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?!

Except going to court for more contact. And of course, more kids didn't help his finances or time constraints did they? Shouldn't be having second families if they can't manage the first.

That's not unsupervised then, if you can see and/or hear the child. My example was taking a shower or cooking dinner. The child is not going to want to stay in the kitchen while you cook, so there will be tantrums. Another example would be when your washing machine is in the basement, as it is in most North American homes. So would you carry the child down with you, as well as carrying the washing basket? Think about it.
If you have a small apartment it could be possible to do most household chores while still supervising a toddler. In a larger, two story home? No way.

So? Different kids have different needs. Some people economize better than others. Your personal experience can't be extrapolated into a general claim.

Yes court worked wonders. Couldn't forse mum not to move and count remove children from mum. So what the hell can you do. Keep going back to court and spending money ?

So mums get to have, affairs and second families but Dad has to just pau maintenance have no say and stay alone forever.

We managed and paid and never complained but making out that he is scum because he didn't hand over 100% of his wage isn't acceptable. He paid fair maintenance, he paid extra and provided for the children in full under our roof.

My parents separated whilst my mum was being treated for breast cancer. He felt that her having a mastectomy made her less of a woman so got a girlfriend.
Dad was self employed. Mum had been previously doing the booking keeping and some admin for the business so lost her job.
He gave us next to nothing but did give us something.
I had to get a part time job to help support mum, younger sister and I.
It was awful but we managed.
Dad then got cancer and died.
Absolutely nothing was set aside to help bring up my sister who was still in primary school.
Mum obviously couldn't apply for widow pension but in terms of extra benefits we were really struggling then. I was a student and it was unbelievably hard.
My mum was a hero for managing throughout everything.

If different kids have different needs why is this thread saying all NRP should pay a set amount regardless of what they earn?

Sorry in advance as I’m not the person you were replying to.

Ours have always stayed in the kitchen while we cooked, no tantrums, our washing machine is currently in our basement, if I’m home alone I carry our daughter and the washing basket, if I’m not in a rush she does the stairs on her own while I’m in front of her, if she asks nicely she gets a lift down in the washing basket. If I’m home alone and want a shower she just comes with me. When I was a lone parent to my son there wasn’t any household work I couldn’t do with him there. Where you live is it normal to just leave toddlers alone in playpens?

I am not responsible for what other people say. It should be tailored to the needs of the child. A disabled child, for example, would cost more.

Of course super dad has a toddler who never tantrums.

Understandable but my comments was in response to comments to that effect. Which is why it was relevent

"Where you live is it normal to just leave toddlers alone in playpens?"

We had one for our eldest and it was very handy when he was 12-24 months and needed a safe place to put him - e.g. taking a dump. I don't really have a problem with playpens, but i guess it depends on how long you leave kids alone in them.

You clearly are a man. Very nasty man.

You carry a two year old in a full washing basket down the basement stairs? You must be the Incredible Hulk. There's no way that's safe either. One false step is all it would take.
You take a two year old in the shower with you? Also dangerous. They can easily slip and hit their heads.
Your kid never had tantrums if she was made to stay in a room she didn't want to be in? Congrats. You have the most well behaved kid in the history of the world.

Nothing personal, but in order to believe this is feasible I would have to assume the child was a wind-up doll who weighed all of ten pounds and with a skull made of titanium. What you describe is even more risky than leaving a child unsupervised.

😄 The story just keeps getting crazier with each post.

You are right OP, the system is a disgrace.

As others have said, it’s the high cost of living and childcare that makes the UK so expensive. Setting a minimum cost per child in various circumstances might work, and each parent pays half, regardless of who has custody. Then pursue vigorously at source, ie through the tax code system.

A very unpopular opinion but I think we need to judge parents who don’t step up to pay 50% much harder. They get away with it and claim their partner is “toxic” or makes it hard to see the kids. Ultimately it’s the resident parent or tax payer that picks up the tab.

What? Who is having children “Willy nilly” here for which a deterrent works? Women? Am I just misunderstanding your comment.

That sounds great.

I'm not sure how much you think he should be paying, but ~15% of his net income doesn't seem that bad.

50% of the costs of housing, feeding, clothing the child, school trips and childcare and a decent amount of extracurricular activities, birthday and Christmas presents, days out efc. 50% of the cost of raising a child. Why would any less be acceptable?

Yes, suspending driving licences, and also passports. If you can't afford to raise your children properly then you can't afford trips abroad so would have no need for one.

And similar penalities applied as for non-payment of tax - large fines or if repeated offences imprisonment.

It should be treated in a criminal manner.

Or... the money he paid supported his children and the sacrifices she made allowed her to work less hours. Unless he paid more in maintenance than it cost to raise the kids, which is highly unlikely, he isn't subsidising her lifestyle.

She may have got lots of top up benefits by working less hours so not doing so due to sacrifices

Both parents have housing cost, birthday and Christmas costs and cost of days out. Both provide clothing, toiletries and food while the children are with them
The additional cost is towards the extra time spent with the RP compared to NRP. If the split is 2 : 5 then the extra cost is 3 more days food and share of bills (heating etc)
If the split is 3:4 then the difference is one day and so the amount is adjusted accordingly.

The issue is when the NRP opts out of any day to day care. Then the figures don't add up

Maybe, but either way it wasn't down to the fact that the kids dad deigned to pay some maintenance.

In theory my kids see their dad 2/7 days and that's the rate of maintenance he pays. Except they don't - they see him for chunks of time in the school holidays that just barely scrapes over the line into the 2/7 category. He hasn't bought them shoes or coats for years as they just sat there getting too small. They have a few clothes at his but generally prefer the stuff they have chosen and are used to wearing at mine. I have just pretty much kitted them out for the holiday he is taking them on. I pay for their hobbies, phone contracts, laptops, uniform, trips, pocket money (which they spend on days out with him as he won't pay their entry to a fun activity) . I'm about to pay for a gym membership for DS. The reduction he gets for these nights implies that he has them 2 nights a week. If that were true the above would be more fairly split as he'd be right there in the mix. I should add this arrangement was his choice, not mine. The no of nights is a terrible way of calculating what is owed - I said this pages ago that actually you need bespoke calculations and a more nuanced system backed up with sufficient well trained staff to administer it.

It is allowed to continue because more people post on here about it than contact their government representatives. There are 400 replies to this post - how many have written to their MP or to the Minister for Women and Equalities?

Why do women have to jump through hoops to claim it anyway? Why can't the onus be on the man to declare it to the employer so that money is taken at source (with penalties for not declaring to his employer that he has non-resident children?)

If anyone wants to change things, write to the minister for women and equalities:
www.gov.uk/government/ministers/minister-for-women-and-equalities--3