To think this is more than enough maintenance to raise a child? (Friend conflict)

[Bessyioo]

My very close friend was left when her dc was 1. It was brutal, he was having an affair with one of our other friends in our group.

She is now paid 1,050 in child maintenance. However, all I hear is how she is on the ‘back foot’ financially as she is on her own and a lot of our conversation is about how he should be providing more as he is a high earner. She has her own home and I don’t even have a mortgage yet! I may be being sensitive as I feel i struggle financially but surely surely anyone can see that that is a lot of money and pays for everything the child needs?!

My childcare costs thousands a month. Not only that, he only left her, with a baby, for her friend, four months ago!

I suspect when he has another kid with the new woman, that money will reduce significantly anyway. A tale as old as time.

You’ve come at this from a place of total ignorance and have come across as a very poor friend.

Exactly. I just had a play with the online CMS calculator, and if this is the CMS amount, he is earning £120k a year. And paying £12k. Yeah, I’d be pissed off in that situation myself.

Another child doesn't reduce it "significantly" it's a tiny percentage.

Op has said how much her childcare costs, and it's not 2k is it? It's less than £1000. So in this situation, which is what we're talking about, he's paying it all.

Exactly. I just had a play with the online CMS calculator, and if this is the CMS amount, he is earning £120k a year. And paying £12k. Yeah, I’d be pissed off in that situation myself.

What a joke it is. And CMS is calculated after pension contributions, too.

So he can pay the CMS of £1k and have over £5k net to live on as a single man. While OP gets her salary plus the £1k and has to organise work around childcare and school holidays, pay £1.5k- £2k of childcare, provide a larger place to live to accommodate the child and buy all the child's food, clothes, etc etc. Sounds really fair. 😆🙄 Even if she's earning the same as him, why should she do all the childcare PLUS subsidise some of his half of the child's costs?

Op has said how much her childcare costs, and it's not 2k is it? It's less than £1000. So in this situation, which is what we're talking about, he's paying it all*

If OP's "friend" is lucky enough to live somewhere where full time childcare costs £1k per month (well below average per ONS so unusual) then the father's share of that is £500. The share of the increased housing costs to rent/ buy somewhere larger so that there is space for the child would likely take up the other £500, compared to a studio/ house share suitable for a single person.

The child then needs food, clothes, birthday/ Christmas presents, some opportunity to join in social activities/ clubs/ birthday parties if friends, to be able to use public transport/ a car, school uniform and trips, furnishings for their bedroom, perhaps even (shock horror!) should be able to expect the occasional holiday considering they have a parent earning a six figure salary. They also need heating, water, etc. The amount paid would contribute little/ nothing towards that once childcare and increased housing costs for a suitable place for a child to live are contributed to, even in the cheapest kind of area in your hypothetical situation.

And are we to imagine that said six figure salary earning parent was living in such an area before doing his vanishing act and abandoning his child and the mother of his child? Or that he will be living that kind of life with his £5k net per month as a single man after he pays his proportionately paltry maintenance? Not good enough for him I'm sure but for his child apparently it would be, in your imagined scenario. While the mother's career progression suffers as she tries to not only cover more than her fair share of costs for the child but also provide all of their care.

As I said earlier, it's very depressing that women are defending men who behave this way and are happy to run off leaving a woman and child in this situation, and expect their child to grow up with a lower standard of living while maintaining their own.

1k a month is a joke. Wow. Greedy.

If an absent parent who does nothing to raise their DC is earning £120k then yes it absolutely is a joke. How is it "greedy" to expect a man to provide for half of his child's living costs?

As I said earlier in the thread I earn more than that myself. I am a lone parent. I spend all of my money on my children. My ex provides nothing. Are my children "greedy" because they suck up all of my salary? No. This is the commitment that you are making when you decide to have children: that their needs come above yours.

If a man earning almost what I do is only willing to contribute £1k per month to his child - which is unlikely to cover much more than his half of their nursery bill and contribute very little else towards any of their other essential living costs, let alone "nice to haves - so that he can enjoy the remaining £5k of his net income all to himself as a single man, then I'd say it is him that is "greedy". Not the child who needs a nursery place and a home and food and clothes.

Im not sure you çan expect the other parent to fund the extra bedroom, to be honest. Also, if she's only paying £980 for nursery, the extra rent or mortgage will absolutely not be an extra £500. I know youre trying to prove a point but it can't work both ways. She either lives in an expensive area, or she doesn't.

And yes, her career progression will be harder, as it is for all mothers. The maintenance really has nothing to do with that.

And again, stop lying, I have not once defending men "running away". I'm just pointing out where your facts are wrong, or biased, or plain lies.

You sum up all your cost and attribute them to your children. Your mortgage, your council tax, your food, your electricity, your car, your holidays. You don't spend 5k a month on your children. You spend most of it on yourself. You only need to compare the difference. If you have a mortgage, should your ex pay for a house that you will benefit from in the end? Or would you give him part of the equity when you sell it?

I note you haven't answered how people should pay as much as you think they should when they don't earn enough?

If a grand doesn't touch the sides, then what do you suggest people do? How do you think people bring up their children on minimum wage?

How much maintenance should people pay if a grand is meager?

Exactly this. It's so ridiculous. The assertion that 1k doesn't touch the sides when a lot of people raise families in not much than that a month. Once separated, the "absent parent" needs to pay the child's costs but not make sure that the ex keeps living a lifestyle that she cannot afford herself.

Very funny that on this thread - for defending women and children in horrible positions that luckily I am not in, and arguing against the causes of child poverty - I've been called "greedy" and "dumb".

And yet some of my comments have been deleted, though I made no personal insults like this.

It is so, so depressing that even on this forum women won't stand together for women and children against men who ruin their lives and defend a system that impoverishes so many and attack anybody who points out that - as should be obvious - parents should be forced to pay equally for the costs of raising a child. This would benefit women and children and society in general.

Any cursory analysis of the data on child poverty and educational and health outcomes (which even if you're not altruistic, even selfishly affect us all as taxpayers) shows why this needs to be fixed. Do you think countries like the US enforce proper levels of child maintenance out of the goodness of their hearts? No. They do it because on a societal level, it is actually cheaper in the long run, aside from the moral issue.

You sum up all your cost and attribute them to your children. Your mortgage, your council tax, your food, your electricity, your car, your holidays. You don't spend 5k a month on your children. You spend most of it on yourself. You only need to compare the difference. If you have a mortgage, should your ex pay for a house that you will benefit from in the end? Or would you give him part of the equity when you sell it?

Again, I am not talking about me.

I've explained several times now but will do so again for you: I pay for everything. My ex-husband pays nothing. I do not "expect" anything from him and never have.

I have been a lone parent to two children since they were babies. The nursery cost for them initially was £4k per month. Yes we do need somewhere that is larger for three of us to live than we would if it was just me. Again, as with everything, I pay for this. But yes, of course their father should have contributed something to that extra cost. And paid for his half of their nursery cost, their food. Half of their cost of clothes, half of the cost of additional heating for a larger accommodation that they can live in, do you think we should all have lived in a room in a shared house or what? Why should he not pay half of their costs of school uniform or clothes, or for them to have some Christmas presents? He hasn't, and I don't care because I can do it all for them. But many can't, and the fathers of those children should pay their half, yes. Why would you argue that they shouldn't?

I think your problem is you are an extremist. Of course, both parents should contribute to raising a child, but 1,000 pounds for a child is enough by most standards. Denying that is the problem. A separated parent cannot continue supporting an ex so she can keep living in an expensive neighborhood, with expensive holidays, etc as she used to. She needs to provide that for herself or adapt to the new reality. 1,000 PCM plus her hard work earnings should be enough to provide a decent life to most people if they don't go to private schools, do horse riding, etc.

Because it is impossible. How will he live if he pays all the costs you attribute to your children? I mean "you" as a fictitious exercise. Not many people can pay the cost you are suggesting. What should happen to them? How many people can pay 4k/2 on childcare when the average salary is 2,300 a month?

It just about covers the cost of nursery.
compared to others it’s good but he’s massively shafted her

1k a month is a joke. Wow. Greedy.

It's relative though isn't it hence you often see huge payouts.
My parents separated but the lifestyle I was raised in didn't change, why should it?

Of course other people raise dc on less & receive less maintenance but that's not relevant.

Again deliberately misrepresenting what's been said. The whole point made was that people should contribute proportionately to their income so that their DC's needs are met given the context of their salary and the costs in the area where DC live. In more expensive places where costs are higher and with parents who have higher salaries the appropriate amount will be higher. It's not hard to understand what I'm saying, I've explained it very clearly several times now. You appear to be gaslighting at this point by deliberately pretending not to misunderstand when I've explained it very clearly.

Obviously there is a huge difference between an absent parent on minimum wage and a child living in a house fully paid by benefits anyway and a mother at home full time so no childcare costs; and a mother who works full time and the nursery costs £2k alone and rent/ mortgage is £2k and no state help and the absent parent earns six figures.

The appropriate amount to be paid in each circumstance will OBVIOUSLY be very different. That doesn't mean that the second person is "lucky" if the absent parent pays maybe 25% of the actual cost of raising the child. The father in that circumstance is still shit and still not paying his half of the cost.

The appropriate amount to be paid in each circumstance will OBVIOUSLY be very different

Exactly, its individual.

I think your problem is you are an extremist

🤣🤣🤣🤣

Hilarious. My comments have been balanced and measured, factual and nuanced. If you think this is extreme you either did not read them properly or did not understand them.

Because it is impossible. How will he live if he pays all the costs you attribute to your children?

This is tiresome now. I am not talking about me!!! I gave that as an example to show that my comments on the thread are not about me because I do not need any help from my children's father.

But many do.

And nowhere in this have I suggested any absent parent, or any parent should pay 100% of the costs of their child. 🙄 Although ironically, I do that for both of mine. What I have said all along is that both parents should pay 50% of the cost of the child. I really don't understand how you find the idea that each parent should be paying 50% of the cost of raising their own child so objectionable?

I think your problem is you are an extremist. Of course, both parents should contribute to raising a child, but 1,000 pounds for a child is enough by most standards.

Completely depends on your circumstances. Where I live it wouldn't cover much.

Because spending all your money on your children is a choice, not a mandate. You need to provide a decent upbringing for them but not a given lifestyle. Once the parents separate, children, have to be fed, schooled, clothed, kept warm, and entertained. They don't live to go to private schools, live in Chelsea, and have private insurance, horse riding lessons, and 5-star holidays. After separation, finances become strained on both sides. Another family comes, more children, etc. The same money has to be split in two. It's not rocket science. Lifestyle has to change.