to ask why this isn't being addressed as a huge sexist issue that frankly shits on women completely?!

[howaboutl]

I know some men are in this position but let’s be honest, it’s mostly women. Why isn’t there outrage about this? If there is how do I join and help make change?

My ex partner walked out on me and dd when she was 1. He doesn’t see her, his choice entirely. He has no other children and doesn’t live with any other children. I am left to pay a childcare bill of 1,300 alone, while he contributes 500 quid when he is working. He works on temporary contracts so now and then I receive nothing despite him having in excess of 100k savings.

How is this accepted that I pay our child’s childcare bill alone? Is it just that there aren’t actually that many women (or men to lesser extent) in this situation so nothing is down about it because in the grand scheme of things we are a minority?

I cannot understand why I am expected to pay for OUR child’s nursery bill so we can both work? Why am I footing the bill for this and he is not?

Yes exactly but even when men do pay the tax payer still pays because CM isn't even counted or deducted from benefits.

That's because men are notoriously unreliable when it comes to paying maintenance. It would be absurd to count it when it could reduce or stop at the drop of a hat and CMS are completely shit at following up and/or making them pay. Even when they do, there are plenty of loopholes to avoid paying an adequate amount.

Receiving maintenance is a matter of luck/chance not a certainty.

YANBU OP, I’m often astounded by the load lone mums are expected to take on and the free pass given to men.

These systems are designed and implemented by male heavy industry, historically.

At some point there will have to be a review, because the culture of working families is different, and so the cms calcs and financial expectations of absent parents should be different.

@MaxwellCat I am very sorry you appear to be in a worse situation than I am in. I didn’t say that 500 a month wasn’t better than someone who has nothing? I said that you not supporting me behind the principles at play here is what supports the patriarchy and leaves us BOTH in a position we shouldn’t be in.

I despair that you cannot see this and any men reading this thread who don’t pay their way must really be laughing to themselves.

Men shouldn’t have to choose to marry in order to be financially responsible for their kids. And women shouldn’t have to choose to marry them to make them financially responsible.

My childcare is still more than that. It used to be thousands to get sufficient childcare to allow me to work. Yet I pay the less tax and get the less child benefit (none) than I would if my earnings were made by a couple.

women are actively penalized for being single mums. It’s not on.

In “countries like Australia, Australian law generally treats unmarried spouses in a de facto relationship in the same way that it treats married spouses. So after 6 months - 2 years of residing together, a non-married partner can make a claim on the shared assets, especially with regard to looking after children. “

the problem with the above is it forces the consequences of marriage on people who’ve chosen not to get married.

I understand your point - but it's the same in coupled families too, it's mostly seen as an expense that the woman has to meet and if her salary isn't enough to cover childcare, she's the one that has to quit work. (rather than seeing it as a joint expense that's met from both salaries).

It’s not the same in this coupled family. Our childcare costs are considered a ‘joint’ expense and come out of the family pot, as they are ‘our joint’ children. DP is the higher earner. Me giving up work, and, therefore, my earning power and financial independence was non negotiable. But, then DP is decent, knows that I won’t allow certain shit to fly, and works hard to uphold a good lifestyle for our family and to leave a legacy for our children.

The U.K. system is clearly wanting. I too think what happens in the U.S.A. should be the bare minimum, although there are still issues in the States.

Many women are choosing not to have children because of the unfairness of the physical, emotional and financial responsibilities on women.

Marriage can help in some cases, but not if you’ve married a selfish and or lazy man. How many of us know or are aware of women and children who were still shafted my their Husbands/Fathers?

A lot of men switch once children arrive, so women need to ensure they are educated and remain employed/self employed once they bear children. We unfortunately live in a patriarchal society.

He works on temporary contracts so now and then I receive nothing despite him having in excess of 100k savings

This is utterly ridiculous, he should be paying from savings. Which mother wouldn't? We don't get the luxury to say that oh dear, DC, you won't be eating this month..

No sorry that isn't what I was suggesting, and I appreciate marriage isn't for everyone.

But in situations where one person in the relationship has vast amounts of savings or assets, and the other person will have little to nothing if they end up with all the childcare or reduce hours or become a sahp, it's absoloutley fiscally sensible to marry in order to be legally entitled to the share of the assets.

It shouldn't have to be that way, but in the current situation, it's the better way.

Playing dickheads' advocate here... I think if 50% childcare costs were legally enforced from the non-resident parent, on pain of jail etc, men would start demanding a lot more say in whether their wives have abortions or not, whether they can enforce contraception etc. Because that's the shitty men-prioritising world we live in.

They need to start deducting it from men's wages at source.

that's bollocks

You are absolutely right. Using childcare is a choice. Perhaps this prince among men could give up work to look after his children? Or maybe it is only a choice for women.

@ApplesInTheSunshine do bugger off. That particular angle has been done to death on here. Plenty of us had jointly planned children, in marriage, to perfectly decent guys until they had a mid life crisis, got bored, whatever, and fucked off. Let's not make that the focus. Even if it IS the case that it was a casual fling and the father wasn't keen from the get go, he should still be legally liable for a properly worked out % of the costs.

For childcare, it should be 50% of the whatever the bill is after UC contributions...and let's dispell the myth that most women do get that help. I didn't. We are well into a period now of graduate, decent earning women who won't qualify for UC help but are in that spot where neither do they earn enough to be able to cover the childcare bill that allows BOTH parents to work.

50/50 care would be great if the fathers wanted it, but they rarely do. I know I pay a fuck of a lot more than 16% of my salary directly on the kids, well over and above my usual housing costs etc.

And my last point... The % should increase as kids get older. Teens shoes and clothes are much more. They need phones, contacts and laptops for school. A meaningful allowance, hobby fees. You can't entertain them with a cardboard box and a football for days on end. CMS is utterly unfit for purpose on many many levels. It should be linked to HMRC, and debt accrued should be payable up to and including state pension sanctions. The amount owed should be paid to the RP by HMRC then they go after the debt.

@BibMeUp

The reality is, that money is his partners and has nothing really to do with you. If she wants to use her money to treat her partner to a holiday then she should be able to. It doesn’t matter that you don’t get to go on a holiday because she’s not your partner. It’s just the brutal reality of spliting when you have kids unfortunately.

NO NO NO!

If a person wants the protection of marriage then they should bloody well get married - they have that choice!

Why the hell should those us who are deliberately NOT getting* *married in order to protect ourselves financially be drawn into a de facto marriage & put ourselves at financial risk? Why should our choice be taken away because others make poor decisions?

Marriage is a financial contract, where men seem to get most out of it financially, due to the sacrifices and unpaid labour that women overwhelmingly contribute to marriages.

The big white Disney dress Wedding Day is an expensive and commercial ploy to draw unsuspecting women in. Then in most cases, we’re well and truly fucked. Women should never give up their financial independence. Always have options. Money gives you options and autonomy over your own life, especially when things got tits up.

Yes that’s what I meant. I definitely think that both parents should be jointly responsible for any childcare to facilitate both of them working but I also think there should be a cut off..if a parent only earns min wage full time then take home after tax would be around £1650 so if child maintenance is approx £250 a month for 1 child & then child is in nursery FT that could then be approx £700 a month on top so non resident parent would have to pay £950 a month which leaves them £700 a month..nobody can survive on that single or not so it has to be reasonable & not imposed as 50% of fees as thats absurd. I think 50/50 residency is the realistic answer

@Makemyday99 but so many fathers who leave do not want 50/50 and it doesn't suit all children either. If an NRP only sees their child eow which is do often the case they should be able to do a damn sight better than minimum wage. The RPs earning potential is frequently severely impaired by not being able to long hours, overnight trips, late meetings etc but an NRP has no such constraints.

Of course I get that, I’m not trying to diminish the responsibility of the nrp (lets face it mostly fathers) I’m purely trying to give example of how imposing shared childcare fees wouldn’t necessarily work. Fwiw my ex had our kids 50/50 for the entirety of their childhood & spent a hell of a lot more money on his time than I was able to so not all men are crap although I understand that it’s unique. I think 50/50 residency should be legally imposed rather than constant fighting over money which majority of mothers end up at the brunt end.

You cannot "legally impose" actual day to day parenting on someone who doesn't want it. Can you imagine the kind of childhood that would create? I don't disagree it could be imposed if one parent was trying to block it for no good reason, but not forced on an unwilling participant...eg a man with the "big job" who has been used to swanning in and out for the fun bits and doesn't know a school comms app from his arsehole.

I understand that but I also don’t think you can impose nursery fees that are unilaterally decided by one parent, in an ideal world parenting should be discussed & shared, sadly it’s not so who knows the answer..certainly not me

I agree. I wouldn’t force my DC to spend time with anyone who doesn’t want them, including their Father. Not the case here as our DC are very close to their Father.

But, the problem is the fact that these men have been allowed to get away with not being involved in the day-to-day running of their children’s lives, downloading school apps, etc.
We both work. I work PT in a pressured role. DP is the higher earner and owns multiple businesses. I make sure DP receives all the school communication I receive, has the school apps, I send him calendar invites re. all child related, health appointments, activities, school events/dates, the school runs he’s agreed to do for our youngest DC, etc. School admin from two schools is a lot to keep up with, so it’s only fair that DP is bombarded with it all too! Hopefully, between the two of us we won’t miss anything important.

Don’t be under any illusion that if these seemingly incompetent and clueless men had to work out recognise a school app from their arseholes for their employers, they’d work it out super fast! It’s called weaponised incompetence. Start dropping phrases such as these into conversations with your children’s Fathers whenever they claim to not have a clue, they’ve forgotten and/or say you’re better at the task at hand.

E.g., When DP phones or messages me whilst I’m working to query our DC’s term dates for what seems like the hundredth time, I simply tell him I’m busy and remind him that the dates are already in his Calendar. Just throw it back.

Another example from this week - DP rang me to tell me he was running late to collect DC from school and was seeking clarity on what the school procedure would be. I told him to call the school. I was not WFH on that day, and was at my office 60 mins away.

I know this is the rule, but it’s complete bullshit and needs to change. I just don’t agree with it.

If the ex’s new woman has any kids of her own living with them, those kids get taken into account on the calculation. But when calculating what your ex owes to you, all of a sudden they are not a financial unit?

It is the brutal reality of marrying a divorced man, I think. He has commitments and those commitments become your problem too.

My ex has shacked up with someone that is monied and now his household income is over £100,000. It’s an absolute disgrace that he doesn’t owe on this total, when he is enjoying all the benefits of it.