can't stop feeding their children, buying clothes etc but have to cut their cloth or earn more money. Nrp should have to do the same. except if a couple have more kids or one loses their job, they will change what they feed their kids, or what clothes they buy. It isn't always as simple as earning more. So a few months of chips and eggs and beans on toast, letting clothes get a little shirt and raiding the charity shops to cut their family costs. Why is that different if the nrp loses their job? And when we had twisn instead of a single, it meant all 3 got a little less than the two would or the one did.

When I think about it too hard it boggles my mind - why shouldn't a child's cost and upbringing be split 50/50.

Yes, I think you've put your finger on what bothers me about this question/many of the responses defending NRPs who don't pay enough.

Can anyone give a good reason why both parents aren't equally responsible for their child?

There are different aspects to this responsibility (care, financial etc.) which can be split differently depending on the circumstances, but surely, in any reasonable society, the starting point must be that mum and dad (or mum and mum/dad and dad) are equally responsible and should both be doing their fair share.

Parents should come up with the solution which suits them the best

You're assuming all break ups are amicable.

My dad provided my mum with the minimum maintenance for me and my sister, and only eventually paid when the CSA did an attachment of earnings (this was many, many years ago). Money arrived late, when it did arrive at all. He was happy to see us living in poverty, sofa surfing, unable to see our friends, go to school events etc, all because he hated my mum and didn't want her to have any of his money. I know what happened, saw just how much he cared about me, and have hardly any relationship with him now. Not sure he's bothered tbh.

You're assuming all break ups are amicable.

Not really. I'm saying that, where they are amicable and both parents work as a team for the children, they may see good reasons to split childcare and finances differently from 50/50 (and to cut each other some slack during difficult circumstances). Because, ultimately, they're both on the same page to achieve the best for the children.

Where break-ups aren't amicable and parents can't agree, that's where the courts and CMS come in to sort contact/financial arrangements. My point here is that the actual costs of raising a child (including loss of earning potential for the RP due to childcare responsibilities) should feature much more in calculating child maintenance.

@Thinkofthekids

You're assuming all break ups are amicable.

Not really. I'm saying that, where they are amicable and both parents work as a team for the children, they may see good reasons to split childcare and finances differently from 50/50 (and to cut each other some slack during difficult circumstances). Because, ultimately, they're both on the same page to achieve the best for the children.

Where break-ups aren't amicable and parents can't agree, that's where the courts and CMS come in to sort contact/financial arrangements. My point here is that the actual costs of raising a child (including loss of earning potential for the RP due to childcare responsibilities) should feature much more in calculating child maintenance.

What are the actual costs of raising a child?

You can't put a number on it. There are too many variables. How do you prove loss of earning potential for instance? You can't.

Cms is shite. I agree. I don't think many people think it's a good system but the reality is that a system which you'd want can't exist because there's no such thing as a standard cost for bringing up a child.

@WutheringTights He was happy to see us living in poverty, sofa surfing, unable to see our friends, go to school events etc...

Sorry to hear that. This is exactly what I mean. Parents shouldn't get away with leaving their children to live like this. If they have any assets which could be used to support the children, these should be sold.

Often the RP does their best, but trying to work your way out of poverty with children is like having an albatross around your neck...You need a flexible job that fits with school hours, can't do overtime and have to take frequent unpaid leave to deal with illnesses/school closures etc. The holidays are a complete nightmare. You're often overlooked for promotion because you're not 'reliable'.

That might not always work though. I was 8 when my parents divorced. They kept it amicable and settled out of court. Deal was i lived with my mum during the week because it was easier for school. I spent every weekend with my dad. Holidays were split equally. My dad paid a set amount every month. It worked well and my dad understood it was the best solution

Often the RP does their best, but trying to work your way out of poverty with children is like having an albatross around your neck...You need a flexible job that fits with school hours, can't do overtime and have to take frequent unpaid leave to deal with illnesses/school closures etc. The holidays are a complete nightmare. You're often overlooked for promotion because you're not 'reliable'

Some parents work ft with wrap around care. This is available for single parents also.

I know the struggles single parents have. I was brought up by one.

Even if the other parent takes 50% responsibility women with children are still viewed as unreliable. That's a problem with society. Or if the other parent doesn't take that responsibility and essentially pays for it instead it doesn't help in terms of being viewed as reliable anyway.

I understand where you're coming from, I really do. Many many children are horribly let down by parents. It's not ok. However this solution wouldn't work in the real world.