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.

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

RPS if low earners would get a good contribution towards that though?

I just don't necessarily agree with the rp staying at home and the nrp... Paying for it?

Imo 50/50 is better. Everyone arranges and pays for their own childcare. They work the hours they want without being reliant on the other parent. Makes much more sense.

Imo 50/50 is better. Everyone arranges and pays for their own childcare. They work the hours they want without being reliant on the other parent. Makes much more sense.

I agree this is ideal if it is logistically possible and both parents can work together to make it ok for the children. This would give the otherwise RP 3.5 days a week just to focus on work if they wish without having to arrange childcare. Although it may be difficult for young children who need a stable home and primary carer to feel secure, it would be much better long-term for both parents to be financially independent and have the same opportunities in the workplace/to pay into a pension. And for children to maintain a worthwhile relationship with both parents who have to put them first, no excuses.

But 50/50 must mean 50/50 - 50% of all costs (including the little ones, parties, presents, school projects etc.), 50% of all childcare and 50% of the 'mental load' which comes with having and organising children.

And of course the parents need to be prepared to stop arguing and put the children first, which may be unrealistic in some cases.

As a child of divorced parents what I can’t stand is when you hear but I definitely think I should be getting more. My mum and dad have me and 2 sisters, when they separated my dad took my sister who was 14 nearly 15 and my mum kept us two and the house (even though she had an affair) dad took all the family debt and my older sister. He had my younger sister and I 50/50 so we would have Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday morning mum would drop us off at school. Wednesday evening dad or my step mum would pick us up and take us till Friday. They then did alternative weekends so we’d stay until Sunday if it was their weekend or we’d go back to mums on the Friday.

They agreed not to apply for CMS as it was 50/50 care. I moved out to my dads as I did not want to be with my mum. She then retaliated and applied for CMS for my dad & she even asked about back payments for the 3 years that I lived there. This whole time my dad was still having my younger sister 50/50. He then called CMS for me hoping it would make mum see she was being ridiculous.

I think a previous poster has a good point. The child’s care costs should be calculated each week- childcare, clothes etc but I don’t think anyoneshould expect more money for help with the household bills such as food and things. That’s ridiculous especially if the NRP has some form of contact whether it be like my dad who would also take us on extra days as he mainly worked nights so he could help out more or a lower amount of contact where they can only do a couple of days.

I hear it all the time in my job that “my ex husband or partner” earns so much and he doesn’t want to give me £500+ to look after our child. Yeah your right probably because he has no idea where that money is going. Are you funding a better lifestyle for yourself than what he has and he may worry that his child could not really be benefitting from all this money. And don’t say a house with a roof and electricity and food in the fridge should be included because in my honest opinion that’s silly.

Also if women do get themselves pregnant because they want a child (It does happen) but don’t care who the father is then they should be made to sign something that says they do not expect and cannot apply for financial assistance. I mean that especially with women who do not want the father to have any contact at all or even for the child to know who their dad is. Also if a woman gets pregnant with a boyfriend/husband and they will say well I don’t want a child at all and we will split if you decide to keep it- I don’t think they should be forced to pay financial aid either.

A friend of mine at work had an interoffice relationship, they were both single and got on really well. He talked marriage etc and then when she got pregnant she dumped him because she didn’t see a future with him. She then applied for CMS but wouldn’t put his name on the birth certificate or tell her daughter who the father was or let him have any contact. He reduced his working hours to help with his elderly mother so CMS stopped and so now he saves the money into a bank so that one day he can give it too her.

I think the CMS system is corrupt both ways because men are told you fathered a child you must pay this and women who do have deadbeat NRP’s to deal with are told you are due this so like it and lump it.

Inconsistent non-resident parents piss me off. Obviously if they're doing the best they can but circumstances are beyond their control then that is more understandable, but I feel like it's often too easy to disappear from your kid's life.

When I was a kid my dad didn't bother (unless he was trying to impress a girlfriend, and that didn't last). I've always been clear to my partner that if we split, he's either all in or not in. It's better to have no dad than a sometimes-dad.

So yeah, people should try and make it as equal as possible.

in principle you are quite correct op.

the problem is mainly that women keep having sex with useless arseholes and getting pregnant by them, and not realising how useless and horrible they are until the children are already here. in these circumstances the woman usually pulls her finger out and does her best for her children because she can't fix the useless arsehole who fathered them.

what we urgently need is for future generations of young women to get a solid grounding in feminism that gives them sufficient self-respect and understanding of themselves and others to recognise the useless arseholes sooner, and to reject them even for so much as a one night stand such that the useless arsehole type eventually dies out because only decent caring and responsible menfolk will have any chance of getting a shag.

I hear it all the time in my job that “my ex husband or partner” earns so much and he doesn’t want to give me £500+ to look after our child. Yeah your right probably because he has no idea where that money is going.
That's probably me. My childcare bill has been around £3K just to allow me to work (two preschoolers). ExH considered this a very extravagant expense, the maintenance service explained that it cannot be included for the purposes of alimony calculations, as it is my decision to work. £500 would not even cover the bottom.
Why do you think the NRP should not contribute to the "fixed" expenses of having a child?

"yinu I answered this upthread but you've just blamed the women for feckless dads. A lot of us single mums were in stable marriages with decent guys, kids were planned and wanted. Mid life crisis / ow happens and everything changes. I know dozens of women like me. I do have a good career and can support the household if I need to alone, but why should I? Why should ex be allowed to fuck of and play Disney dad 4 days a month? I love my kids but I didn't sign up to do this alone, either financially or practically and I massively resent his decision to impose this single parent life on me. The very least he should do is contribute an appropriate amount. The two problems are calculating what that is and ensuring it gets paid. A good start would be linking cms to HMRC and cms using the powers they have to enforce payment.

@Mammabee20. Also if a woman gets pregnant with a boyfriend/husband and they will say well I don’t want a child at all and we will split if you decide to keep it- I don’t think they should be forced to pay financial aid either.

So you think the woman should be forced to have an abortion or not receive any financial support? Regardless of any ethical concerns she might have? What if it was a wanted baby, but subsequently the man changed his mind?

Is there a cut-off point? For instance, when a heartbeat can be detected? When she feels the baby kick? The 12 week scan? When it would need to be a surgical abortion? Or should she be forced to have an abortion right up 24 weeks regardless of any emotional attachment she's developed for the baby and any risk to her health?

A woman doesn't 'get pregnant' on her own. A man who doesn't want a child should make sure they use contraceptives. And understand that there is always a risk.

Also if women do get themselves pregnant because they want a child (It does happen) but don’t care who the father is then they should be made to sign something that says they do not expect and cannot apply for financial assistance.

The money is FOR THE CHILD. It does not depend on the mother having behaved in a morally 'deserving' manner. We are not living in Victorian times, where mothers and their children were left to starve on the streets because the woman was not considered 'respectable'. If a child comes into existence, it is entitled to support from BOTH PARENTS, irrespective of whether we consider one party (always the woman ) has behaved badly.

the woman usually pulls her finger out and does her best for her children because she can't fix the useless arsehole who fathered them.

This rings a bell. Even in my own (fairly happy) relationship, DH just doesn't appear to notice that our child needs food or a change if it's his turn to look after him for a bit . Much easier to leave it until I'm back in the room .

@YinuCeatleAyru

in principle you are quite correct op.

the problem is mainly that women keep having sex with useless arseholes and getting pregnant by them, and not realising how useless and horrible they are until the children are already here. in these circumstances the woman usually pulls her finger out and does her best for her children because she can't fix the useless arsehole who fathered them.

what we urgently need is for future generations of young women to get a solid grounding in feminism that gives them sufficient self-respect and understanding of themselves and others to recognise the useless arseholes sooner, and to reject them even for so much as a one night stand such that the useless arsehole type eventually dies out because only decent caring and responsible menfolk will have any chance of getting a shag.

I think this is huge rubbish generalisation which firmly puts the blame at the feet of the women.

yes some women are foolish enough to choose a man who is quite clearly not going to be good father. But even in that case, if a child is born, unless there is an agreement that the father has no involvement, then both parents have a responsibility to care for and financially provide for that child.

But most parents have a baby not knowing what the father will turn out like. And it is both parents responsibility to financially and otherwise provide for that child.

I hear it all the time in my job that “my ex husband or partner” earns so much and he doesn’t want to give me £500+ to look after our child. Yeah your right probably because he has no idea where that money is going.

None of his business either...Men who say this are likely the abusive type...desperate to keep coercively controlling their exes' lives even at the expense of their children. 'He has no idea where the money is going' is an excuse.

It doesn't take a genius to work out that a child costs more than a few hundred pounds a month. Presumably the men were aware how much their children cost (including childcare costs) when they were with their partner? And, unless the children are visibly deprived and the rent and bills are not being paid, any sensible person could probably deduce that the mother is spending the money on them in some form.

if women do get themselves pregnant because they want a child

Women don’t get themselves pregnant. They need a man for that. If a man doesn’t want children, there is much he can do to manage the odds on having an unexpected pregnancy. No one - man or woman - should be having sex assuming there will never, potentially, be any consequences.

Stop,blaming women for men’s piss poor behaviour.

I said that they should pay towards the costs of the children. I just said they probably aren’t happy to hand over £500+ if they aren’t a hundred percent sure where that money is going. I did say childcare costs and clothes etc should be taken paid 50/50 but if someone is just asking for more because they want to continue funding the lifestyle they had previously it isn’t fair. I don’t think asking them to contribute towards stocking two fridges, paying two lots of electricity/gas is fair, yes you would both contribute to the household if you were together but to expect them to try and find the houses bills when they can’t ensure that they keep the bills down is a bit unfair. It’s like saying I have an hour long shower, I leave the lights on all day and don’t switch them off. I shop at Waitrose and spend £500 on food because I know that the NRP has a responsibility to our child. That isn’t fair because if they were living at home they would work with you on a budget that was healthy. It is like when RP’s expect money to go towards funding their lifestyle e.g. we go to the zoo every weekend and have 3/4 holidays abroad because the NRP has a responsibility to give me money towards our children but would you be able to afford that if you were still together and why should he fund trips he hasn’t gone on or days out that he doesn’t benefit from. For example my mum and dad had arranged a skiing holiday for my birthday and the separated 3 months prior to it, my older sister and my dad weren’t going but my mum still asked for 50% of the holiday costs even though she hadn’t lost anything because she had transferred the tickets to the guy she had an affair with and his son who was my age. They had even given her money for the tickets too but she still wanted half the holiday from my dad even though he wouldn’t benefit.

I definitely think if both parents have the child 50/50 they shouldn’t have to pay anything. The parents should pay for the childcare they use on their days.

The previous post who said CMS and HM revenues being linked made a good point but it is very black and white to expect someone to pay a percentage of their wage to their ex when they would maybe not spent that percentage if they were still together.

@Mammabee20
The rate for two children, for example, is 16% of income. A genuine question - do you know a single parent of two who spends less than 16% of their income on all child-related expenses? Waitrose or no waitrose.

I'd rather be slightly unfair to an adult, earning nrp who pays 'over the odds' whatever the fuck that is than be unfair to a child who did not ask to be born into a situation and has no power to improve their own situation. So what if, in some cases the RP has a slightly easier time than she 'should' if it means the child gets what they should have. Better that than an NRP, doing fuck all in childcare and parenting keeping 80% of his salary to himself while his ex works, pays childcare and does all the parenting.

Why do you think the NRP should not contribute to the "fixed" expenses of having a child?

Because childcare isn't really a "fixed" expense and I say that as someone who has paid it every month for nearly 4 years!

if women do get themselves pregnant because they want a child

How do women “get themselves pregnant”? Last time I checked you needed sperm? I mean if I can do it without a sperm donor, I’m all ears!

It doesn't take a genius to work out that a child costs more than a few hundred pounds a month

But they don't always! Everyone's circumstances are different aren't they!

When DSS moved in with us we actually spent less on him than maintenance plus all the extras that his mum wouldn't contribute to. And he still had the same care, same amount of new clothes, shoes, uniform, was fed properly, did activities.

His mum paid significantly less in maintenance to us than we did to her as well... He didn't cost us less to bring up? But she wouldn't have been slagged off on here for that!

He's moved back out now and we still pay maintenance and extras even though he actually spends most of his time at his girlfriend's house. We should realistically be paying her mother and not his because it's quite obvious she's not using the maintenance to house and feed him because he isn't there!

It's quite easy to show the cost the though.. Its invoiced, it's clear. Even if it does vary a bit, its still a direct cost incurred only by the RP in most cases because the child is with them. In most cases NRPs are not restricted in their work, only having the child at weekends. Maintenance does not touch the sides of childcare costs.

@HugeAckmansWife

It's quite easy to show the cost the though.. Its invoiced, it's clear. Even if it does vary a bit, its still a direct cost incurred only by the RP in most cases because the child is with them. In most cases NRPs are not restricted in their work, only having the child at weekends. Maintenance does not touch the sides of childcare costs.

But that's childcare the rp has chosen. The nrp likely has no input. They might have chosen an expensive nursery where the nrp might have gone for a local childminder. I don't like the idea that the rp makes the decisions and the nrp pays for them. If they're both expected to pay things like that need to be joint decisions but in reality they're not.

There will always be 'whataboutery' there will always be cases where the RP appears to be somehow taking advantage. The only way to stop that is to fund a huge system of beaurocracy where every case can be heard before a judge or magistrate everu time a dispute arises or circumstances change, or all factors being entered month by month and the amount adjusted, like benefits but that won't happen. If its going to be a one size fits noone I'd rather the nrp was 'penalised' than the child.

@HugeAckmansWife

There will always be 'whataboutery' there will always be cases where the RP appears to be somehow taking advantage. The only way to stop that is to fund a huge system of beaurocracy where every case can be heard before a judge or magistrate everu time a dispute arises or circumstances change, or all factors being entered month by month and the amount adjusted, like benefits but that won't happen. If its going to be a one size fits noone I'd rather the nrp was 'penalised' than the child.

The current system doesn't penalise the child. The CMS need to do better at enforcing payments but the system of what is worked out to pay doesnt penalise the child.

The RP will also be paying 50% of the childcare so they are not going to choose the most expensive out of spite. Presumably they'll choose the best fit for the child and the kind of care / hours needed. Sorry, but the nrp might just aveto suck it up. OR, if they prefer, do the childcare themselves?

trust it absolutely does because it doesn't work and children go without thousands and thousands that their absent parent should be paying. How can you say that doesn't penalise the child?

What happens, as in my case, is that if the RP is capable of making up the 'difference' then the child doesn't go without, but many rps can't do that and rely on UC to top up their wages, which are limited due to childcare issues and the resident household is poorer than it should be.

@ TrustTheGeneGenie- That is exactly what I was trying to say in my post but people seem to think I am beyond unreasonable. If the RP wants to fund the lifestyle they had before and it has to come out of the NRP’s pockets than that is unfair.

If they are telling the NRP that they have to pay for every school trip even if it is 50% of the bill and every child’s party they attend than that is not fair. If my fiancé and I couldn’t afford every school trip for our children we wouldn’t send them but if as soon as we split I was saying well surely you’ll have lots of disposable income now you don’t have the children so you can pay doesn’t make it fair.