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?

Are there really some people who think 'well the government top up with 80%, or UC, or DLA for kids' actually excuses the NRP from sharing the costs of their flesh & blood?
The current system is not geared up to benefit the RP (usually a woman) regardless of why her relationship has broken down.
I'm disgusted by the 'well you picked a shit dad for your kids' comments too.
I hope you don't develop vertigo up there in your ivory towers.

It's nothing to do with women per se. It's the resident parent ( of either sex) that is affected

Yes this.

The resident parent is the mother in the vast majority of cases though. And if they can’t afford childcare the state pays.

Well the answer to this is true 50:50 custody and each pay for any child are they need. In reality that doesn’t often happen but often UC will pay 85% of childcare costs.

And I should imagine they choose to be the resident parent in many cases. Nothing stopping them leaving the kids with their dad

Well, this thread makes for depressing reading.. I personally don't see what's so controversial around 'each parent pays half' argument. The RP needs to work and the NRP is only able to work as the DC are with the RP.

The number of posters on this thread spouting 'but benefits', 'but you get to choose the provider', 'but you chose a shit partner', 'but happens to men too', 'but you clearly did something to deserve being shat on from a great height', should really look at how blinded they are to the inequity in this wonderful society of ours.

85% of lone-parent families in the UK are headed by a mother. Women are disproportionately impacted by a shit child maintenance system and attitudes like many on this thread... and yet there will always be lots of voices, shouting for the status quo, tying themselves into knots to claim its fair, just suck it up buttercup... just depressing!

Who do you think would be responsible for paying for it in another country?

Well, if you want to bring up the "working", here it goes.

If derelict daddy doesn't want to pay half of childcare, then derelict daddy should have to pay spousal maintenance until HIS child goes to school. Then it doesn't become, "the one who needs childcare pays for it". Which, by the way, is about the stupidest thing I can imagine, which is why men love the idea.

Both should pay equally and at an accredited childcare facility, not some drunk old aunt of a cousin's brother's best friend's neighbor.

Er..except the dads refuse to have them. Of course every situation is different but do you really think 85% of single parents are women because we're so good at winning our own way from a patriarchal society? Or could it be because many many men see buggering off and leaving children behind as a viable option and most women don't..and our society backs up this view. Women who dumped their kids and saw them a couple of times a month and paid a pittance towards them would be vilified. Men are "great dads" if they do likewise. Women in here are told they are lucky if they get the bare minimum CMS. Utterly depressing.

I've read enough threads here to be able to say with certainty, not many of the ones posted about here are capable of watching a child 50% of the time.

I mean, when would they have time to be at the pub "with the boys", go to matches, get drunk after (during) and other such "manly" endeavors?

I would guess that 75% of divorces are because a man still wants to do single man activities whilst married. The woman might start the procedure, but it's the man's behavior that is a catalyst.

The issues are deeply entrenched and include the gender pay gap, gender expectations etc… it’s not a single issue. Everything together adds up to women getting a shit deal compared to men.

Largely I agree but we do need to recognise that there is not an equal choice in having children. In cases where two people equally chose to make and have a child then of course both parents should contribute equally. But women do get the final say as to whether to continue a pregnancy in the case of an accident. Yes, men should also bear this burden and be responsible for protection etc but I do think if you are choosing to have a child with someone who did not intend to have one with you and is clear that they don’t want to have them, it’s unreasonable to expect them to contribute more than the bare minimum. Good men will do so anyway, others won’t. It is important that we consider the child when we consider who to have a baby with. There should also be other ways for young women to get their own accommodation without extortionate deposits etc because it’s set up that women from more deprived backgrounds can see children as a way to get out of their current environment (understandably).
It’s not fair to women or single parents and parents should be held to account for their kids but trust me, if women can avoid paying for their kids, they do too, it’s just a lot easier for men to walk away. My DSS’ mum hasn’t paid a penny for his care since he moved to live with us nearly four years ago and is now having her fourth baby with her fourth dad who didn’t want a baby and she isn’t in a relationship with. Yes they clearly should have known better but that’s also not okay.
I don’t think anyone should have a child that they aren’t ready to take on and support on their own as you can never know what life will bring.

But their is nothing stopping women doing such. If men can just bugger off then women can do the same. Most of them choose not to. Whether it's because it's what they want or whether they are scared of being vilified by society they still make that choice

And I've been a single parent the majority of my life When I had the 3rd child ( different dad than my eldest 2) I made it perfectly clear that id only continue with the pregnancy if he did the majority of child staff and if we split up HE was the one who would be having the child the majority of the time

Now you are just being dense for the sake of it. Childcare facilities have spots for children. Not ones that are used half the time.

But, I can imagine derelict, worthless, immature fathers wanting cheap childcare so they have more money to spend on booze, strip clubs, holidays with the boys and football. Boys need their toys and all that. Amirite?

And higher paid parents don’t get any UC subsidy. Explain to me again why the resident parent should pay the entirety of the childcare that enables BOTH parents to work? Maybe they should just drop their kid off at the NRP’s doorstep every morning instead?

And @UndermyShoeJoe you are so unbelievably deluded if you think most non resident parents have relatives happy to do full time childcare or cheap nurseries around the corner (you know that a) cheap nurseries don’t exist and b) it’s a nightmare trying to actually get any nursery place at all right?!) The argument that the RP parent should pay because they are being precious about selecting “the best” expensive nursery and wouldn’t be happy with their ex’s options is just so so laughable. I would bloody love my ex to come up with a cheap childcare option for us, let alone actually pay for half of it! The system is an utter joke.

To simplify for you then, what is your alternative suggestion?

Both parents are entitled to access to the workplace and therefore both parents should pay for childcare if they work.

So many men who earn a good wage and refuse to support their own dc, they're a disgrace. Amazing how a student loan repayment can so easily be attached to tax. It’s time that benefits given to single parents were attached to the absent parents tax bill in a similar manner.
18 to 21 year olds can’t have free education but parents can create dgc and then clear off and leave the state to raise them.
It’s always bloody men too.

UC subsidises some childcare costs but you could still have a system that has the NRP pay 50% of the balance.

You could also have a system where the government pays the NRP’s share and the NRP pays the government back. It might make people think harder about whether or not to have more kids with the new partners. (That’s men and women )

Agree it’s shocking and outrageous in 2025.
ill believe a government wants equality when they reform completely the CMS and make absent parents forcibly pay maintenance and half of childcare costs before school age. They should be paying it whoever looks after their child!!! Parent, grandparent, nursery or childminder. A set universal amount should be paid by the non resident parent and then it topped up by the state so the resident parent is not shouldering all the costs.

That’s an issue between you and your erstwhile partner, no?
It’s not the fault of society in general or “this country” in particular.

As others have said the only way around it is a 50:50 “time with” split leaving both parents responsible for childcare when the children are in their care which most mothers on MN don’t seem to want. As someone who has worked extensively in family law I don’t agree with England’s “resident parent” system as I feel it sets up a significant/less significant parent dynamic BUT the only way 50:50 has any chance of meeting the needs of the children is if both parents are amicable, live relatively close to each other and work hard to ensure they co-parent well which often doesn’t happen. I have seen both mums and dads behave appallingly but men often do use money as power. I would love to have the answer, I quit in the end as it got too depressing.

Courts exist, if fathers want 50/50, they can get it in most cases

It doesn't surprise me, €50 euro per week is lucky for many single mothers, many get less.

America has the right idea chasing down non paying fathers, fines, prison, driving licence removal.

Low income workers can claim childcare benefits at least.

So the knee-jerk solution is always that the parent left doing everything must be on a low enough wage to get UC, subsidised childcare etc?! Some women have well-paying jobs until the point of a split and want to hold onto them - that means childcare! The child does have two parents so why shouldn’t the absent one contribute? In fact the child will do better if they have a mother (98% of the time the mother) in a well-paying job.

Childcare doesn’t just mean nursery. For most of us it goes on for many years more -
before and after school clubs, holiday clubs, au pairs or nannies. Often all of these needed at some stage if you want to provide a comfortable existence.