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?!

See I really don't think the State should provide when a father won't - I think the state should ensure that the father provides what he can. More than 15% - did.they pull that figure out of their arse? - but not 100% either. Single mothers keep a roof over their own heads as well as their children's, so they don't spend 100% on their children.

So - add up both parents' income, include the value of all childcare, overnights at a lower general rate than collecting, dropping off, doing parties and trips out, dentist doctor shoes etc. 50/50 split. Should both end up.with same disposable income or free time to the same value.

It's already a % it's not based on what RP says they can afford
CM service us a % so if you think they aren't paying enough you use the service to calculate the %

What's 'necessary to live'? People have the basics that are 'necessary to live' in refugee camps. So it's fine for single mothers to be raising multiple kids in a one-bed flat while their ex-partners swan around in designer clothes and brand-new Audis? Lucky you don't work for the family courts then (or perhaps you do, would explain a lot).

Absolutely bizarre to see this attitude on a modern parenting forum.

Agree

When did the bar become so low for men

I am not in the same position but I will not allow ds to be told he is lucky (this is often said 🙄) because he is involved (not at all equally). Ds does not need to feel lucky (or myself)

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!

And if you did save it up, it is 'savings' and you can bet the 'leaver' will take at least half with them.

@Againlosinghope lots of things are different when you are together. You are a team, pulling in the same direction. When you're divorced, especially if there is a "new family" in the mix, suddenly every request for "extras" is met with suspicion and accusations of greed. I actually think a lot of NRPs are really out of the loop of what their kids need and the impact on them to be told no (not for everything obviously). Years ago my ex refused to swap weekends, not for any particular reason and my dd missed out on a trip she really wanted to go on. she still remembers it. I still remember her distress coming out of the group meeting after the trip when everyone had been on it and she hadn't. But he never saw that. He probably would deny all knowledge. That wasn't about cost but it was about the NRP not having a scooby about the reality of the impact of their actions on the children. Same is true for those who refuse to help with "extras" financially. They don't see the impact.

This poster thinks women and kids should be punished for not using abortion as birth control by life being made difficult for them.

Doesn't that mean it's more important than ever? Families are not as close these days, so there usually isn't a full-time grandparent to babysit. So what happens? - dad leaves (as is the topic of this thread), doesn't pay, mum struggles to get a job and/or spends all her money on childcare - every penny counts, corners are cut... child suffers (oversimplification).

Imagine if every woman saved up even £10k before having a child. As other posters have said, women tend to be the ones more interested in them, while men are more "yeah, go on". So building up a nest egg exclusively for the care of that child is actually good motherly planning. Then, say the dad leaves, she has security. That £10k is probably easily enough to take care of a baby for a few years, long enough to get her affairs back in order, find support, etc. So many people these days live close to the breadline... maybe having a few thousand saved, thinking yeah, we'll manage... then car crash, unfaithful husband, redundancy, unplanned medical bills... This is THE most important thing you'll ever do, and people do seriously just go with the flow. I think it's absolutely irresponsible (sorry).

10k would have paid a few months of nursery bills. Not sure where you get a few years from.

You're deliberately misunderstanding. There should be a fixed minimum based on what a child actually costs (tapered to account for amount of contact). OR a fixed percentage of income (higher than 15%!). The sum paid would be whichever figure is higher.
That way men cannot weasel out by dropping their hours or going cash in hand. Failure to pay should mean the amount is deducted from benefits, pensions, and/or become a permanent debt to repaid to the state indefinitely.
The current system is not fit for purpose.

So say the " fixed" amount is£500 a month. Dad earns £1300 with rent on a 1 bed flat being about £600. Council tax another £120 odd. So that then leaves him £80 to eat transport to work pay gas/electric water etc.

Not feasible.

I suspect the figure of 15% is used because most people won't have more than 20% of their income remaining after paying their essential costs, such as housing, bills and food.

This happened back in 2010, so the system might have changed, but I lived in a shared house with a man going through a divorce. His wife had decided she 'wasn't happy' and he'd had to leave their home and newborn child. They eventually ended up with 50/50 childcare. She kept the house and moved in her new fella from work. She got all the benefits and, despite her earning more than him, he still had to pay her maintenance. He initially rented a flat, but couldn't afford it (i visited one night and the cupboards were literally bare with no food in the fridge). He ended up basically destitute and eventually became a lodger in somebody's house.

Basically, he got completely shafted by the system, while she was sitting pretty.

Unfortunately, there are men that refuse to support their kids, but there are also women that play the system to rinse out their former partners.

Affordable childcare is the greatest of all assets and benefits to women generally.
Families are not as able are willing to provide it.
Many women in their 60's whom have had 40 year careers are simply not prepared to turn around and provide it.

It may be unpalatable for many on here, but it is reality for many familys and it definitely is in my circle.

The state ultimately benefits from a well educated work force of tax paying women.
Therefore it should be the state that invests and provides it, to support their work force.

They don't though.

Women have to protect themselves sadly.
Having children and working FT is brutal.
But it ultimately will lead to a better lifestyle for women and their children.
The system is broken.

But women whom have planned children with mean men cannot be surprised when they want no part of paying exorbitant childcare.

A lovely friend of mine had a huge falling out with her daughter who was married, lovely home, excellent career, who had a planned pregnancy and was genuinely reeling and majorly put out when her stunned mother told her that No, she had absolutely zero intention of providing 40+ hours of childcare.
They had never had a single conversation about it, but her daughter just assumed.
The entitled delusional cheeky fxxkery of it.
Not her husbands mother mind, but hers!
Her MIL had zero interest either.
The relationship is cooler as a result but my friend said so be it.
She was not providing free childcare.

Women have to think ahead and plan unfortunately in our society.
They can't depend on the state, men or their mums to provide childcare. Therefore they have to plan and be prepared, if they don't it is them who will pay the huge price.

It's awful, I don't agree with it, but it is the brutal reality of having children.

In the Republic of Ireland, not paying for CM will give you record. So if my ex "forgets " I contact the court and they kindly remind him. And immediately he remembers.

This happened back in 2010, so the system might have changed, but I lived in a shared house with a man going through a divorce. His wife had decided she 'wasn't happy' and he'd had to leave their home and newborn child. They eventually ended up with 50/50 childcare. She kept the house and moved in her new fella from work. She got all the benefits and, despite her earning more than him, he still had to pay her maintenance. He initially rented a flat, but couldn't afford it (i visited one night and the cupboards were literally bare with no food in the fridge). He ended up basically destitute and eventually became a lodger in somebody's house.

I can guarantee he did not pay 'her' maintenance.
He will have paid something towards his children.

What a child actually costs is subjective a %of income is measurable
If NRP drops hours so that they can do pick up and drop off at school that is to ensure their child sees their NRP and the NRP is involved in day to day life.
Dropping hours means a drop in income so this results in a drop in maintenance. But the drop in maintenance is small.compared to the drop the NRP has.
If NRP is managing in less then they can't magic extra money for RP.

NRP need to house and feed the children (provide toys, clothes and everything else a child needs at their house too)
So assuming the NRP has the child fro to Monday every other week and we'd after school to Thursday at school. RP has an extra 3 nights a week and 3 mornings a week
The maintenance covers the extras that those extra meals times cost.
The % is based on income and overnights so if the overnights is more the payment goes down but if overnights is less the payment is more.

The issue is NRP who do no overnights as they pursumbly don't have housing, clothing, food, essential costs that a NRP that has even one over night a week would.have

But because some RP would stop contact if the money jumped up it makes it very tricky to manage.

Bad RP and bad NRP make it easier to have one system.
Those deliberately hiding earnings should be chased

There is a formula to how much kids cost though. I might not have it, but it exits. It is used to calculate universal credit for example. Parenting and/or paying for kids has to be 50/50. Whilst I'm sure plenty of people have anecdotes of dad's getting a raw deal, it is by and large mums who struggle to get by, put their careers on hold, forgo their pension contributions, take time off work for sickness or parents evening etc. This needs to be corrected.

If they had 50/50 custody then he wouldn't have been paying maintenance.

I think as children grow up feelings change. As babies I wanted then with me at all times. Teenagers... Can live without them being around all the time! Also, they are out doing there own thing a lot.

Despite having 50/50 custody and her earning more than him and her receiving all the benefits and her having a second household income from her new bloke, he still had to pay her money.

That's not the law so he was doing it optionally or he was telling you porkies

There are occasions when mothers don't want the fathers to have the children and it's generally because:

1. They don't trust the father to look after the children properly. Or the father is abusive.

2. They have poorly paid jobs and need child support money.

Generally, a woman has a poorly paid job because

a) Women traditionally go into badly paid jobs
b) They may have given up better paid jobs to be at home with the children.

Both these issues are because of our patriarchal society.

There are then a handful of women who aren't actually very nice and it is the one bit of control that they have - to restrict a father's time with the children.

But, I observe 1) and 2) mostly.

How to pick the right man to have a child with - should be taught in school

That can happen. If the mother is resident parent. 50 50 is not the same as 'shared care'.

There should be presumption of minimum income. Unless someone is actually unable to work, they should be able to pay maintenance based on a full-time minimum wage job.

Things like a parent becoming a sahp and living off a new spouses income, off of savings, or inheritance, simply not be allowed. If someone voluntarily leaves the workforce, they should have to plan for how to continue maintenance payments without the previous income. If they can’t afford to do that, they can’t afford to stop working.