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?

We really need to stand together as a force to get these changes enacted. But that is SO hard for single parents to do given everyone is so exhausted and overworked already, trying to do the work of two adults. It is a great shame that women not in this situation - even those who claim to be feminists - do not take up the cause on our behalf.

I suspect the answer is that Parliament is not remotely representative so, as a PP said, no surprise that our children have no voice in the political decisions made.

Most of the MP’s (and their partners) all went to the same few schools, so no it’s not remotely representative of the UK population.

Things are changing, albeit too slowly. We also need to inspire our children to get in there and make those changes.

@BelieveThemtheFirstTime yes, but the things generally looked at in terms of diversity are wrong. Just the easily visible: race, sex. Where are the disabled people represented, where are the lone parents? That kind of diversity would have much more impact but because of the way society compounds the inbuilt disadvantages of those people they are even less able to take on being a representative in order to change things. It is catch 22. Too ill or too overworked and exhausted to even consider it.

Also in many cases - because of the demonsation and vilification and not wanting to have their lives publicly pulled apart with exactly the type of appalling comments received on this thread already, in many cases wouldn't even do it even if practically and physically it was possible. So continue to be marginalised and ignored. Some democracy. Like I said, the mark of one is that those who are in easier situations stand up for those who are not.

That said, while personally I'd never be prepared to do anything involving being a public figure or press intrusion, if they want to appoint me head of the CMS with a commitment to put in place the regulatory powers I'd need and resources to fix it - I could sort it out within two years so that it fulfils its purpose. I mean, what its purpose is meant to be, not the lip-service pretence it is at the moment.

Or appoint me to advise Jeremy Hunt or Rachel Reeves on the required tax policies to not only fix these issues but also address the UK productivity issues. It's really not that hard. They just don't want to do it.

But why the so-called charities and organisations meant to represent women and children haven't taken this up on their behalf is another matter. People who have media contacts and political access and a platform. I'd love to hear their excuses.

Maybe @mumsnet will answer why they still haven't launched a campaign to get these tax changes enacted and enforce proper rates of CMS robustly?

@Nepmarthiturn single mums are the masters of a multi task, I'd gladly throw my hat in the ring to form a consortium

For those blaming women for making poor choices it doesn’t always work like that - my aunt was married with 3 kids. Her husband
( who she met at her church) abandoned her and the kids when they were all under 5 once he finished retraining for his science degree. He went onto earn big bucks for a pharmaceutical company and managed to not pay a penny except a handful of cheques for £1000 each over the year. No cards, no presents etc. he came from a stable and close family and was very well educated and seemingly family orientated with good morals. It wasn’t obvious he was a poor choice.

Maybe we should establish a separate group from here by PM for anybody who wants to join and see what we can do between us. I have the motivation, but am so unwell and struggling just to keep our heads above water without my health collapsing that I'm not sure how useful I would be. 😔

@Nepmarthiturn I think that's a great idea. I have to motivation and determination but you are a lot more articulate than me.

I think that there are 2 separate problems that need solving.

1/ Making sure that the non resident parent pays a fair proportion of maintenance and actually pays it

2/ Childcare costs needs to be subsided properly for all children from the age of 6 months.

With number 2, if a family with 2 working or 1 working/1 stay at home parent is only just managing to stay financially afloat with 1 household to pay, there is no possible way that if they were to separate that they could afford between them to run 2 households, pay the correct amount of maintenance AND pay for childcare on top of all this. We have to be realistic on this.

Free childcare would make this problem go away.

@Orchidgal but it's not free is it? You mean funded childcare.. can't see that going down well in a society where people of tax paying age are increasingly choosing not to have children. Most people who have both pay their cleaners more p/ h than their childminders. I don't have the answers but asking the general public to fully fund childcare because feckless irresponsible dads can't apparently be made to meet their responsibilities isn't it.

It's a fucking SCANDAL, OP. YANBU.

There is also the possibility that it will increase childbirth rates as many people aren't having them currently because of the childcare costs.

It could also bring in more tax and lower other benefits that are paid as the 2nd parent could then afford to work/work full time and there would be more people recruited to give childcare, so that's potentially 2 extra people to tax and pay less benefits to. It might even help increase the UK's productivity rates.

Court awarded access to fit around HIS work schedule and he pick and choose out of those days to fit around his social life all child care was my responsibility, massive twat that he was. Absolutely minimum CM paid but got like I was living the high life. All grown now but it was so hard and heartbreaking that the same shit is still going on 🤬

@Kpo58 you may well be right, I'm not an economist, but I think the whole subject of childcare is another can of worms,; what we pay providers, the fact that it's paid out of net income etc.

That would be good but still doesn't fix the deliberate discrimination in the tax system that adds a huge additional burden on top of having only one income to support a household and the same person doing all of the caring. Why should they pay more tax on that household income than another family would as well as those inbuilt disadvantages? It's indefensible.

No. It wouldn't. That's just one small aspect of the problem.

@ThursdayFreedom they are invoiced for their nursery bill. If it’s not paid it is a debt like any other. I don’t think it’s particularly difficult to accept that men should pay 50% of their own child’s childcare.

I’d love to be involved in this. How could we do-ordinate something? Obviously don’t want to say what line of work I am in but I think (hope!) I could be of some use.

Couldn't agree more. There's zero accountability - financial or otherwise- for shitbox fathers. Breaks my heart.

It’s not his childcare if he has no contact though is it?

It’s not his childcare if he has no contact though is it?

He has a child who's other parent is taking 100% of the caring responsibility for that child. The fact that the other parent does this means he is free to work whatever working pattern suits him. He can earn in whatever suits him best. On top of that, he has all the free time he needs to do whatever it is he wants to do, whenever he wants to do it. If the other parent were to die, or were no longer able to care for their child, he would suddenly find himself with less freedoms.

It's really not unreasonable that in exchange for his carefree existence, he pays 50% of any childcare costs that enable the other parent to have half a chance at being able to support both themself and their child.

Absolutely. As I said a few pages ago, being the typical EOW nrp means complete freedom 26/30 days to work whatever hours and shifts you like. Even if with full time nursery, an RP doesn't have that. Even with an au pair or live in nanny there would be boundaries. The paid childcare enables BOTH parents to work.

He wouldn’t be made to have the child the man isn’t involved he is absent!

Excellent points!

@BibbleandSqwauk don’t get me wrong, I’m not defending useless dads, I just think funded childcare would be a good thing. I don’t have children myself, I have no problem with my taxes going to that. It would be part of living in a more equal and civilised society, which I’m all for!