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.

@TrustTheGeneGenie

I understand your points. I'm not so much suggesting there is an easy workable solution as arguing that we need to find better ways to make sure absent parents don't evade their responsibilities.

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

Wraparound care is expensive, especially if you have more than one child (as I'm sure you know). It often costs much more than what the NRP is paying in total maintenance payments. So the RP pays more for a few hours afterschool childcare than the NRP pays for the the RP having the children 24/7 most days.

I've only scanned the thread so sorry if this has already been mentioned.
What do you propose to do in situations where, more often but not always the mother refuses 50/50 residency without evidence to justify her reasoning? Would you be in favour of a system that says refusing 50/50 residency means surrendering all rights to financial help from the other parent?

What are the actual costs of raising a child? You can't put a number on it. There are too many variables.
Google reckons £400 a month per child before childcare of housing.

Wraparound care is expensive, especially if you have more than one child (as I'm sure you know). It often costs much more than what the NRP is paying in total maintenance payments. So the RP pays more for a few hours afterschool childcare than the NRP pays for the the RP having the children 24/7 most days

I understand that, but Im not sure I totally agree that maintenance should increase because the rp uses childcare. Again I don't think it's a straightforward you need to pay half of this.

As a couple me and dp have both paid and received maintenance so I can see it from both pov. I was brought up by a single parent and had a non paying dad myself.

If everyone was honest it wouldn't be a problem would it but there will always be someone who abuses the system.

Google reckons £400 a month per child before childcare of housing

Based on what exactly? Before childcare or housing I don't spend even nearly that on Ds!

Also another point. What happens with benefits that are paid because you have children?
Obviously if one parent earns to much to be eligible it's not an issue, but if both parents are on a low wage should they be split? Or maybe the amount paid in benefits to one parent should be deducted for the amount the other parent must pay?

@ thisisnotwhatisignedupfor

The money is for the child, not the mother.

Many NRPs object to paying child maintenance because they think they are 'paying' their ex (hence comments about 'why are you spending my money on new jeans?'). They are not paying their ex, they are paying for their child. If care is not shared 50/50, payments need to be made to support the child otherwise the child goes short.

The mother cannot simply refuse 50/50 residency. If the parents cannot agree, residency arrangements are a matter for the family courts. The family courts make arrangements based on the best interests of the child.

Im not sure I totally agree that maintenance should increase because the rp uses childcare.

In this case, the NRP should provide childcare for half the hours that the RP would otherwise require it.

They stopped the link between maintenance and benefits because so often maintenance isn't paid and it takes too long fur the benefits system to catch up and help. If the RP has the kids the vast majority of the time, then no, an NRP shouldn't get help if they are on a low wage because they hse the freedom to work and earn more.

The mother cannot simply refuse 50/50 residency. If the parents cannot agree, residency arrangements are a matter for the family courts. The family courts make arrangements based on the best interests of the child

The family courts don't generally go for 50/50 it's usually eow and a night in the week....

It's the elephant in the room on this thread but a lot of rps (mainly women) do not want shared care.

I agree with you, but look at the all threads where a woman is complaining that her partner has a lot of contact and involvement with the ex and she’s led to believe that it’s not normal for separated parents to do anything other than exchange pleasantries at the doorstep and engage in the odd text about essentials.

It’s still seen as unusual for separated parents to do things together with their children, and even have a friendship. Especially if those children are in their teens. It’s sad that it’s not normal for separated parents to have a good relationship for the sake of their children.

In this case, the NRP should provide childcare for half the hours that the RP would otherwise require it

Right so the nrp needs to plan their life round the rp? Why?

Again not something that would happen in the real world!

And yy to childcare costs being shared. Its such a massive expensive, as much as a second mortgage in some cases. Anything not covered by child tax credits or the childcare bit of UC should be 50% the responsibility of the nrp (assuming they do not also use it in their contact days) OR they provide the childcare. Why not? Why should it fall to the RP who very often has chosen to be a lone parent to manage this?

I have only read the OP. I get what you’re saying OP but it can be hard to maintain the level of lifestyle as the two parents would have previously been running 1 household between them and now you are running 2 houses.

Also it’s likely that the parent with the main care will get CB and more TC/UC Than when there were 2 incomes so that should be offset against the expenses.

£30 is pathetic though. We get £8 a week from Stepdaughter’s Mum when she bothers to pay

I am old enough to remember the public weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth amongst men when the CSA came in in the first place. Thank fuck it did, that's all I can say.

I have also always wondered why adult children cannot sue NRP for unpaid maintenance once they turn 18?

Right so the nrp needs to plan their life round the rp? Why?

Right, so the NRP gets to work fulltime and do overtime without paying their share of the wraparound care the children provide, while the RP does not. Why?

...And it's not like the RP has to plan their life around the kids, right ?

Right, so the NRP gets to work fulltime and do overtime without paying their share of the wraparound care the children provide, while the RP does not. Why?

Maintenance could be used to contribute to childcare costs could it not?

And if the rp makes a choice to work long hours then can it be expected that their ex cops for it? I'm not sure. I see what you're saying but I feel it opens a can of worms which aren't worth opening.

Plus the rp can likely claim benefits or tfc for childcare... The nrp can't do that.

I think your view is the rp sets the rules and presents a bill. Doesn't seem like a fair solution to me.

Then they should pay for it instead. If they don't want to be tied to the exs arrangements (bearing in mind many rps do just that all the time with unreliable exes) then they should pay their fair share of care for THEIR child that their ex is raising for them. And for what it's worth, I would love 50/50 but ex wanted to be where his affair partner was, 2 hours away.

@Thinkofthekids

...And it's not like the RP has to plan their life around the kids, right ?

Well yeah but if you've chosen to be rp then do you not accept that somewhat?

The NRP and the RP both started the lives of the children concerned. So they both need to plan/adapt their lives around their needs.

So they both need to plan/adapt their lives around their needs

That's not the same as parent a making plans and parent b either working round them or paying for it.

A starting point would be that child care costs are split 50/50 regardless of any other maintenance payments. And that should be with a minimum contribution that has to be made regardless of income. (If one of the parents is profoundly disabled and truly incapable of any work, then at that point the government could step in and cover their portion). There should never be a situation where one parent can’t afford to work because child care costs should always be split by both parents.

Like I said what happens where one parent can claim childcare costs back though benefits or tfc and the other can't?

They would be paying for HALF of it, not all, and only the portion not covered by any childcare benefit.