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.

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

This is part of the fallacy of maintenance. It has zero to do with the RP’s lifestyle and everything to do with providing for your child.

It's been mentioned many times that we can't expect NRPs to pay more because there is debate/uncertainty over how much it costs to bring children up, i.e. because we can't answer the 'how long is a piece of string' question, we can't expect them to pay for any of that string.

Should trainers cost £20 or £40?
Should the weekly grocery shop for a single parent family of 3 cost £70 or £200?
Should the children be dressed from Primark or Next?
Should full-time childcare be a childminder at £800 per month or a nursery at £1,200?
Should families go to the zoo for £50 at the weekend or the local swimming pool for £12?

The answer to none of these questions is the NRP paying £30 a week.

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?

Considering they might get up to 80% of it paid they might well! Again though the hours needed is their decision. You don't get to dictate and then present a bill.

If it was a man choosing a nursery and demanding a woman pay half everyone would be outraged.

Lots of nrps would rather do it themselves but don't get a choice!

The answer to none of these questions is the NRP paying £30 a week

If that's the set % of their income, then it is.

There's no other way to do it.

Yes providing for your child. You shouldn’t be made to pay whatever the RP thinks is a worthy amount. There are so many mumsnet posts about people always wanting more money in some shape or form. People wouldn’t become Facebook sellers or instagram stars and they wouldn’t dwindle their income so they pass less tax if people didn’t want to keep their money all to themselves.

Those kind of men or woman who have children are yes shit and poor role models for children. But women like my mum (this is where it stems from) who have an affair than keep the family home & keep expecting more money from the NRP are quite frankly disgusting. My dad should not have been classed as the NRP as he has us 50% of the time. My mum had to pay for after school care on her days and she still asked for that from my dad who had me and my sister the other 2 and a half days of the week and every other weekend. He was lucky that his partner now wife could pick us up after school and look after us but why should he have to pay for the childcare on mums days.

My mum owed him money from the sale of the house and my dad told her that he trusted her so they didn’t need to put it in writing. Never saw that money again.

@TrustTheGeneGenie
How is childcare not a fixed cost in raising a child (up to a certain age, obviously). It is paying thousands in childcare or alternatively reliance on welfare, there is very rarely a middle ground for a single parent of young children.

Absolutely agree op. My ex pays cms at a decent rate as he earns a decent salary but I, earning about the same, definitely put more than 16% of my salary into the kids and I have to juggle work with having the kids 26/30 days. When a trip comes up, his instinct is always pretty negative, even when it's a whole class residential that pretty much everyone will go on. It's like he doesn't see the human element of the actual child who wants to go on the trip, not miss out, not develop the new hobby or interest that he doesn't want to pay toward. So he pays no extras at all. In 5 years he hasn't bought them so much as a pencil, let alone uniform or kit. That would be OK if the maintenance % was enough that 'extras' were assumed. That way we wouldn't have to have acrimonious exchanges every couple of months about whatever new thing comes up. I rarely bother now, I just manage what I can for the kids and juggle my finances. But it's not right that I should have to.

It will only change when it becomes as socially unacceptable as driving without a seatbelt. It needs really good male role models to get across that real men put their kids first (realistically it is predominantly men who need to reset their thinking)

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.

The children should not be 'punished' for their parents' relationship breakdown by being excluded from normal childhood experiences.

Unless the family are very badly off, children have a reasonable expectation of going on most school trips (not the £££ trips skiing abroad obviously, but the day trips/swimming etc.) and of attending their friends' birthday parties and taking a birthday present.

I'd find it incomprehensible for a father to grudge contributing to these activities to a reasonable level unless he is really on the poverty line. These are the things that make childhood fun and help children built social relationships. They are in no way 'unnecessary'.

[quote firstmentat]@TrustTheGeneGenie
How is childcare not a fixed cost in raising a child (up to a certain age, obviously). It is paying thousands in childcare or alternatively reliance on welfare, there is very rarely a middle ground for a single parent of young children.[/quote]
Because nobody has to use childcare do they? It's not a given!

If both parents are expected to pay for it it needs to be a joint decision. But it's not usually.

The alternative is 50/50 care and each parent paying for their own childcare if they need it. This is a better solution but one that few people use.

I’m not saying that children should be punished. I just know first hand as the child that my mum would always take take take, more more more. Like I said in my previous post she applied to CMS for my sister when I moved to my dads because her boyfriend at the time hit me and she retaliated by applying to CMS for my sister even though my dad had me 100% of the time because I wasn’t seeing her and he had my sister 50% of the time. She even asked CMS about back payments for the last 3 years from when they split till when I moved out because she “had 2 children full time” there was no evidence that my dad had us 50% of the time because it wasn’t agreed in the divorce. My dad then applied for CMS for me as he had me 100% of the time and that shut her up.

I suspect my opinion is in the minority; and my set-up would not suit many families (we're all different 🙂).

I don't receive any financial support from my ex for DD, never have. I've never approached CMS and there are no formal court arrangements in place over access. He sees her approximately once per school holidays (so 6 times per year on average) for a few hours (never overnight). I'm happy with this situation, and have no desire to change it.

I realised early on that he was useless and unreliable, and that if DD was to have a good life, then it was down to me to provide it. I don't care if it is 'fair' to me, I just care that she has the best possible life, and honestly I don't think that the ex contributing time or money would have a positive impact. He has always been skint, so any financial contribution would be tiny if he made it, and very inconsistent, he'd probably just accumulate a load of debt and bad feeling.

I value the security of knowing that I don't rely on someone unreliable.

But mamma the vast vast majority of cases are not that way round. The balance is hugely the other way. As I said above. A higher rate or more robust cms approach may unfairly penalise the occasional nrp but better that than the current situation with millions unpaid and owing, then written off.

genegenie childcare IS a given if the RP wants to work, pay tax, get a pension, a career. Or should she just sit on benefits (which isn't allowed now anyway) and be called a lazy cow? Please explain how using child care is a choice?

@HugeAckmansWife It's like he doesn't see the human element of the actual child who wants to go on the trip, not miss out, not develop the new hobby or interest that he doesn't want to pay toward.

Yes, but there's always money for the NRP's hobbies and trips to the pub . But they're happy for their kids to miss out on normal childhood experiences.

I know you don't want or need it, but you have my sympathy . It must be hard to have the person who, alongside you, is meant to care most about your children's welfare putting it all on your shoulders to do the things that make them happy. And refusing to contribute, knowing full well you'll dig deep to try to find the money even if you can't afford it so the children you love don't miss out.

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?

Benefits for the children are only given to the RP, even if the NRP is in receipt of benefits for themselves, some NRP's also get hit by the bedroom tax because the 'spare' room isnt fully occupied

@TrustTheGeneGenie
Probably easier with a case study. A single parent of a 1 yo and a 2 yo, the mother's maternity leave just finished and the children are in the nursery full time, the father has moved away to be with the love of his life. Fatherhood was not what he thought it would be, constant nappies, tantrums, noise - almost none of that advertised sweetness and light.
There's a nursery invoice due for £2.8K, but the father happily informs the mother that his new maintenance obligation as a limited company director was calculated to be around £50 a week, he does not need childcare as has only weekend contact so will not contribute going forward.
What should the mother do in this case? Realistically?

Yes, but there's always money for the NRP's hobbies and trips to the pub hmm. But they're happy for their kids to miss out on normal childhood experiences.

Generalisation = Bollocks

Oh and as has been discussed upthread, 50/50 doesn't always work and isn't always wantef by the nrp, certainly my ex wouldn't do it.

Thanks op. To be fair, he doesn't live it up, he's just tight. He just doesn't seem to see the kids as people with friends and interests and wishes. He thinks they should fit in with him, not the other way round.

I think it's a mistake to talk about paying - it's not about paying.

It's much broader than that - it's about equal responsibility for parenting and childcare: it's that that needs to become the norm.

My ex pays - but he doesn't parent. He basically pays me off so he can have zero responsibility.

childcare IS a given if the RP wants to work, pay tax, get a pension, a career. Or should she just sit on benefits (which isn't allowed now anyway) and be called a lazy cow? Please explain how using child care is a choice?

Well it is a choice. You don't have to work when kids are that age. You choose to.

I also wouldn't call anyone lazy for not working when their kids are that small. Perhaps that's what you think but I don't!

She could go with 50/50 care or you know even have a proper conversation about how to work it out with the ex before presenting him with bills!

I think people need to seriously ask themselves how much of the £3.9billion currently owed in unpaid child maintenance, the overwhelming majority by men, is because they can’t afford it?

Yes, but there's always money for the NRP's hobbies and trips to the pub hmm. But they're happy for their kids to miss out on normal childhood experiences

Give over. Now you're just starting to look like you hate men.

I think a good starting point would be a system where maintenance is paid via tax code. The response this gets from government is that it would be too difficult to set up & administer. Strange how they managed it so quickly for student loans though?

There also needs to be a set minimum, realistic (in terms of the cost of a child) amount per child for the self employed. Any exemptions would need to be on a case by case basis with the onus on the NRP to prove their extremely low earnings & show a lifestyle that reflects these earnings.

Re 50/50 care. That's all well & good, but often the mental load is still firmly 100% with mum.

[quote firstmentat]@TrustTheGeneGenie
Probably easier with a case study. A single parent of a 1 yo and a 2 yo, the mother's maternity leave just finished and the children are in the nursery full time, the father has moved away to be with the love of his life. Fatherhood was not what he thought it would be, constant nappies, tantrums, noise - almost none of that advertised sweetness and light.
There's a nursery invoice due for £2.8K, but the father happily informs the mother that his new maintenance obligation as a limited company director was calculated to be around £50 a week, he does not need childcare as has only weekend contact so will not contribute going forward.
What should the mother do in this case? Realistically?[/quote]
Well he is quite clearly being an arsehole by fiddling his payments. I don't condone that, obviously.

What should she do? I don't know! It would be her decision to make.

In her situation I'd probably choose to work pt and claim some childcare expenses. Or I'd ask about changing contact!

If your ex is an arsehole no there's not much you can do, but making it standard that all men pay half of childcare regardless of circumstances and incomes etc is foolish.