Talk to me about single parents, maintenance and benefits payments

[Sherlockio]

I'm about to become a single Mum.
I have two friends who don't have children, but are married to men that have children from previous relationships. They believe that fathers have a rough deal and that single mothers are "very lucky" to be able to claim universal credit/child benefit and receive maintenance payments from fathers. That they are majorly financially better off than the fathers are.
There have already been a couple of remarks from these 'friends' when I've said that I want to remain in the family home and that I'm hoping that with my work, a little universal credit and maintenance payments, I may be able to manage this.
What do most people think? Is it true, that fathers end up with the rougher deal? That fathers have a rough deal if they have to pay maintenance? Do they end up worse off than single mothers who have most custody?
We will have shared custody of around 4.5/2.5.

It depends, on average men are better off 5 years after separation. I got no maintenance or benefits but was better off than my ex. My dp, paid alot of maintenance, paid the marital debts and gave his ex the family home so was worse off

Ex-husband would say I'm better off because he pays maintenance. In reality, his maintenance goes on the kids activities, school dinners, uniform, clothing, etc. However I can understand it looks like I'm doing well from it because the reality is I've had multiple promotions since the divorce.

I think it depends
Many men lose a large portion of assets in divorce ( often 60-80%) so have to ‘start again’
And are not able to claim benefits etc as these go to the mother who typically also gets majority of residency

As an aside, can you afford to buy out his share and pay for the mortgage and bills yourself ?

If I was being paid maintenance I would be able to give the children a much better life style. Activities and holidays etc.

As I havent seen a penny in over 2 years it is tight. I guess my ex feels hard done by as I stayed in the family home. The house was mine before I met him.

Although long term he is in a position to be much better off than me with his potential to earn much more than I could ever dream off. And a pension income on top of earnings I did that mum thing of working part time etc.

But I get by and I'm grateful for what I have.

My ex is better off than me. He can work as many hours as he wants. He moved a girlfriend in within a couple of months so all their living costs are shared. He pays me slightly more than I’m entitled to but I found out a while back that he had underpaid me for years when he was lying about how much he earned. (I found out when he got a new job and he complained about how much less he was getting). He occasionally gives me a bit extra but it has to be kept quiet as his OH can’t find out... make of that what you will.

My life revolves around my children. He has them one night a week and doesn’t drive. He lives ten miles away. Everything I do and spend centres on the children. He never has to concern himself with anything.

Following divorce and resolving the finances legally both parties are supposed to be left on an equal financial footing.
My reality is an ex who is a high earner who bought a house before we had settled the finances through court obviously using our joint assets.
Then went on to purchase a top of the range jaguar and another property for £600k whilst happily living the single life.
He spent the next 5 years continually tried to avoid paying child maintenence and the spousal maintenance I was awarded through the courts.
I had to downsize my home and to a much poorer area.
It was impossible to get back in to my former career and as a result whilst lucky to have a job the salary is much lower.
My pension built up from a teaching career years ago will be quite small and I expect I will have to work forever basically.
As we have no contact I have no idea of his current circumstances, nor am I interested. If karma hits I must admit I would like to know.
So no I do not agree that men end up with a rougher deal, certainly not in my case.

I earn more than my DDs dad and he pays me £33 a week. I left uni in order to have Dd whilst he stayed on and completed his degree, he should be earning more than me, Im undertaking a different degree now and working hard to improve my life choices whilst juggling childcare etc. I've taken on a career not the one I particularly want but the one that fits best with DD. He is childfree 6 days a week, and could earn more if he wanted to but he works retail for approx £15k, schools are crying out for teachers in his subject and he could easily earn double that after a PGCE year.

What I did benefit from was being eligible for a council flat and after an inheritance I was able to buy it outright so my housing costs are negligible whereas he had to rent somewhere which is obviously more expensive but so do all 20year olds that don't live with their parents.Yes I was eligible for tax credits at one stage which were massively helpful they covered living costs and maybe a couple of days out for DD, zoos etc, I earn too much now and not eligible for UC. Universal credit etc is such an insignificant amount nowadays that I can't see how anyone can think a nrp with greater earning potential due to not having to arrange childcare can be worse off.

Thanks all.
I feel like they are having digs at me.
Obviously they're also pissed off that their partners have to (quite rightly) pay maintenance. Both their partners have custody of their kids EOW and a night or 2 in the week for dinner when they don't have them at weekends.
They're naively not even considering the mums' loss of income through having to pay for childcare, do part-time work, or the huge hit on their pension contributions. It's made me really angry and they seem completely oblivious to the costs of having children.
I had begun to wonder if I was missing something regarding fathers and their struggles with paying maintenance. I kind of wish I was, as it means that continuing my friendships with these women through my separation is going to be impossible. Neither of their partners were married to the mothers of their children either, so they can not even claim any of their pensions. Both my friends partners have good full-time jobs which have not been impacted by having children with these sponging single mums at all. The single mums however have had to work part-time since having the children.

Why would you want to be friends with women who think that fathers paying for their kids is a bad thing? Any friend of mine with that attitude would be gone in an instant.

I don't think I do.
It's just upsetting that I won't have much support through the separation 😥

The truth is sometimes both ex partners think the other one got a better deal. In reality it may be perception because both have less available because of all the costs now duplicated.

My ex husband thinks I got an unreasonably large amount. When we met I had a house with 50% equity, he had a rented room. He kept the family home and I bought a smaller place but we both have a mortgage. He feels I should not have got so much because he earns so much more.
When we met though I earned a lot more than him. I gave up a career he didn't tolerate because it was male dominated and needed international travel to satisfy his needs but he only wanted to explain how he had supported me to retrain into something with a third of my original earning potential.
He is a far better speaker negotiator than I however and very good at blocking unwanted conversation so the mediator thought I was lying. Accept what you have and move on....

The single mums however have had to work part-time since having the children
Why? There are many many mother's who work FT even with very young kids. They might not that much better off than claiming benefits to start with, but they can pay a mortgage rather than rent and once the kids are at school, they do start to be better off.

Having chidren doesn't mean you have no choice but to work PT.

Nobody said there was no choice @dontdisturbmenow merely that, 'many' mothers due to the cost of childcare feel they have no choice but to work PT. Many are also in a fortunate position that their chosen career pays them enough to afford to work FT and pay for the associated childcare costs, many factually and unfortunately, do not have careers that provide as much financial opportunity.

But OP seems to have made an assumptions that the exes her friends are referring too had no choice. How could she knows that?

And unless you have more than 2 children in childcare, It's rarely the case that you are worse off working FT than PT.

Many don't have careers because they gave up work FT in the first place. It's by working FT that you increase your chances of going up the ladder.

There are many mums on low income who work FT.

Minimum wage is £8.72 per hour. For a 7 hour shift you would bring home between £50 and £55 per day after tax.
Childcare costs are £45- £55 per day.
You do the maths.

Have you ever had to pay childcare fees @dontdisturbmenow ?
Then, if you have an older child in school, you will have after-school club fees on top of this.

And then of course, what about the mothers who want the right to be at home with their pre-schoolers for part of the week?
What about these mothers?
Unless you are implying that those mothers shouldn't be at home rearing their own very young children and should be thrown into full time childcare settings?

My DH was certainly worse off. He earned £40,000 pa and paid/pays £320 per month in maintenance. He ex also kept the family home, furniture, shared items etc which totalled a significant amount. His ex earns double than him. We now own a lovely home together and are debt free with a good combined income, but it took about 9 years following his divorce to get him feeling he is financially more stable than he ever has been.

We are very close and they are excelling at their career/studies. They have never said they'd wish I'd been more at home, instead they've said that I've been a goidrole model as I managed to go up three levels through their childhood and ending up earning a good income.

Sorry meant to say that my kids were in nursery FT when I became a single mum and yes I paid childcare with the help of tax credit.

Working PT to have more time with the children is a luxury, not a right! It's that attitude that gets some people and probably includes your friends.

You are entitled to work PT but assume the consequences of it, including financisl.impact for the years to come.

B

Minimum wage is £8.72 per hour. For a 7 hour shift you would bring home between £50 and £55 per day after tax.
Childcare costs are £45- £55 per day.
You do the maths

You seem to have forgotten to include all the UC that mother would be entitled to claim....

"All the UC" ok so how much is ALL this UC?
"Working PT to have more time with children is a luxury, not a right." Erm. Only since you were led to believe that economic gain was more valuable than time spent with your OWN children. Think about it. Why are we forced into believing that it is normal for a mother to leave a young baby in the care of a nursery setting so that instead, she can go out and work?
SAHM work too.
Staying with their children is not a luxury at all, it's a basic, instinctual right.
And to the comment that you've "been a good role model" because you went to work is astounding.
I know plenty of good mothers who are great role models who have not worked full time.
I suggest you read "liberating Motherhood" by Vanessa Olrenshaw to address your masculine, capitalist beliefs.

Couldn't someone the Mums who have to work part time because of chicane etc allow the dads 50/50 care, or even let the kids live with the Dads?

You would still see them eow and a tea time in the week so could work full time and be better off?

@Tiredeyesneedsleep

Couldn't someone the Mums who have to work part time because of chicane etc allow the dads 50/50 care, or even let the kids live with the Dads?

You would still see them eow and a tea time in the week so could work full time and be better off?

HaHaHa I'd love to see that, in reality wouldn't happen. You can bet that the majority of men would not want the responsibility or the cost of being resident parent.

My maintenance doesn't even cover half the childcare bill for wraparound care for a school aged child.

Ex is better off than me financially because he sees the kids when he's not at work so there's no financial hit. He can go on overnight business trips? Go on holiday with his gf spontaneously and isn't woken up at night He can live in a cheaper area that's convenient for work where as I have to pay a premium to live near the kids school.I am the one who works round school runs, illness and INSET days.

Long term though, my oldest is NC with his Dad and the other two are indifferent to seeing him. Before he left he was the preferred parent for one of the kids who are now indifferent and adored by the other 2. I don't know what he thinks about this but I suspect he has questioned how he got to that point. I certainly wouldn't swap places with him even though I'm financially poorer with a crap pension etc

@Tiredeyesneedsleep

Couldn't someone the Mums who have to work part time because of chicane etc allow the dads 50/50 care, or even let the kids live with the Dads?

You would still see them eow and a tea time in the week so could work full time and be better off?

Considering how many men adjust their working hours post kids compared to how many women, I think it's unusual for a man to want that. In my experience many men with 50/50 rely on their partners or parents to make it happen. Why should the kids be with others when mum can (and wants!) to look after them?