To be shocked that the resident parent has to foot the nursery bill?

[Inkap]

What is the rationale behind this other than further and continued abuse of women?

It quite literally puts some single mothers into poverty or at the least very difficult circumstances when they cannot afford to stay in a job.

What the fuck is wrong with this country?

You question makes no sense.

Totally agree. The whole child maintenance system is shocking and massively disadvantages the resident parent (usually the woman). As well as having to pay for all childcare, many women often end up with nothing as men go self employed and CMS do nothing to chase payment.

It’s patently sexist and unfair that only one parent has to pay to work, and is the natural extension of the antediluvian idea that men’s careers are primary and women can only work if they sort out childcare.

Unfortunately your responses to this thread will be skewed by defensive second wives and stepmothers who are aggressively determined that their Nigel won’t be paying a penny over the CMS minimum requirement.

You don't "choose", you need childcare to work. Each parent should be paying 50%, which maintenance does not cover.

Haven't read the whole thread - but even splitting childcare costs equally between parents still leaves the resident parent at a disadvantage - they'd still be putting in a hell of a lot more time, energy and money than the non-resident one ...

A completely fucked-up system and nobody bats an eyelid - i.e. we've become totally conditioned to accept this kind of crap as 'normal' - laws, rules and regulations implemented by (mostly) men ....

There’s usually more than one provider of childcare so choose means picking a provider not choosing to work.

Nursery and wrap around childcare costs should be paid in addition to maintenance IMO. My DH paid nursery costs for 2 years with no contribution from their mother (she paid no CM either) and 6 years (and counting) of wrap around care for their 2 kids.

It's financial abuse of the resident parent. My brother gets just as much of a raw deal despite his ownership of a penis.

Well yes it does, that was the point of the OP. You may have a choice between expensive childcare or very expensive childcare, you still need an option to work.

50% of the child’s costs surely?

I think OP was referring to "this country", as in the society we live in. It wasn't an invitation for snarky comments about her ex-partner.

Non-parent so this is just wild to me. It’s weird that the resident parent is saddled with so much of the cost of child rearing.

If the other parent does not want to pay towards childcare then they should be offering other ways of helping to other parent to continue to work.

@Inkap completely agree with you.
the non resident parent wouldn’t be able to work their job without the childcare so they should pay half.

also research shows it’s in the child’s best interest to have continuity so you wouldn’t want both parents sending the child to different childcare facilities on alternate weeks etc.

How is childcare the mother’s cost? It’s a cost for the child. Unless what is the father proposing if he does not want childcare while he and his ex are at work?

@TheHerboriste your opening sentence is… ‘this is why women should…’

No. Women shouldn’t have to do anything! MEN should just simply pay half their child’s costs.

Changing the law is the answer, not blaming women for men’s failures.

Maybe the other parent who is also going to work and needs childcare? Or did you think the responsibilities of having a child all fall to the mother whereas men should just have rights?

I'm one of several single mums in my professional setting. Every single one of us would happily do 50/50 and every single one of the dads does 2/4 nights a month or less. This has been done to death on here and is always going to descend into anecdata but it is simply not the case that most mums don't want 50/50. What often really happens though, is that the man says 50/50, technically has them for 7/14 nights but somehow the mum still does wraparound on his days and drops the kids off, fed and bathed ready for bed with all the uniform and lunch and permission slips and book day costume sorted. . It's a piss take.

@PrettyDetails the father of my child earns close to 150k and I work because I enjoy it. We have zero money worries and are very fortunate.

But … I have a best friend who confided in me that her ex is refusing to see her DS or pay for his childcare. This is meaning she is weighing up whether she can even work. I think this is utterly appalling and I’m not so naive as to think it hasn’t happened to me because I chose well in DH. Anything could happen to him or to our relationship. You’d do well to have a bit more self awareness and empathy for others. Particularly women.

There are plenty of times we make decisions set against tonnes of variables. I agree @Inkap you having the kids whilst he works means he can work. If you want to work then he contributes to childcare its not about who the kids live with but facilitating the family as whole otherwise the resident parent needs to go on benefits because you can't work. How's that good for anyone?

Can you challenge this?

So many stupid rules that disadvantage women and dont get me started on equal retirement ages, how can a pay gap of 15-25% equal retiring at the same age?!

Surely the clincher here is whether you were married? If you were you could claim these costs in the divorce proceedings and ensure they are paid for, either as ongoing agreement or in retrospect via a settlement amount or shares in the house/pension etc. its where marriage comes in handy but being unmarried means the NRP can fly off into the sunset without a backwards glance.

CMS is too low and too easy to evade, particularly for self-employed parents. pension scheme and other voluntary contributions should not reduce income for the CMS calculation (resident parents don't get to prioritize retirement savings over providing basic care for their children now after all). CMS for children below school age should be at a higher rate to account for childcare costs (both direct costs and the cost to resident parents who reduce work hours to care for children). For children below school age work days should also be weighted heavier than weekend days for CMS calculation purposes so that parents who have mostly or all weekend care pay more to offset childcare costs. And as a society we should absolutely be helping parents more with childcare costs.

But having NRPs pay half of childcare directly isn't an option without them also having an equal say in choosing that childcare, and that will be a net negative for the resident parent and children in far too many cases.

They could do, but most women argue for the lions share of custody/residency, they dont want 50/50 or god forbid for the father to have main custody. Most women fight against. Sometimes theres good reason for that, other times there might not be.

The trouble is, what happens if one parent makes the effort to structure their work & use family etc to reduce costs during their time, and the other doesn't?

i agree a lot do this, but honestly there are a lot of dads who also genuinely do 50:50 or have the kids more. I come accross loads in my line of work as a teacher and my DP has always had his kids 50:50 (more in actual fact but officially that on paper). Today he did the school runs for all of our kids, made dinner, took the eldest two to ice-skating lessons and is currently finishing reading them stories. He’s paid for all their music lessons and sports lessons, pays for a maths tutor for the eldest and does all the dentists trips and doctors appointments too. Good dads do 50:50 properly.