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.

@JustAnotherPoster00

Maybe somewhat of a generalisation, I admit! But I am speaking from my own experience (perhaps quite a small sample). Of my friends in this position, one's ex has a very expensive hobby that used to take him away for most of every weekend and on lots of holidays with his friends. The other is out a lot with friends after work, which of course my friend can't really do since she can't often afford a babysitter.

Sorry but kids need childcare up to at least 11. The current benefits system expects people with kids over the age of 2/3 to work. There is help with childcare costs bit it won't cover it all and the remainder should be split between both parents IF the nrp won't agree to do it, which they usually dont. As for presenting a Bill, yes, ideally a conversation is had and agreement reached but the nrp often doesn't see or care about the reasons why an RP might choose a particular setting eg what side of town is it on, traffic, parking, logistics, he quality of care.

Haven’t read the whole thread but I agree with OP. If my OH and I split (which is looking like a possibility) and he only paid the basic then I’d have to massively reduce my kids extra curricular activities due to their actual cost plus the extra travel costs to get them there. Things like friends birthday parties, a costume needed for school or a school trip could take a big chunk out of my weekly budget and cause things to be tight elsewhere. It’s probably mostly for this reason that we’ll stay together. The kids current lifestyle means more to me than ending our relationship.

I mean why don't you basically say men are shit? Because that's what you mean isn't it?

It's not that RPS make decisions alone because they can? It's because they know men don't care

I wonder how involved these men were when they were together because dp has done as much research into childcare as visited as many nurseries and childminders as I have. That won't change if we split up.

Oh and before you say oh it will if you split up, it won't. It didn't with his ex. He still met childminders and looked round highschools even though she was a raging bitch who didn't want him to.

My ex sees our DC every other weekend and some holidays but I dont ask him anymore as hes so useless, he also moved 100 miles away with no discussions, so I work full time and part time and he pays zero maintenance and never has, yet he has a girlfriend with a child and she stands by him behaving like that. Disgusting behaviour.

Trust

If your partner doesn’t behave like that then he isn’t who people are discussing.

It’s getting a bit “not my Nigel” isn’t it?

If your partner doesn’t behave like that then he isn’t who people are discussing

They're discussing all nrps (all men basically) and making sweeping generalisations, not taking into account how some women behave too.

The idea here is "make men pay" - they should pay. The CMS needs to crack down. My own dad didn't pay and I don't have a relationship with him now.

But letting Rps make all the decisions and charge nrps for it is all wrong.

They're discussing all nrps (all men basically) and making sweeping generalisations, not taking into account how some women behave too

They’re discussing the ones who behave poorly. My ex doesn’t therefore doesn’t need me to get offended on his behalf. There’s nothing to be defensive about.

I'm not being defensive I'm offering a view on why this won't work.

I'm not being defensive I'm offering a view on why this won't work

So why the “why not say all men are shit” comment?

Honestly I get this is a very emotive topic. It only works as a discussion point if we don’t take offence at points which clearly don’t apply to your situation.

Absolutely. I'm not talking about ALL NRPs or all men. But my ex and many that I know of personally. I have male friends who are amazing fathers and would likely be the RP if their marriages failed. But that doesn't change the fact that millions is owed, almost all by men and many more fiddle their figures or job hop or disappear or become SAHDs to their new families to avoid paying for their existing children. This thread is to talk about them, not defending the ones who don't do that. We are trying to consider why changes are needed and what they might be. If you want to shout about how some NRPs are women and amazing please can you do it somewhere else? Because we know that.

So why the “why not say all men are shit” comment

Because that's what the op is insinuating.

No, we're having a discussion about the ones who are. If we have to preface every post with 'I know this isn't all men or all nrps' it gets a bit ridiculous.

Ok. Well in that case, it still won't work and it's still ridiculous to expect it even though they're arseholses.

So we just accept it? We don't say that about tax avoidance, or non payment of council tax. Why is defrauding the gov worth lots of resources and high levels of penalty but not defrauding children?

It is completely socially acceptable for men to be shit, in fact women are often blamed for it. Such as, "you knew what he was like before you had children, it's your fault for having a baby with him." - That just doesn't wash; I stayed in bed until midday at the weekends and sometimes watched a box set in my pyjamas eating snacks instead of making any meals. Then I had a baby and they needed feeding, clean clothes, personal care, entertaining, exercising...

It still seems perfectly acceptable for NRPs to only have their children at the weekend, meaning they have zero childcare liability, either financially or making sure they collect the kids by 6pm etc. They've nearly always been the one that has been able to progress their career without being encumbered by childcare during the relationship too.

Far too many men are shit and while being shit, they also devalue, criticise and undermine the work done by women to raise their children so that they can carry on being shit with impunity.

So why the “why not say all men are shit” comment. Because that's what the op is insinuating.

Not really. More that for many NRPs (who may or may not be men), 'out of sight' seems to be out of mind when it comes to their kids and their needs and they think chucking their ex a couple of hundred a month makes them good parents.

There are lots of very good, very involved dads, some of whom are RPs and have to deal with a lot from their exes. There are basically good dads who could try harder to avoid 'learned helplessness' on occasion, (I'd put my own DH in in this category, but I'm not sure what would happen or how committed he'd be if we split up, TBH, since he leaves most things to me atm unless I specifically ask him to do something). Then there are those who have little contact with their children and don't pay much towards them, and those who have no contact and pay nothing. An entire spectrum, in fact...Just like for women. But since more RPs are women, they have less of a chance to be at the 'no contact, no money' end of the spectrum.

@HugeAckmansWife

So we just accept it? We don't say that about tax avoidance, or non payment of council tax. Why is defrauding the gov worth lots of resources and high levels of penalty but not defrauding children?

Have I said that?

I think when a NRP pleads poverty but has assets the government should he allowed to take them over as they would for care home fees. I also think the current system where partners aren’t liable for maintenance to change - joint income should definitely be taken into consideration.

@GrumpyHoonMain

I think when a NRP pleads poverty but has assets the government should he allowed to take them over as they would for care home fees. I also think the current system where partners aren’t liable for maintenance to change - joint income should definitely be taken into consideration.

Yes, taking a home away from a nrp really benefits the child doesn't it?

Why should someone who isn't the child's parent be financially responsible?

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.

I agree and it should be paid to the RP as a pension and taxed from the NRP. If the NRP doesn't earn enough to pay then the debt should build up and be deducted from and benefits including the old age pension.

How do you work out what the minimum is?

What's the point in accruing debt some people will never ever be able to pay off?

Taking it from an old age pension is vile tbh.

It's just a long term punishment for not earning what someone (who?) Seems is enough and you keep getting punished into your old age just so you know how inadequate you are.

Should women be put in debt too for not earning enough then?

I completely agree. My ex h hasn't seen our son since 2016 and pays no maintenance. He's working mostly cash in hand and keeps changing jobs to avoid paying and has no interest in seeing his child.

How do you work out what the minimum is?

Someone has to pay for the kids. They can't survive on oxygen alone, there is a minimum they need to stay alive and have a decent standard of living.

Who should pay for them, if not their parents? Or do we leave them to starve because we can't work out the 'minimum'?

Someone has to pay for the kids. They can't survive on oxygen alone, there is a minimum they need to stay alive and have a decent standard of living

Yes, of course they do. I haven't disputed that but there is not and never can be a standard cost. It doesn't work like that! If there was a standard cost it would have to be in line with minimum wage realistically to ensure people could pay it. And that would then put children formerly getting more than that at a disadvantage.

Who should pay for them, if not their parents? Or do we leave them to starve because we can't work out the 'minimum'?

Their parents should pay it but it's a recipe for disaster setting a standard cost which might be wholly unrealistic for your low earner.

People shouldnt be punished for working min wage jobs and this is what would happen with your plan.