To think this is scandalous yet in plain sight because the patriarchy has no shame

[Webjisroommate]

A year ago I separated from my DD’s father and she was in the middle of her first year of nursery. He paid the cms amount every month, without fail. This was 360 a month, even though I was left to pay over 1,300 on nursery fees alone. Obviously the situation has now changed slightly with the hours but his 360 contribution is quite literally nowhere near half her costs. I have spoken about this with other mum friends and have learned that 360 is actually pretty fortunate! Some women are being paid less than 200 and others have to chase cms when their ex is self employed. I was not aware of any of this before having Dd.

My career is now hugely clipped as I am doing 95% of childcare while ex sees her a day a week… the day I use mostly to clean and get the house in order to start the week again. And yes, I suggested 50/50, he didn’t want that.

I honestly feel like this is a huge joke player on women in plain sight while nothing is actually done about it?! I also can’t fathom how HMRC can chase tax from the self employed but Cms can’t chase these men to pay for their children. It’s a disgrace. Why is this allowed to happen?!

Is the world for middle class people somehow less real? What are you saying - if single mothers aren't on the poverty line they should be bloody grateful?

Yes but a 1 bed flat would cost less than the house I need for 4 people! 3 kids use more utilities, eat more food, require more lifts - most single parents do prioritise their kids over themselves - obviously the post was hyperbolic - but I don’t buy new shoes and not pay for school dinners!

id have a lovely life if I was single in a small flat on my wage - but I’m not because kids!

Same. I earn more than I did when I was single, and then I had a nice flat and could afford to eat out and go on fancy holidays. That is not the case now I'm the single mum of teenagers!

Yes men should pay, however there needs to be a deterrent to stop people having children with whoever Willy nilly

I had 4 dc with a man who abused me and refused to wear condoms ever and raped me so. Don't know how what kind of 'deterrent' would help with that. Abusive men and whily in their ways of entrapping women and keeping them under control for years.

And I did escape, and now this price of men who doesn't work pays not a single shiny penny.

If there was an American style system that forced men to pay regardless that would probably be the best deterrent because the men who don't pay are selfish fuckers so hitting them where it affects them personally would be the only viable strategy.

No court will be able to mandate care. The only way to ensure equity is where 50/50 isn't in place and by that I mean full 50/50 not the token version some men do, is to take half the cost from their wages

@Gogogo12345 my very real children live in the very real world in a way that was possible because their WC parents worked hard, went to uni, qualified in professional jobs and now are in the MC bracket. Of course I know the things I listed aren't essentials but I'd be a pretty piss poor parent if I COULD give those things to my kids but didn't as I'm ring-fencing only 15% of my pay for them, as their Dad does. I am no way denigrating those who cannot, but I absolutely will denigrate largely absent parents on decent salaries who pay the bare minimum or less than that because they know the RP will pick up the slack, because they are the ones actually seeing the day to day reality of the kids' lives and their interests, hobbies, friend's birthday parties, inadequate coat or whatever and pay for it. Or maybe I should do that - match my contribution to their Dads and live accordingly, limiting their life experiences and chances out of spite to their dad so its fair on me?

You do realise court costs mum too. So both parents have less money for the kids. Before you go to court you go to mediation. Generally the advise to dads is to keep offering/asking for more time until mum feels happy with this. If mum doesn't budge then when you get to court the court says mum having majority of time is status quo and they don't want to change the status quo.
I'm not saying that there isn't bad dads who don't do their fair share financially or in care but there is also bad mums who block decent dads.

I know many dads who have spent thousands through solicitors and court and got no where other than a smaller pot of money to support their kids in life

Dad also needs a home to house the kids through. You can't have the kids overnight if you life in a flat share so both parents need homes and 2 homes will cost more than one.

@Againlosinghope that "whatabouttery" ALWAYS happens on these threads. This is about non-resident parents of either sex, though lets not kids ourselves about the balance, who pay little or nothing and certainly not a fair contribution.
Access arrangements for NRPs who want more contact is a separate thread. Even if the RP is limiting access, that doesn't absolve the NRP of needing to contribute adequately in the meantime.

But the NRP has far fewer day to day running costs AND can work more to meet the mortgage or rent payments since they have no childcare issues.

I'm not really sure what your point is. If a dad doesn't want to pay for half the child's expenses, nor does he want to go to court for more contact, why does he need a bigger pot for the children? He's not willing to spend it on them as it is. Swap around the words mum and dad as it suits, the point remains, the child is half your responsibility one way or another.

Other than for the very wealthy, family Court is primarily self represented in. It's rare that people pay solicitors unless it's part of divorce proceedings.

The normal process is that the person who applies pays the application fee (used to be around 200) then the forms are completed by each parents and anyone else with relevant input. It's set up to be self represented in, as by nature the majority of parents who end up there don't have much money.

Not talking about adequate and fair maintenance, Im against the view that in separated parents one parent should pay some ridiculous amount determined by a RP rather than a % of income that it is now.
A % is the only fair way to ensure every NRP pays a share of their income.
A % means they can also house and feed themselves and their children when the children are with them
If we say NRP has to pay 80% of income or a flat rate of £800 a month this in the first instance put the NRP into having not enough left and in the second instance may be great for high earners but be more than low earners earn.

I understand for Mums who have been left and have NRP doing no care and no involvement. The system doesn't seem fair. But it has to be a system that works across the board.

CMS does tend to go after easy pickings (NRP who pay and see their kids) and ignore the totally absent NRP and that does need addressing

The point being it is difficult for NRP to get 50/50

It has got better but it still isn't the automatic assumption and is very difficult to do it RP is against 50/50

Often when NRP go to court to get 50/50 the RP stops all contact so it can actually reduce contact in the short term which puts many NRP off as seeing their children 30% is better than risking RP stopping all contact

Futhermore if dad had the children 50/50 then HE WOULD be paying half wouldn't he

It should be a fixed amount. Percentages are useless since nrp can decide they don't want to pay as much so don't earn as much. Nursery, Tescos, swimming lessons don't price on percentages of income.
CMS can't "go after" parents who are actually paying the appropriate amount.

But surely you can see that there is a world of difference between planning for a child (I.e., current income vs current outgoings with some reasonable expectations on what might change in the next 10years) and saving up enough to fully cover the first 7years of your child's life?

I'm not saying people should just "wing it" as you put it, but i think it's mad to suggest (given the cost of raising young children) that people are somehow being irresponsible by having kids at all if they don't have over £70k saved up ready to go!

Where did I say they shouldn’t/wouldn’t?

Thanks

@Againlosinghope how about instead of a one size fits no-one system, we invest in a CMS that is funded so that each case is looked at individually. In an ideal world, if people behaved decently, I would take the 15% rate IF it could relied upon that my ex would also contribute fairly to big one off costs, but he doesn't and no-one can force it. I had the exact argument in mediation. I argued for a higher rate to be paid so that we wouldn't have to constantly have to clash over money - the mediator recommended it as a lower conflict solution but ex refused. So now every time there is a trip or piece of tech or new glasses, braces, therapy, a new hobby, I ask, get silence or an indignant refusal and I pay waaaaay more than 50%.

No but the attitude of having rooms for each child a nice house with a garden in a good catchment area etc is not generally a reality for those ( even 2 parent families) who don't have much money anyway. So it doesn't add up that it's a automatic " need". It's a nice want but not necessary to live.

you'd think but there are lots of posters who will testify that their arrangement is technically 50/50 but in reality they (almost always female) continue to be the default parent for all the mental load crap that so many dads just simply don't have on their radar. Its rare that care is 50/50 before divorce so why would it be a genuine split after? Lots of posters complain about their ex encroaching on them by asking for school run favours, hobby pick up as a"one off", 50/50 overnights but the mum does all the wraparound care.

lots of things are not necessary but is that really the bar we are setting for NRPs? They only have to cover a small contributions to bare essentials and everything else that most parents would consider both desirable and beneficial IF POSSIBLE should be up to the RP?

How can it be a fixed amount ?

Family A : yearly income £25k (take home approx £400 a week)

Family B : yearly income £100k(take home approx £1300 a week

Family A obviously won't spend the same on their kids as family B

If the parents in either situation then split and assume that's the NRP income only

That means that if you say it costs £200 a week to raise 2 children and both families have 2 children

In family A case mum and Dad both hav only £200 each
Mum will get CB but they both need to house and feed themselves, CT, utilities etc on £200

In family B case dad keeps 1100 a week for himself and mum has to live on £200. In what world is that fair ?

If you say it's £200 a week per child and based on 2 children

Family A RP gets £400 and NRP has to live on the street and fresh air. Not going to be alive for long so money is going to stop pretty quick

Family B RP gets £400 and NRP still keeps £900 a week.

Even in families that are together you can't spend more than you earn

If you were together I assume a discussion on additional costs would happen and both would discuss if it was something affordable at that time.
Just because a RP wants the child to go on a school trip or start music lessons it doesn't mean that the NRP can afford it.
In together parents these discussions happen and sometimes it isn't affordable so the child doesn't do it. Sometimes it is and they do.
Sometimes we buy second hand because we can't afford new. If we separate, then if I can't afford it and Dad can't afford sit it won't happen. If we can share cost or one can afford it then it would happen

Fine, it should be a fixed amount, or a percentage, whichever is higher. Not this current nonsense of x% of whatever he says he has spare.