To be AMAZED at this cms calculation?

[whatnowws]

Recently split from DS’s dad. He won’t communicate or see ds, so after several weeks I contacted cms. They are getting in touch with him but… the claim is for 730 a month?!? He earns almost 80k? How can this be right?

meanwhile, I’m earning 46k and paying 1,700 in nursery costs and all other costs for ds?

how on earth is that supposed to be fair?! This calculation is also assuming he continues not to see ds. If he wants him a night or more then costs reduce further… basically he can do what he wants and I’m expected to pick up the financial pieces no matter what.

There will be channels to do this (lawyers, court), if agencies are already involved to determine amount of child maintenance then the communication is not amicable and not via text to ask for the kid. The fact that he is financially abusive does not necessarily mean he will be abusive to the child, a lot of men use finances to keep the control after separating, he shouldn't be just left to do as he pleases, and take responsibility for the child half the days.

that rare though - I only know one family with more than 3 children - I'm talking about people my age (50's) not the older generation.

You can’t actually make someone take their child if they don’t want to. It’s not physically possible.

Courts can’t, and won’t, force people to take their children.

When it comes to not taking responsibility for the child on half the days he can absolutely do as he pleases.

Even with a contact order in place there’s nothing that can be done to oblige someone to turn up and see/take their child.

My ex had an EOW and Wednesdays order. All that meant was that until I could have it removed we had to be home EOW just in case that was one of the rare times (8/9 times in 4 years) he turned up. Courts confirmed there was nothing that can be done to oblige him to turn up.

These threads always go the same way OP. That you are 'lucky' to get anything at all, because some people don't. At least he's paying something (even though it's not exactly him volunteering this contribution; it's forced).

The thing is of course he should be paying half of his child's costs!

Hang on to your hats pp's who think OP's child support is 'heaps' - my ex pays nearly $1,600 per month. He no longer sees his children either so damn right he can pay proportionately.

There will be channels to do this (lawyers, court), if agencies are already involved to determine amount of child maintenance then the communication is not amicable and not via text to ask for the kid. The fact that he is financially abusive does not necessarily mean he will be abusive to the child, a lot of men use finances to keep the control after separating, he shouldn't be just left to do as he pleases, and take responsibility for the child half the days.

You are wrong. I'm recently divorced. Channels exist to help a NRP see their child if the RP isn't allowing access but there are no channels to force a NRP to see a child that they have no interest in. The court sees that it wouldn't be in the best interest of the child to do so.

OP I get a grand total of fuck all from my exh for 2 dc (although he does have them EOW at least) yet I agree it's not a race to the bottom. I agree with you. NRPs should pay half of the costs. This is an unpopular opinion but I wouldn't mind submitting receipts of everything I buy for the children, including childcare costs, if it meant someone could get the money out of my exh.

Yes but you have to try going to the appropriate channels. Who is to say this guy will be exactly like your ex? The reality is he doesn't want to pay, so he will probably agree to have 50:50 custody.

What appropriate channels do you think there are that can compel someone to take their child? There are none.

She's on way over twice the minimum wage.

The reality is he doesn't want to pay, so he will probably agree to have 50:50 custody.

😂😂😂😂

Amen!

I agree with you OP. I do think that you need to get the subsidy on nursery costs, have you accessed tax free childcare for example. Nursery costs were a killer for us and the costs involved in raising children are reasons why a lot of couple whonwould rather split end up staying together in unhealthy relationships. He should be paying half the costs of raising the child, I agree with this. Why people are saying otherwise is beyond my comlprehension.

Ex can move location for work, travel if his job requires it for promotions and work hours outside standard nursery hours because he’s not limited by childcare.

Depending on OP’s job, she could be prevented from increasing her income and getting promotions because nursery isn’t open at weekends or overnight childcare so she can travel to business to the US head office or whatever. I suspect that many RP are forced to put their careers on pause because their ex’s lack of physical care for the child makes promotions and increasing income impossible. It’s no wonder that so many just pay CMS and fuck off since its hell of a lot cheaper than paying nursery and accepting slower career progression.

School wraparound and holiday clubs are cheaper than nursery but what if OP’s work hours don’t match ? Holiday clubs often end very early ime and don’t end like at 6pm like nursery. Maybe she doesn’t work in an industry where she can take her laptop home and work after her son has gone to bed ?

Can you look for a less expensive nursery?
Won't you qualify for a subsidised nursery place at some point?

Does your ex have parents living? What do they think about his behaviour? Would it be worth talking to them and getting them on-side? Presumably they don't want their grandchild to miss out?

Is there any chance that they would agree with you that it'd be far fairer for their dear son to contribute extra towards the costs of childcare until your DC goes to school?

Well said

You’ve totally misunderstood my point - no it isn’t a race to the bottom and of course women should expect (and get!) equality; I was merely challenging the OP on criticising women about their lack of intelligence…which is uncalled for.
Yes of course he should be contributing 50%, which is exactly why I have said it’s unfair. Not really sure why you’re making that point.
And actually, it’s important that feminism does look at other women - it’s dominated by middle classes, so considering the extra burdens of lower income women is actually key to challenging the patriarchy as a whole.

Yeah, and this is why OP is so angry, and I don't blame her.

How come there's no suggestion that the man cuts his hours to look after the child?

"Why should he pay for you to basically go to work? Because that’s what nursery costs are."

Jesus Christ this place is wild sometimes.

What about the man? Are the nursery costs not also because he works? Why is the woman the default childcare option??

Fucking hell, it's like being in a time warp.

What are the appropriate channels for the OP who says:

He won’t communicate or see ds

Many women here are waiting to hear what the correct route is to compel an absent Father to care for his children.

He doesn't see the child so yes that's the way it works if he has no contact.

No. No it isn't. You don't get to "opt out" of being a parent.

🤣 why are there so many absent fathers then? Please tell us how you can force someone to have contact? Would love to hear your suggestions..

This is why if my DH ever wanted a divorce, I would be the one to leave and walk out. I'll take every other weekend, thanks. Then once things were established, I would go for 50/50 with 50% paid each for all bills for the children. That would include clubs, clothes, childcare, presents etc. I sure as hell wouldn't be left in the shit.

Women are constantly shafted, and the state are just expected to pick up the bill for these worthless dads.

Frankly, that’s optimistic to the point of being delusional. He can dump all responsibly for his child for roughly 20% of his take home pay - probably far less than he was paying when he lived with the OP.

If you ignore ethics and morals, that’s a deal a lot of deadbeat dads will be happy to take.

This. The only way this works is if the NRP has a legal obligation to financially support the RP if she (and we all know by far the largest percentage will be women) chooses to be a SAHP. I can hear the appalled howls already.

If both parents are expected to financially support themselves (which requires a job), both parents need to pay for childcare so both parents can work.

I notice there is no suggestion the Dad should give up work and live on benefits for childcare reasons.