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.

@DixieFlatline it would be difficult to provide citation as the family court rulings are generally kept private.
However there is a general opinion in court to 'maintain the status quo' which results in the parent who has done more day to day care having the children for more time.
Whilst there is some justification for this reasoning, it also further exasperates the plight of single mothers who are unable to work enough to support themselves as it assumes she will continue to do the majority of childcare despite the massive change in family circumstances.

Thing is, even in 50/50 care it often remaind the case that one parent, guess which, still does a lot of the mental load, the school comms, the birthday party present buying, the noticing shoes are too small or the school jumper is lost. As I said above I'd love my ex to do 50% but I know that I would end up covering all the above.

I said often, not all.

I am RP for my DC and my DH is NRP for his DC... we have one together.

I agree, in a perfect world it is 50/50. We do every other weekend, half the school holiday (on both sides with the DCs NRP). Over lockdown my DH has done week on week off with his ex, my ex has done school holidays only and dropped his weekends (he lives far and we wanted to limit travel)

Both NRP dads pay maintenance but of course it’s not 50/50. We do more child care for my DC, less for his, and we pay more for my DC and less for his. But the kids have the same luxuries, holidays, food, clothing etc we do much more contact with both schools, we do all the homework etc

Due to where we live, we are half way between my ex and his, so we’re not close enough for a 50/50 split for any of the kids physically in normal circumstances... every case is different and every thing works differently.

What I would say is that prior to being with my DH as a single mum, I worked full time, had no benefit handouts and was the RP. I worked with my ex amicably and he paid no maintenance until she was nearly 8. I’ve never felt like he was a bad dad or didn’t support her. Being a parent is about being there emotionally for me.

I definitely agree with a lot of what you are saying op.
I find the threads on this topic mind blowing.
The amount of resident parents getting nothing or next to nothing is so so wrong. And the burden should not be on the taxpayer to pay for feckless NPRs. Your kids are your responsibility and the CMS or whatever they are called this week should have way more powers.

should have way more powers

There's a lot they can do but they very rarely do it! Fuck knows why!

I’m definitely in agreement that there should be a requirement for both parents to take responsibility. I’m now divorced, my ex wanted kids and claimed he would do the childcare while I worked as I was the main earner. He didn’t though. Then we split and he talked about co-parenting but in reality does FA. Pre lockdown he saw DD EOW. His new partner supports him financially so I can’t get financial support from CMS. So I am one of those ‘poor’ single mums who has to simultaneously earn enough to live on and take full time care of my child. There should be something I can do to get him to take responsibility but there isn’t. The new gf is part of the problem, as is everyone who does not call him out on not stepping up.

I just think it is wrong when one parent both does most of the care and has most of the financial burden.

@TrustTheGeneGenie

should have way more powers

There's a lot they can do but they very rarely do it! Fuck knows why!

Its also far too easy to find loopholes so they don't have to pay. My ex and his wife changed the carers allowance for her DC into his name so he's assessed as having no income for CMS purposes.

@Thinkofthekids

I just think it is wrong when one parent both does most of the care and has most of the financial burden.

Nobody has disputed that there just isn't a straight forward solution!

I think we could start finding an answer (or at least a better status quo) if we shifted our thinking away from the idea that 12% of (declared) gross weekly income sufficiently discharges an NRP's parenting responsibilities.

That's rubbish isn't it really because 12% of one nrps wage and 12% of another's Is very different.

No £7 a week doesn't raise a child but hundreds a week easily do.

This is why I think it's unfair to make a blanket statement of "CMS isn't enough" because sometimes it absolutely is.

I don't know what the solution is but a standard rate is not it.

And if the cms website made it very clear that their assessment is a MINIMUM and not the 'right' amount.

"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?"

Of course all normal, decent parents want the best for the children but obviously & sadly the world is full or arses and sickos. It's not right but it's the reality. Some people just don't care about their children - and won't ever charge - and it's heart-breaking.

I'm sorry for your friend and her situation I forgot to add

What if they don't actually think that's the case? Maybe the CMS reccomend it is the right amount? Presumably there is some thought behind it and the % isn't plucked out of thin air?

I think people forget that most of the time it's men who leave the family home. They're expected to find another home that has enough bedrooms for the kids, and pay all the bills single handedly for that and then maintenance on top. It is not difficult to understand how you'd not have much money left after that.

People think oh he's free now he can do what he wants and only has to pay a pittance in maintenance but that really isn't always the case.

@Thinkofthekids - I think this topic is discussed alot, and I dont think there is ever a solution that everyone agrees with, and personally I believe that's the issue. Separated parents hardly ever agree. (NB: acknowledges there are certain situations where parents do agree). Billy needs a new pair of trainers mum has seen a pair costing £40, dad thinks you can get a decent pair for £20. Mum ends up buying the £40 pair and spending the extra £20, in theory by choice. This could be the same for coats, shoes, uniforms, etc etc.
Don't forget mum might be entitled to child benefit, tax credits or universal credit, childcare vouchers or childcare schemes etc on top of her salary as she is the primary carer of the child(ren). Yes she may have a part time salary but with the additional benefits, she may well have in her pot just as much as dad does from his income alone.
If insisting on a 50/50 split of care what stops dad from applying for any of these forms of income?
Some children are entitled to the free hours of childcare from age 2, and the majority from age 3. So I dont think child care is a straightforward argument.
Obviously wrap around care from school age is different.
I don't think any system will be faultless and I think personally rather than focusing on whether the CMS amount is too low or not enough etc etc or how it is worked out, much more should be done to ensure NRPs pay their calculated contribution on time every single month and tougher non payment sanctions enforced.
Talking from a personal experience I know my friend would rather have received the £250 or so a month she was entitled to every single month without fail rather than it being sporadic, or non existent for months on end.

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

But how on earth would that work? If someone doesn't have the money, they don't have the money. 'Just get a better paid job' isn't always feasible for lots of reasons. My ex works part time in B&Q due to disability. I could scream until was blue in the face but that's not going to change. Presumably if he were a RP working part time due to disability he also wouldn't be able to magic up money and would rely on benefits.

Plus 'cost of a child' is hugely subjective - there is no single clearly established figure which says 'this is how much it costs to raise a child'.

@firstimemamma. I'm sorry for your friend and her situation I forgot to add.

Thanks, she works really hard to give her little boy the best possible...
and he is very, very loved and happy and young enough at the moment not to notice anything else. But I can see it becoming more difficult as he gets older, for instance not having his own room and not having many of the things other kids at school have. Even at the moment, he is absolutely lovely but has a few behavioural and other issues which my friend has to deal with all on her own. You can see it taking its toll on her, being the one responsible for making sure everything is ok with no breaks ever and no help from the other parent.

If someone doesn't have the money, they don't have the money. 'Just get a better paid job' isn't always feasible for lots of reasons.

You have a point - some parents just won't ever be able to adequately support their children financially (though arguably they should provide more childcare so the other parent can take on more paid work if they are capable of this). However, it seems that for every parent who can't, there are another five who just WON'T.

Ultimately, we let a lot of NRPs 'flake out' for whatever reason. We (including the CMS) are extremely sympathetic to their circumstances. RPs don't get to flake out and are still expected to provide a decent life for the children. If they fail in their responsibilities, they are charged with neglect.

It seems like it's totally fine for Rps to rely on benefits to financially support their child but for nrps they absolutely have to work?

Is that just because nrps aren't entitled to anything for the child or is that the deep set expectation that women stay home with the kids and men provide?

How do you calc ulate the cost of raising a child? What is it based on?
The bare minimum?
Shoes from sainsburys or clarks?
Lentils for tea and own brand baked beans on toast or hovis?

Is that just because nrps aren't entitled to anything for the child or is that the deep set expectation that women stay home with the kids and men provide?

Is the issue not a childcare one? Someone has to be with the kids, unless they are in childcare which then needs to be paid for. Childcare is hugely expensive...a part time nursery place costs over £6,000 a year. NRPs are, by definition, not doing the majority of childcare, hence can go out to work/work more hours. That's why they don't need to rely on benefits. By contrast, it is illegal for RPs to go out to work leaving their children alone and they may be unable to afford childcare. Seems a fairly obvious logistical point to meet, not a source of unfairness.

The fundamental problem is that children are people, not things to be divided into small pieces. Generally, it is an unsolvable issue unless the divorce/separation is very amicable and the children are the sort of people who enjoy having multiple homes and a nomadic lifestyle. The most pleasant albeit expensive workaround involves at least 3 homes with the parents moving in/out on a rota and the children staying in one home. Stability for children comes at a cost - both financially and emotionally for parents.