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?!

The calculator is how many nights each parent has the children. So if he were truly 50/50 he wouldn't have to pay and that would be honoured in court

at one point I was paying £14k a year for childcare while XP paid £240 pcm "maintenance".

I was punished for keeping working - chilcare was seen as entirely my responsibility though both parents were working, as they lived with me.

Its entirely overlooked by our laws & provisions.

You can’t legislate but it really needs to recognised that many men don’t really want or are completely indifferent to having children …they just don’t have a spine so go along with it or allow themselves to get cajoled into it…..then they walk out when reality sets in, it gets a bit tough or they are, shock horror, asked to actually contribute to parenting….and the ones that say they do want kids? What most of them actually mean is they want kids but only if the woman does all the work, so they too walk out when it’s gets hard or they’re asked to contribute. It’s rare to find a man that actually, truly wants to be a fully active and involved father in all ways, including financially supporting them.

If women want kids they really need to think about themselves (like men do), and their future kids and prepare for having them properly. That means having difficult conversations, setting out and agreeing expectations and division of labour before getting pregnant, planning for future financial security, saving for childcare costs and tbh planning what/how things will be managed when it inevitably goes tits up. It sounds cynical but that’s how you need to view things nowadays unfortunately. What is your plan B when the feckless twat has finally shown himself and decides to abandon his kids? You have to expect that to happen now and plan accordingly imo.

It saddens me that this has become acceptable, that families and friends know these shirker fathers yet say nothing….these men are not held accountable…..my ex payed the minimum amount through CSA for as long as he was legally obliged to and nothing more, despite me juggling working as a nurse and being the primary carer for our Autistic son with learning disabilities….he always earned more, and has always had more…which is why we are in a 2 bedroom flat and he’s in a 5 bedroom house and moved hours away to be with someone else so that he couldn’t help with childcare….it makes me so angry….I am no Katie Price fan, but all the stuff that has been written about her and Harvey over the years….why did nobody come out in the media regarding his father, a well known footballer at the time, never acknowledging him or supporting him? How is this allowed to happen still??

If men don't want kids and don't want to use condoms they are free to have a vasectomy which can be reversed if they ever change their mind. Abortion is not a form of contraception. If they don't want a vasectomy they'd better be prepared to pay up or do 50% care

In theory yes but in reality they lie.

I was married over 10 years before we had kids...he was desperate to have them and went for IVF. We waited until we were financially secure and I had a good career. There was nothing else I could have done to protect myself. Turns out the sleepless nights were too much hassle and that's when the dv started.

He's been absent now for years and I had to take him to court for child support and the dv. My career ruined, savings gone and he gets off Scott free. My friendship group are all the same. Well educated, successful women who have been forced to pick up the slack for deadbeat fathers.

Men need to be held to account and it won't happen until the rules aren't designed by the patriarchy themselves.

You can do everything right in picking a partner / father for your child.
They can still just fuck off when they feel something better has come along.
they probably wanted the kids at the time

What about when women abandon their men, and then want to force men to pay for their choices?

I totally agree that it's irresponsible to have kids with no financial plan in place at all. I also agree having £10k in savings is a fantastic buffer, albeit I understand that not everyone is able to do this and a "more likely healthy pregnancy younger" is potentially better than a "less likely healthy pregnancy delayed whilst I save £10k".

However, what you specifically said was that you think it's irresponsible to not have enough savings to cover 7 YEARS of your child's life, before having children. Per my previous post, that is hugely more than £10k!! In fact, the quoted study found £10k wouldn't even cover one year of costs unless your child is already over 5yrs old. And as a PP has pointed out, if you're married your assets are divided up if you divorce!

What about them? The only relevant choice is the one made 9 months before the baby arrived. His opt out is a condom.

What about the father, who would like his children to stay with him 50% of the time, but because they don't want to has to pay far more.

As long as you see it as paying for women's choices and not for their own children, you'll have nothing to contribute to this discussion.

If he had them 50/50 he wouldn't have to pay. If he doesn't have them 50/50 its probably because he never did half the parenting in the first place. Too many men only decide they want to be daddy when they have to alternative is to pay up.

Sorry, the poster I was responding to said men should be forced to pay when they abandon their families. What about the men who don't abandon their families, have no intention of abandoning their families, but their wife/partner leaves them. Or are they just the bastard because they have a penis, and should be forced to pay every penny they earn anyway?

Of course they still have to pay. Or do half of everything. Why on earth wouldn't they?

Agree @Notaflippinclue How to spot red flags, how to behave as a person of value (regardless of where you come from or what your job is), how not to be love-bombed, how to let someone show you their values. I could have done with lessons in all of those things.

That combined with household finances or home economics as it was back in the dark ages, basic meal prep, home DIY and maintenance and first aid. All of those things would be infinitely more useful than the history of the Tudors, quadratic equations, the urban development of Lagos and so on. I'm not saying don't include all the academic subjects but what the fuck is the point of an education if you can't deal with the basic business of living every day life!

I would also advocate a massive improvement in value and recognition given to parents. If parents were valued and considered to be doing an important job - men would be all over it!

That does happen. It has happened to my current (male) partner. But it is rare. And, the reason could be because the ex has a very low paid job and needs all the child support that she can get. But, why does she have a low paid job? Because society allows women to be paid so poorly. Although, she does seem very odd tbh! But, once the children turn 18, my partner won't have to pay anything to her. Most of us are still supporting children past 18.

I think that doing 50% of the care is not necessarily cheaper than being a NRP and 'paying up', as this involves either paying 50% of the incredibly expensive childcare to be able to work full-time or making career sacrifices that influence earning power now and in the future. It's a reality that many single working parents have to make while their NR ex partner gets away with paying a fraction of the actual cost of bringing up the child while enjoying the opportunity to work as much as they like. A big factor in this are the childcare costs that are horrendously expensive in this country. I do think the government have a responsibility to do something about this. Sorry if this is repeating previous messages that I didn't read, but a point worth repeating anyway.

Often they don't get a choice in any of the decisions; it's just assumed that women will be the resident parent / primary carer / whatever the term is these days, and no matter what men want they don't get a say.

He was very much a hands on dad. The money he paid her allowed her to continue doing the minimum amount of hours although the children were teenagers.

I'm not sure that is necessarily the case anymore. My divorce was 5 years ago and I was told that the default assumption in the courts is 50/50 now, unless of course the parents come to a different arrangement. I'm sure that courts look at the children's needs etc, so may not go for 50/50 if this is deemed not to meet the children's needs.

1. They are never made to pay "every penny they earn".

2. Nobody has called separated men bastards, although someone has called separated mothers bitches.

3. If they have no intention of abandoning their families and are so dedicated, they will pay the financial support and won't complain about it or imagine it to be "every penny they earn" when it quite patently isn't.

What I'm seeing here is the ongoing trend here for men to complain about supporting their own kids, with an attempt to veil it in a fig leaf of pretending that it's the separation that's wounding them emotionally and they're such dedicated dads. Nobody is fooled.

I hear you, but over half of children are now born into unmarried households, so there wouldn't be any divorce or court involvement.

I don't think that's true at all. It's funny how some men seem to think they are oh so hands on, but he moves out and the ex and kids manage just fine without him. It's obvious that lots of men, separated or otherwise, have little understanding of what it means to be the primary parent.

Thanks, yes I understand. But couldn't even unmarried fathers go to court to have access (if they are on the birth certificate)?