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?!

There's a lot there that you're not accounting for. How are you managing to have no childcare costs with 2 primary aged children?

I teach teens. They actually do need tech. They will be at a massive disadvantage without access to the online study resources that exist and unless you are planning on having them isolated socially at the very least they need a brick phone. I am not at all one for caving to "but everyone has one" and mine don't care about cool brands or iphones but even a 2nd hand android is £1-200 plus a data plan each and a laptop for school (around £300-400 each). Mine absolutely understand that they can't have everything they ask for and my DS in particular is hugely frustrated that he cannot progress in his chosen sport because it is literally thousands that I don't have, but yes I do get into debt to give them what I can. Childhood is pretty short. Believe me when I say we are not jetting off on expensive holidays but with weeks and weeks of empty days to fill, with teens, its expensive unless you want to just let them veg in their rooms. If yours are younger you have no idea. Oh- plus food. Mine do nothing but eat now. My weekly shop used to be about £40. Now its £100, especially in holiday time. So yes, its pretty galling when my ex gets to ringfence 85% of his salary (which is slightly more than mine and he shares his household expenses with another working adult).

My wife only works two days a week and we don't have childcare costs for those days.

I appreciate that's different for most single parents and i agree that NRP should pay half of childcare costs (so long as the RP is actually working on those days and not just kicking back at home).

The NRP income was limited too as when they lived here he did half the school pick up drop offs and when they moved he had to alter hours to still do some pick up and drop off.

£225 per child x 2 plus any child related benefits. Surely the mother is also meant to pay her share

Well there you go then. You've not accounting for all the income she forgoes. How disingenuous of you to neglect to account for her unpaid labour.

Our son is 9, so he just walks home from school, he could do after school club if he needed it, this is at no additional cost. Our daughter is signed up for full time nursery, usually we just use it twice a week as we both work part time, full time childcare costs £89 per month.

Sorry, I misread that quote and thought it said that a lot of contributors weren’t mentioning childcare costs.

where are you that childcare costs £89 pm? In the UK you add a zero to that. Also depending on where you live, a 9 year old walking home isn't going to be feasible (I do realise that is VERY situation dependent)

Sweden, when we lived in the UK we were paying about £160 per week for our two days, unless they had any optional activity days that were sometimes a few pounds more.

Again. Those are hypothetical costs.

This tangent was started by somebody posting that the average cost per month of raising a child was £950-£1050 p/m. I immediately stated that the figure was high due to being skewed by childcare, etc.

There are loads of women on Mumsnet that openly state that they only do two days a week so as to maximise UC. There was a recent thread where somebody pointed out that there was no real point in working because a single parent on £35k had the same disposable income as somebody on £90k when all the benefits such as free childcare hours and child benefit were taken into account.

A single RP would qualify for all those benefits, which you're failing to take that into account with your 'gotcha' regarding my wife working part time.

Just to add to that, given how generous the UK benefits system is to part-time single parents, and that child maintenance doesn't impact benefits, is 15% of NET income really that bad?

I'm obviously talking about people that honestly declare their earnings, rather than people paying 50p a week.

That's an actual cost to your wife. Your wife's foregone wages and unpaid childcare is not "hypothetical". The fact that you didn't even consider it as part of your budget, is proving the point. The invisible work that women do only increases when they are single mothers.

Invisible work. 🙄

The only way you can really make your argument work is to suggest that a woman that chooses to work part-time (and i suspect has no real intention of ever working full-time again) is somehow being oppressed and is unappreciated.

To be honest, I'd love to opt out of full-time work and chill at home with the kids. Strangely, as a member of the evil patriarchy, that was never an option - nor was arranging to swap six months paternity leave for six months of my wife's maternity leave (despite my company paying 12 months at 90% and my wife's only paying statutory for the final six months!)

I'm fully aware of her lost earnings, but she seems more than happy with the current situation and appears to be manoeuvring for a 'career change' 😉.

But again, these are all hypotheticals vs the actual costs of raising our children. There's no way that the average family is spending £24k on their kids each year. That's £40k of earnings for a 40% taxpayer or £34k for a basic rate taxpayer.

Doubling down on why think 3 days of childcare has no value or cost is not a good look.
Why can't you take a day off? You can obviously afford it since your kids cost you so little.

As a couple they can make a decision that works for them as a family.
What a family decides to do is entirely up to them (both work full time, both work part time, one work full time and one stay home, one work full time and one work part time and any other combination)
It's their choice
When a relationship breaks down each party decides for themselves
You can't insist your ex works full time or part time that is up to them (regardless of.if its male or female)

What ever income you had as a family will also be less on both sides as expenses double with having to run 3 homes so the reality is that if you separate both the parents will be worse off.

Of course. The point is that the mother is more than likely covering way more than half the costs, and it should be the nrp NOT the taxpayer who are covering the other half. If nrps were made to fully cover half the cost of their kids it would save the government a lot, so why is it a large amount are left to walk away paying bare minimum if anything and let the state pick up the pieces?

It is their choice, yes. But men should not be so dismissive of women's contributions. You cannot say kids "only cost £6k" when in actual fact they are costing whatever his wife would have made at work or whatever nursery would have cost. He had previously announced to us all that he was to look after his kids on Thursday, but not one has he mentioned that his wife does it 3 times a week every week.
It is also disingenuous of men to blame the patriarchy (do they not what it means?) for they can't (wont) go part time when they can evidently afford to.
We are getting off topic a bit here, but it's just another example of how men don't actually appreciate what it means to be the primary parent.
This is a man who previously stated that his wife "contributes". Really sounds like she actually does most of it, plus earns proportionately more. Who is really "contributing" in that household?

Great, still irrelevant. This post is not about nrp who are paying their way and looking after their kids. Its about the ones who are walking away from their responsibilities, snd whether/how they should be made to provide for their kids.

You're making huge assumptions based upon your 'all men are evil' prejudices.

Lost earnings would only apply if my wife wanted to work, but couldn't due to childcare responsibilities. She doesn't want to work. There's a big difference, so her lost earnings are just hypothetical.

I look after my kids and i know what's involved. As somebody said up thread, there's never, ever, a day off from being a parent. I really felt that during the first two years of being a parent combined with COVID. My wife is a key worker and she returned to work part time and i had to work from home and look after our eldest son during the lockdowns - and no i couldn't just take time off. Last week, our kids didn't see their mother between Wednesday evening and Saturday morning due to her work commitments. I did full parenting for those two days. I know the women of Mumsnet love to make out it's just impossible for useless men to do, due to all that 'mental load', but don't bullshit a bullshiter, it's really not that hard once the kids are 2+ years old.

I'm sure there are some men that leave everything 100% up to their wives and they wouldn't be able to cope on their own. Those men are either working crazy hours to provide for their families and have an agreement that that's the way things are or they're arseholes. Through our NCT group, I'd say that i do know one of those arseholes. He's an exception, though. All the other dads in the group are hands on and regularly care for their kids when the mums book weekends away, etc.

Yes, definitely it's my prejudices. You, a man, couldn't possibly be wrong.

There you go again. 🙄

So let’s get this straight. We’ve got men, from two-income households, who have NEVER ever been a single parent and have no authority on the subject of bringing up children ALONE telling us:

a) Our lived experiences are bollocks.
b) Our extortionate childcare costs were/are “hypothetical”.
c) Children over the age of 2 are EASY(!!) to raise single-handedly, despite this poster’s only experience being a few hours a day when his wife was working - and even then for only a few days at a time. And never having to deal with a suicidal teen, or two teens that eat you out of house and home, or an autistic 12 year old that’s school refusing, or all of the above plus having to work 9-5.30 then pick up the kids and take them home, feed them, do homework, and get them to bed before you can even begin the housework - every day, forever.
d) Children are CHEAP to raise - if you live in Scandinavia where childcare costs tuppence ha’penny per month, or you deprive your children of the means to complete their schoolwork and dress them from charity shops and never take them for days out.
e) that 15% of a father’s is plenty if the state make up the rest in UC. So a man’s kids are the responsibility of the taxpayer, not the man.

But this post isn't about couples or those who separate and pay for their kids/have them 50/50 so none of what you are saying is in any way relevant to the circumstances of a single parent who's ex isn't paying for their child is it?

Considering you think the mental load is crap and you can just chill at home with kids because they aren't a bother past the age of 2, I would say you are one of those arsehole dad's, the worst kind actually because you seem to want a medal for doing less than the minimum for your own kids.

Inserting yourself into a conversation that isn't even remotely relevant to your situation and then telling women, who are in the situation, that they are wrong, further confirms your status.

The literal definition of a mediocre man, who thinks he's above average (and starts typing out a tedious word salad to 'prove it').