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?

If the child is in nursery 5 full days a week every week of the year and getting no funded hours, and nursery is £70 a day, then that's £1516, so £1014.63 is still covering most of it.

Unless you have twins, you are unlikely to have two children getting no funded hours at the same time and many nurseries offer a sibling discount.

@PrettyDetails It’s very sad that you’re surprised someone fortunate can’t be angry on behalf of a wider injustice towards women. Do better - it could be you in a similar situation one day.

But we ARE responsible for the choices we make. Why should we not be?
Women choosing to have children with shit men, for whatever reason, isn't anyone elses fault.
Childcare costs should definitely be a consideration, depending on individual circumstances, available subsidies etc, and it is something that needs to be added/included in any orders in relation to the child/children. Not just another thing to fight over down the line in a, probably already, adversarial relationship.

I deal with this ( divorces) daily and yes you are pretty much right . It’s unfair . Child maintenance should be based on the child’s needs not others wages or lack of them at times .
Its very different in other countries where non residents still have to pay half of the childcare , health and education costs .

I took mine to court I felt so strongly about this. Now he has to provide/pay for childcare on his own days, pay half of all extra curricular activities, half of the passports, half of the uniforms and essentials we share. Then the child maintenance.

I wasn’t about to let him get away with mugging me off and forcing me into destitution.

All the disingenuous comments along the lines of 'who do you think should have to pay, the person who booked it!' are ridiculous.

Society needs to do better. It's tilted to punish women for being primary carers/single parents no matter the circumstances that got them there. Both parents should have to contribute to a sensible amount towards childcare hours per week enabling both parents to work if the primary weekday carer wants/needs to work. On top of maintenance.

In my country and jurisdiction it is done proportional to income. Both parents have to contribute. Typically the parents are supposed to agree on a care provider, but if things are acrimonious, a judge will grant decision making power to one party.

it’s absolutely crazy not to have both parents pay for child care. It’s the most expensive part of having a young child. Not having care keeps the residential parent in poverty and dependent on the government.

Oh do sod off with this. Plenty of single mums were married, in long term stable relationships with actually pretty decent men until an OW or a mid life crisis or the trenches of working family life or a combination of them upset the apple cart. The issue is the inequality in expectations after that point. There was an interesting article in the Times on Saturday which broke down the costs of child raising at different stages. Childcare is the factor that makes preschool kids the most expensive. You take that out at teenagers are. Only v high earning NRPs would be contributing half of the figures quoted and despite beliefs to the contrary, not all single mums get benefit or UC if they work a half decent professional job, so they end up with about 80% of the costs and all the work and the limitations on their own earning potential which the NRP does not have.

If you have a disabled child who needs 1to1 or 2 to 1 care it doesn't go far.
Also you forget that your wages are taken into account so you never actually get that.

I highly agree with this, but didn’t until my brother went through it (I am a single parent who doesn’t receive CMS).
My brothers 20 year relationship broke down, he had to rent a 2 bedroom house so his 3 children had a room - we live in an expensive part of the country. He earns 35k and pays £360 maintenance (2-3 nights per week).
He can’t do overtime because that’s when he has the children. He regularly uses food banks because he just doesn’t have enough money.
Unfortunately there are no winners - he couldn’t pay nursery fees if he had them. He can barely afford to feed them on his days and he can’t get cheaper accommodation. His rent alone is £1500, whereas his ex has a council flat.

Well sometimes it’s a matter of common sense.

If a woman chooses to have a child or multiple children with a man on minimum wage or thereabouts, then common sense should tell her that no, if they split up he’ll probably never be able to pay half their costs plus put a roof over his own head.

A woman on the same minimum wage or thereabouts will also not be paying half the true cost of bringing up her children either by the way; the government will be picking up the tab in terms of UC, housing benefit etc. The man on the other hand won’t be entitled to any of that so will have higher outgoings so yes, it’ll be harder for him to contribute 50/50.

Sometimes it’s not about failure but about not having enough money to go around in the first place.

My best friend's husband has three children from his first marriage, 2 now graduated adults and the youngest is at sixth form. He has remained very amicable with their mum , he didn't have them 50 50 , it wasn't so much the done thing then and they moved about an hour away (closer to the ex's family so he understood that), he was available every weekend they generally stayed every other but each had phases of every weekend, each had a particular sport they were into which he facilitated and travelled all over the country for, had them half the school holidays, was always flexible if their mum was going away with her second husband etc, even going to stay up there when they went on honeymoon so the children weren't disrupted. He always paid/pays above CMS, half of clubs, childcare, half of school uniforms, carried on supporting them through uni, guarantor for flat shares etc. He has a decent job but not loads especially by MN standards, their stepdad (also really nice guy who treats the children as his own) earns a vast salary and their mum also has a very good job out earning my friend's husband. He always said it took both of us to have them, we're both responsible.

I must admit when she first told me she was dating a man with an ex wife and 3 children I raised an eyebrow. I was wrong. His first wife, her husband and all of the children were at my friend's wedding. It just takes a mature and responsible approach.

Maintenance should be much much higher to ensure it is really like an actual obligation for half of reasonable costs of child. And done as a debt against the absent parent that is never forgotten and needs to be paid off like a consumer debt. It should affect their credit rating and it should be recoverable by bailiffs.

If their father contributed more, the taxpayer would pick up less

That’s not true - CMS isn’t means tested. You can claim full benefits and get hundred / thousands in CMS on top.

Under the current system yes, but if absent fathers were more financially accountable the state wouldn't have to step in and pay the balance.

If your child is disabled and needs care you should also be getting DLA and disabled child element of UC.

Do you mean the children the mother decided to have? having children is a choice and also realising when deciding to have children what implications that will have if you choose to have them and become a single parent, yes both parents should think carefully before having children but of course they dont

the world is not ideal but it is what it is so people have to work with that and make better choices

Both parents NEED childcare in order to work. However in many cases the dad has dumped the kids on the woman so does he have the right to say he longer no needs the childcare?
He only doesn't need it because the woman has the kids!
If she wants to work then she needs to take 5 days of childcare and pay?

Why?

I've understood that the idea is that the parent needing the childcare pays for it. If the non-resident parent doesn't need childcare then they don't have to contribute. The fees in the UK are ridiculous and it is such a shame that every other weekend dad can get away with paying fuckall.

Well I guess if fathers are made to pay 50% for the first lot of children they have then this would put off blended families so the next woman would not be able to afford child care if he is already paying for the first lot?

So?
If a man got a child and he cannot finance any more children, he should not gave more children.
There is no lack of humans in this world so no rason for blokes going around making babies they cannot pay for 50%.

It doesnt bother me I am not nor ever would chose to be in a blended family but I wonder how many on here would be ok if the man they chose to have children with was already paying 50% child care on the previous children? again not my problem I wouldn't chose to be in that situation in the first place

The non resident parents financial contribution is maintenance. Childcare for lower paid parents is subsidized. I say all this as a single mum - it’s completely impractical to get non resident parents to pay for childcare so resident parents can work. If we could actually enforce maintenance that would be something