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.

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

I'm not saying the law should 'punish' people in this situation, though I think the 12% should be much higher, subject perhaps to a minimum amount for NRP living expenses.

I'm saying that anyone in this situation has FAILED as a parent. If you (a) don't adequately support your children, and (b) don't provide care for them to enable the other parent to support them better, you are a failure. This is regardless of the legal consequences.

I think someone said up thread a Google search revealed a child costs £400 a month so that's £200 per parent. Regardless of either parents income, Is that fair in people's opinion?
What if the child or children don't want to split their time 50:50, what if they're happy just going to dad's at weekend, does dad have to pay more because of his children's choice. Maybe their friends live near mum, their hobbies are nearer mum's, and probably because they were established before their parents separated.

We split everything 50/50. Worked great

@ Elizadoeslittle19- I think £200 per child regardless of the parents income is fair to a point. I mean my fiancé and I put all our money into one pot so yeah it’s fair to say it’s split 50:50.

If the children do not want to spend their time with other parents than it should still be 50:50. If the children are happy to do 50:50 than I don’t think either parent should pay anything. They should just pay their own costs for food, childcare (what they use) and clothes etc.

I'm saying that anyone in this situation has FAILED as a parent. If you (a) don't adequately support your children, and (b) don't provide care for them to enable the other parent to support them better, you are a failure. This is regardless of the legal consequences.

Ok, I mean it's a good job you're not in charge.

Has a mother who doesn't work failed her children then?

does dad have to pay more because of his children's choice

Yes, because it's in their best interests to have proper financial support, wherever they live. Again, 'out of sight, out of mind mentality'. Children exist and need to be paid for even when they are not physically present.

I think £200 per child regardless of the parents income is fair to a point

Really?

So on a min wage at 40 hrs a week you'd take home around £1300

You've got 2 kids. So your maintenance is £400pm.

So you've got £900 left to pay for rent or mortgage on at least a 2 bed house if you want overnight access and everything else...

I bet that's not particularly easy.

Meanwhile the rp is getting their own wage plus this 400 quid likely plus some benefits on top.

Actually I think nmw rate at say 35 hrs a week, and say 18-20% of that depending on number of children might be a reasonable starting point as the minimum. Not a standard rate, sine many many people earn more than that, but £7pw when an NRP is on benefits is pathetic and shameful. If the nrp can't make 35hrs of nmw work then the gov should pay that minimum standard rate to the RP and it accrues as debt to the nrp UNLESS it can be shown that they are on PIP or carers allowance. That way the child gets a half decent contribution and a genuinely struggling nrp isn't plunged into debt. There should be much more robust investigation of finances, and the link between 'lifestyle' and declared income reestablished.. This might prevent those who register as limited companies, pay themselves a tiny wage but live v well.

On the subject of household income I think the only circumstance in which a 'step parents' income should count is if it can be shown that the nrp is living comfortably off the new partner having reduced his own income or become a SAHD this reducing maintenance. A maintenance obligation should be seen as absolute and not reducible below that minimum standard. If a couple choose to do what described above then part of that decision should be that the earning personeets the maintenance bill, since they are benefitting from having a SAHP. That cannot be at the expense of the first children.

No I can’t see this working. My ex couldn’t have 50/50 as he lives 2 hours away in shared accommodation. He also doesn’t have to pay any maintenance because he is on UC and cms said he has “priority debts” so he doesn’t need to pay any maintenance

Genie an NRP can use their childcare free situation to earn more than nmw though. When my kids are not with me, I spend about £20 a week in food. Its more like & £70 when they are. My son gets through 3-4 apples a day and he only likes a particular brand which are expensive. My dd likes strawberries, also not cheap. Real costs of day to day living really really rack up. The key factor for me is as above.. Am nrp has multiple options to increase his income that are not available to the RP. And please sop with your assumption that most sp get some kind of benefit.
Apart from CB I never have and neither do 5 of my sp colleagues.

the rp is getting their own wage

Depends on the age of the children. If they're young children, only if they're paying out huge sums for childcare. Otherwise, it's just the benefits...not a very comfortable existence for the children.

@Elizadoeslittle19 I get £500pm from my ex, he is on a salary of £50k. I don't think £200pm for someone in his situation would be fair as he has plenty of disposable income even after paying me the £500. For us, it's about the lifestyle that we want for DS - my ex and his partner earn well, they have a 4 bedroom house and go on lots of holidays. My ex wants DS to have the same lifestyle as he has, he doesn't want to see DS go without. I am the one doing the majority of the parenting so I do a low paid job that allows me to be flexible for school runs etc. My ex's job does not have flexibility and has unsociable hours so he does much less of the day to day parenting (this is his choice as his job is important to him) and more of the financial contributing. We are both happy with the situation.

#Genie an NRP can use their childcare free situation to earn more than nmw though*

Can they? Tell that to thousands of people stuck in nmw jobs!

Ffs if it was that easy nobody would earn nmw would they!

Apart from CB I never have and neither do 5 of my sp colleagues

A lot will where childcare is involved. We did as a couple so....

@HugeAckmansWife

I think that's a genuinely helpful suggestion. I would (somewhat reluctantly) agree that plunging NRP into absolute poverty to ensure the children are supported is probably unhelpful in the long run.

@PumpkinP

In my view, child maintenance should definitely be a 'priority debt'! It just shows the low importance we as a society attribute to children having a decent standard of living that it's not.

@Waxonwaxoff0

I think the £200 was in terms of a minimum payment. Clearly higher earning dads should pay more. Ideally, children should have the same standard of living in both households.

In my view, child maintenance should definitely be a 'priority debt'! It just shows the low importance we as a society attribute to children having a decent standard of living that it's not.

It’s unbelievable really, he hasn’t had to pay because he has other debts, when I looked into it cm came about 15th of the list of priorities. So 14 other things are more important than paying for his children. He doesn’t pay a penny for 4 children and hasn’t done in over 3 years.

@Thinkofthekids ah, I see! In that case then yes, £200 should be a standard for lower earners. It costs me that just to feed DS every month, let alone everything else on top.

BOTH parents are responsible for their children.
I think the solution is for the CMS to start using their powers to collect the billions owed. I don't understand why they have powers they don't use.

In my view, child maintenance should definitely be a 'priority debt'! It just shows the low importance we as a society attribute to children having a decent standard of living that it's not

I agree with this.

The starting point should be the bloody CMS cracking down on what people should be paying anyway!

Re childcare costs.. Yes, a large % is covered and that's fine.but the remainder should be split between the parents or the nrp needs to do it himself so the RP can work her fair share without being disadvantaged. I don't see what is unfair about that.

Ok, I mean it's a good job you're not in charge. Has a mother who doesn't work failed her children then?

Yes, if she's the NRP providing neither care nor financial support. No, if she's the RP caring for them 24/7 and trying to do her best on benefits. Rather than a failure, I would call her a hero (and also any dads who are RPs in difficult circumstances).

I don't see what is unfair about that

It needs to be a joint decision and it very rarely is. You can't arrange something and just demand half the payment. It doesn't work like that and nor should it!

What about a mother who had the kids 50% of the time and doesn't work whilst the other parent does?

It really sounds money is the most important thing here? But only if you're a man?

If I didn't have kids I would not feel 'stuck' in any job. I could work double shifts, pub work, night work at 24 hour supermarkets. I could train and make myself more employable. Childcare is the absolute no 1 reason why people's earning capacity is limited (outside of disability and caring responsibilities which I covered earlier).