To reflect that ‘some chase ex for their salary not child contribution

[Genuinethought]

using ‘ ExDh’ as example as most common situation

Wondering genuinely …

If I was to work out how much extra having a child live in my house ( accounting for the cost of having an extra room for them )
would likely not come to around £500/ £700 a month, what I generally hear is paid in CMS.

Reflecting on the ‘ french private school’ related trending post…

I have seen many people chase and chase for exDH salary….when In reality there is no way that they are spending £700 a month on having a child ( the exDH £500 and £200 contribution of the other parent- due to the fact that the child costs is supposed to be shared , (accounting for them having child more frequently )

I wonder further about this, particularly when people live in a mortgaged property that is going up in price, yet the parent that has paid towards that housing will never have a claim on it …

When I stop and think the cost of my child’s room
their food
clothes
activities
holidays
savings
I just can’t see how it totals £500-700 every 30 days?

when you separate you may loose the ‘ bonus’ of another’s potentially greater salary… continually trying to access it, beyond what is realistic , seems unfair
AIBU

Sensible people consider this before they have children. If someone decides before coming a parent that they won’t commit to being the primary carer or 50/50 shared care, they need to either commit to covering half of their childs costs or if they don’t want to be financially responsible for a child, they need not become a parent.

Id rather there was a minimum amount, say its 15% of the wage, really it should be something like £250 as a minimum and the 15% kicks in for those would need to pay £251 plus. If a resident parent isn’t allowed to only spend £7 per week on their child/ren, then a non-resident parent shouldn’t be allowed to either.

It's not purely about the bare basic financial costs of raising a child either.

My ex pays the minimum child support possible (which is WAY more than $500 per month btw but cost of living is expensive in Aus and he's on a good salary), is inconsistent with having the children and prioritises his work and girlfriend over all else. And he can do that because he actually has a life outside of raising the kids. I do not.

I've seen it said on here that child support is like a fee paid to make up for not parenting your kids and I agree. Thing is if ex had the kids more then I could work more thus earning more and him paying LESS child support. That's not appealing to him though.

Then there's all the deadbeats who quit their job or work cash in hand so they don't have to support their kids.

@Genuinethought I don't think you're genuine at all, but on the off chance you are and are super cashed up with all these surplus payments from your ex then open a bank account for your kids and put the money in there. You would be in a very small minority there though. Most single parents who receive child support are not living lives of luxury.

You could also say sensible people consider the financial/emotional situation of the people they have children with.

if you want to be sahp, yet also have a reasonable lifestyle, don’t have children with someone earning 20k a year. Or whose job isn’t secure. And don’t be suprised when you do split that they can’t afford to house and feed themselves, and give you half your living costs for the children.

i was financially secure before I had kids. Own house, decent job. Dh could have fucked off, dropped dead, or anything in between, and I’d have been fine without his financial contribution.

my brothers ex knew he was min wage HCA, and that he loves his job and would never be looking to be a high earner. Job was flexible so he could work round the kids- do nights and sleep when they were at school, for example.

yet she wanted to go PT, did, then moaned he didn’t earn enough. When they split she expected to keep the kids with her, stay pt, and he was supposed to sub her, pay for her holidays, pay for all the kids extra curriculars and uniform, and find housing where he could have the kids all weekend and school hols. When he couldn’t he was a terrible dad who didn’t pay for his children.

Mine was earning a ton but has since ‘retired’ but not yet taking his pension and living off savings interest on very little. Hence I hardly get anything. When the dc leave college no doubt he will take his massive pension.
anything can happen!

Of course it's not ridiculous, and it's not that easy to find a more highly paid job. And you might not want to if you are eg professionally fulfilled as a teacher. If you were a teacher you'd earn less than a city lawyer for example. There would be no reason for a teacher to retrain as a lawyer to save her ex paying a decent share!

For most of our married lives, I have earned more than my husband. So I contribute more to the household. If we were no longer together, I would expect to contribute more to the kids than he does.

Childcare.

I get £700 from XP for my two. The combined childcare bill is £1000 now the elder has his 30 hours. So I'm out of pocket before thinking about spade, electricity etc

Plus childcare is short term, and presumably that £700 will continue when it’s no longer needed.

so long term it will balance, as when childcare ends you will still get £700.

people always treat childcare as if it’s permanent- never seem to see it as a temporary cost whereas long term you’ll be significantly better off once you’re out the other side.

the assumption is always that a single parent is on minimum wage, a bit stupid, and can't be bothered to do any better for herself.

It blows people's minds when single parents hold down professional jobs, juggle the responsibilities and earn decently. It's too challenging for people to get their heads round, and doesn't subscribe to the stereotype. Many people, in my experience, work incredibly hard to prove to themselves that being a single parent is something that couldn't possibly happen to them.

Until this month (30 hours kicked in) I was paying £2000 for childcare each month, so his £700 contribution was about a third of that before all the other costs of having children.

Yes childcare isn't forever but for a couple of years per child it often costs the RP thousands per month every month.

When they're both in school, I'll still need to cover wrap around and 3 months a year of school holidays.

I think there should be maintenance and then a decent chunk of childcare paid on top,

@Workworkandmoreworknow this is true.
I earn more than XP despite working PT (4 days) and I owned the property before we met so I bought a house for me and the kids while he's renting. It's the reason I don't push him for a contribution towards childcare costs; I don't think it's fair that I pay it all by

*^ but I also recognise that I haven't a better quality of life and don't want to reduce his