Why do people say "he's trying to avoid paying child support"?

[Kennyy]

When a man wants 50-50 custody? He's going to pay for childcare anyway. Why should anyone pay child support then?

We don't say that to women just men.

Children never benefit when parents break up. They're not going to have a permanent home anymore. Unless someone has sole custody.

Because lots of men (like my exH) push for 50/50 but don't actually want the children 50/50 so whenever something comes up they just don't bother having the children.

ExH for instance, has already told me he won't be able to have the children at all for any of the school holidays this year

You didn't answer my questions NooNooMummy. Why should I pay maintenance if I'm going to pay for childcare anyway? What if someone told you you're trying to avoid paying maintenance during custody fight?

Why would either parent pay maintenance if it's 50/50 split?

What a stupid comment Upso. Why can't I ask simple questions?

That's what I've been trying to ask Thornhill58.

50/50 can be used to continue to abuse an ex.

For example, child needs new shoes as feet have grown.

Theoretical solution : Mum and Dad will buy a pair each for use at their house,
Reality when one is abusive: One parent buys and the other doesn't because they know their ex will pay. The one who paid will give in because child can not wear small shoes

Theoretical Solution: one will buy and the other reimburses 50% or they alternate purchase of new shoes.

Practice (assuming that one of them is abusive): The richer one will buy expensive shoes because they know the other parent will struggle to pay half. Alternatively the reimbursing parent can make their ex feel bad by questioning whether child really needs £40 Clark's when Shoezone shoes are £10 etc Parent asking to reimbursed gradually stops asking to avoid being interrogated and told that they clearly get too much maintenance if child wears such expensive shoes etc

In reality many men who ask for 50/50 didn't do 50% when they were with the mum. They will use their mums/sisters for free childcare to spite the mum as they see it as an easy way to punish their ex

The men who did 50% + before the breakup should be encouraged to go for at least 50/50 but in my experience they are not the norm.

If the wife was a SAHP (a decision made by Mum and Dad) for several years then she should be financially compensated for that in some cases.

Too many parents demand 50/50 which includes all weekends which is unfair on the other parent.

The richer parent knows that the poorer one won't/can't go to court every time they much their ex around so can have 50/50 on paper but not in practice

There are plenty of NRP who won't even consider taking their child to a birthday party or one-off match for their hobby.

When 50/50 works it's great for everyone but it's very unusual ime.

Yes my x capitalises on the fact that im a better person. I have 100% of the practical responsibility because they live with me. He used to pay maintenance but stopped because hecdidnt feel obeyed and respected (and he blames me for turning them against him!).

So he a hate fuelled narcissist who never sees them never, helps financially, and yet, he is the victim. The Victim. I abuse him. No matter what kids need, braces, extra tuition, he knows i will fund it somehow. I have to. He steals from me. Time. Money. Justice.

Yet, this man who does zero parenting was all set to do 50:50

boo I agree. Moving children between homes seems an miserable parent centred idea. The parents should be the ones shuttling in and out of the home.

We should praise men who want to parent their children? Oh pleaseeeere

booI agree. Moving children between homes seems an miserable parent centred idea. The parents should be the ones shuttling in and out of the home.

My children have done this for 6 years. For them its not miserable. Maybe it's because we live close to each other as in 5 mins drive so the children can still hang out with the same friends.
Its wasn't just about me and ex being selfish. The DC love us both equally and would not want to see less of 1 parent.

DTD 12 are with me now so I read the comment and they both said no it's not miserable. They said it's easy they have stuff in both houses and both feel like home.
Both agreed they would hate to see 1 parent less than the other.

However I dont suppose it is great for all children. I think the fact that me and ex are friends and co parent 100% helps too.

Children never benefit when parents break up. They're not going to have a permanent home anymore

So basically you’re handling your split badly, your kids and suffering and you’re asking if that’s normal?

Depends how bad it was. Icould only be reasonable for one. So it is not like i had a civilised mature calm communicative breakup but my kids most definitely benefitted from us leaving. I had to accept the mess id walked myself into. The only way to sort it out was to accept how bad it was.

There are studies out there that state 50/50 is not good for children emotionally that they need a main parent that denying them that can have serious consequences for there future

This should probably be considered when deciding to have your children 50/50 because it's what YOU want

This is the first study to come up on Google. It's part of an article from the guardian.

The latest,from Emma Fransson’s team at the esteemed Stockholm University and Karolinska Institute, looked specifically at the psychological wellbeing of 4,684 children. It asked if they felt sad, angry, had poor concentration or were tense and nervous.Unlike other studies, the researchers found the same level of psychological complaintsin children in shared residency as in those in nuclear families. Children living with one parent had higher levels of psychological complaints. The study took into account the financial status of the parents, but this did not significantly affect the results. The weight of evidence from the other studies,according to a summary in the Journal of Divorce and Remarriage,is that children do better if parenting is shared, even allowing for the fact that couples who share parenting tend to have higher incomes and less conflict.
But the research is clear that children benefit from two parents being interested in them, and sharing residency encourages this.

The article goes on to say that it's the parents behaviour that causes problems for children either apart or still together.
Children that do well in a 50:50 do so because their parents get on and parent well. Those parents that constantly grow and dont co parent cause problems for the children. This is true in nuclear families also according to the study.

If one parent earns a lot more than the other then he/she should pay some maintenance. You shouldn't say no to 50/50 just because you want more maintenance though.

If the mum is paying childcare on “his” days it’s not 50/50 and shouldn’t be counted as such.

Too many men make a pretence at 50/50 - having the kids 2 evenings (after work!) and one weekend day inc overnight a week - in order to avoid paying cm.

But the mum is still paying for all childcare, school uniform & equipment, clothes & shoes, haircuts, majority of transport, doing or paying for holiday cover, sick cover, school runs, facilitating a good relationship with school/childcare, medical & dental appointments etc

So it’s NOT really 50/50

I’ve even asked a few on here who claim to have 50/50 arrangements if the dad pays half of all costs and usually they then tend to go silent - from which I take to mean no he’s not!

Genuine 50/50 would be fair for parents, personally I think it’s a headfuck for the kids especially very young ones and even more especially if as also tends to happen the dad is regularly palming the kids off on others (usually other women) on “his” days.

We need as a society to get real about the fact that

A clear rp is better for kids

Nrps need to pay a decent, fair amount of cm regularly - no ifs buts or maybes!

“we should assume he's doing it because wants to be a real parent” why?! When the preponderance of evidence suggests otherwise?

“I think 50:50 should only EVER be considered if the childcare was 50:50 while married..... the best thing for children is to keep things consistent.” Good point

And yes, op does frequently post about how hard done by dads are after a split which is a tad wearing!

Why should anyone pay maintenance if you have 50-50? Do you believe that every man should pay maintenance?

Mostly because I gave up my entire life to allow him to pursue his career whilst I raised our child. Then he imploded both our lives and then he fucked off. Having children massively impacts women and their earning and working potential far more than it does men. 90% of first line parenting is done by women as single parents.

He said 50/50 custody but that extended to outside of his working hours and what was convenient to him. So I had our child until around 6/7pm on "his" nights. When he picked him up, took him straight home to bed and brought him back to me before school the next day.

He now sees him 13% of the year whilst claiming he has 50/50 custody. His choice.

It would be so nice if we could refer to both co-parents as resident parents but since the day that my child's father left the family home he has never bought him uniform, made a doctor or dentist appointment, done homework with him unprompted, collected him from school, taken him to school, taken him for a haircut, looked after him whilst he was sick, or any of the actual bits that keep little humans alive. That is now a period of 7 years.

On paper he has 50/50 custody but it doesn't work like that at all.

I was raised by a single dad. 100% custody. My mum had legal access to me once a month which she rarely used and she never paid. But we were a tiny tiny proportion of the population (especially in the 80s) and I'm yet to meet anyone in my situation whose mother isn't deceased.