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?!

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

Career progression is much, much harder for single parents. I often have to stay late at my job, or come in at short notice on off days. If I didn’t do this, my career would be over. I can do this because I have a DH picking up the slack. Likewise, I do the same for him. Single parents either can’t do this, or have to pay out the nose for expensive, last minute childcare. Our nursery charges £1/minute for unplanned care. Putting aside the finances (which I actually think have lots to do with her career progression), single parents have it way harder to progress in their careers than families with two parents, by nature of their situation.

How will he live if he pays all the costs you attribute to your children?

I’m with @NocturnalClocks on this one. There are literally thousands of people out there - mainly women - who pay 100% of the costs of their children and who are so,who’s managing to live. Some of us even do it without the support of benefits. Yet these poor men, with an expectation they pay just something towards the upbringing of their children somehow can’t manage? Are you serious?

This is mumsnet and responses will be biased. The women on here would have the government lift all of the earnings from the dad and them be paid a small amount of what they rent to live in a hostel... serves them right for getting on with their lives right?

£1050 is plenty. If she is a low earner she will get it Made up by the state. Of course dafs should pay and help with childcare but that isn't a small amount of money.

Yes, I am serious. You are forgetting that what you are saying you spend on your children covers your house, your food, your utility, your car, etc. too.

To the posters saying but what about those on minimum wage. Typically - as with most couples (even higher earners) there tends to be a bit of flexibility on both sides. So one person does drop off the other pick ups/ one person can stay late at work this week the other the next/one person takes a job with child friendly hours or becomes a stay at home parent so the other doesn't have to worry about it.

If I was left alone with my child I'm not sure I could continue in my job. I would find it impossible to drop off and get to work (1 hour commute) and back within the nursery hours. It works as it is because we are a team and are splitting the load. I would have to look for even more expensive childcare or find a different job closer to home/reduced hours/less money etc. Also, as I am on a decent (not megga) wage I am only untitled to the tax free childcare (that works out to about £165 a month) so not a huge deduction. In the hypothetical situation that we split I would absolutely expect my ex (who earns a similar wage) to contribute at least half of the childcare bill plus a contribution to their expenses. That is what he does now (as do I) why should that change?

Obviously if the ex doesn't earn that much then there is not much you can do. But this is a mute point in the OPs example as the ex can clearly afford it. But then maybe the rules should be changed so that the non-resident parent could claim the childcare element of UC to be applied to the resident parent for childcare costs.

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

Of course it does.

A lone parent has to cover all sick days whole trying to progress their career. All inset days. 13 weeks of school holiday so 9 that aren't covered by the legally required annual leave allowance, whereas a couple only have 5 weeks to cover that they cannot cover with their 8 weeks of annual leave. They will therefore have far higher childcare bills on average and their career will take more of a hit from having children. They will have less flexibility to juggle with their partner on working hours.

A lone parent has 24 hours per day to split between working to provide financially and childcare, whereas a couple have 48. They will therefore have far higher childcare bills on average.

A lone parent also can earn half as much as a household with two adults before they are subject to tax, even though the couple already have 48 hours per day to split childcare and financial work between them as they see fit, so is already doing twice the job. But is taxed more. A couple earning £99k can claim child benefit but a lone parent on £50k cannot. A couple can earn almost £100k if they organise their lives and careers to achieve this before paying higher rate tax. A lone parent must pay this at £50kish. A couple can earn nearly £200k and still get tax free childcare and 30hrs free at nursery for a child over 3. A lone parent loses this at £100k. So lone parents/ single parents are penalised at every level of the tax system, on top of doing twice the work already. Many more enlightened countries such as Denmark and France tax on a household basis and guess what? Lower child poverty rates.

I could go on but it's clear you are not listening anyway. It's not really been a discussion. It's reminded me of the discussions about Brexit in tone: trying to talk to someone with an entrenched view who is covering their ears and shouting loudly "la la la" because they have no interest in listening to facts or evidence or even sharing viewpoints.

Because spending all your money on your children is a choice, not a mandate.*

Well yes. Perhaps you should let some of the "fathers" who abandon their children know this.

*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.

Agreed. Nobody is talking about "living in Chelsea" that I have seen? People are talking about providing nursery places, a secure home and food and clothes etc. Is that too much to expect, if the other parent is earning a six figure salary per the discussion you were responding to?

Your stereotyping of single mothers is disgusting.

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.

There's a bit of a gulf between 1k a month & living in Chelsea & private schools! 😆
Of course one doesn't have to do anything above the basic level but my father didn't want us to have a lifestyle change.

Certainly not having to sell the family home, move schools etc made the process of my parents separating far more tolerable.

Yes, I am serious. You are forgetting that what you are saying you spend on your children covers your house, your food, your utility, your car, etc. too.

Of course it does. What I am arguing for is that absent parents should pay 50% of the incremental additional costs that relate directly to the child.

Why should they not pay 50% of the costof having the extra room for the child, the extra food for the child, the nursery bill for the child, the child's clothes and uniform, etc?

And, yet again, I do not expect anyone to pay anything for me or my children so stop making this about me. I have said repeatedly I've raised my children since they were babies on my own and provided for them on my own with no help from the state or from their father. I am posting her in support of other women and children who are NOT in a position to be able to do that. So please stop pretending this is some personal thing about me,

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

of course it's much harder for single parents! Do people know how much childcare costs these days!

I couldn't work if I was a single parent without paying for a lot more help. I likely wouldn't be able to afford that help.

Has she given you a breakdown of her finances. I honestly can't see how it's any of your business. He's the father and presumably paying what he should towards bringing up his child. If they'd been together presumably the lifestyle of tge child would have been very good, why should that not be the case now they're separated?

It does to me too , but that's not the point.

I am not making it about you. You have made it clear that you earn more than 120k and you pay for your children's expenses without the father's contribution. But in your argument, you said why he should not pay half my 4k childcare, why he should not pay half my housing costs, etc etc etc. I am certain you are not receiving any help from the father but then you question why why why. My replies are to those bitter whys.

Imo both parents, regardless of the relationship should pay 50% of childcare and maintenance should be on top of that.
Why should women always be the ones to pay if they wish to work?
Why the supposition that a man’s work should be un hampered by childcare responsibilities?
Baffles my brain.

The point is, that a father who can easily afford private school, horse riding, big house etc shouldn’t be able to swan off leaving the mother and his children on benefits, contributing less than the cost of childcare. The child’s standard of living should not plummet while the father’s remains the same.

Out of interest @taxpayer1, would you happen to be a second wife married to a high earner, resentful about the amount of maintenance he pays? Your comments would make a lot more sense in that light.

Surely as a “taxpayer” you don’t want men earning six figures leaving their families to live on benefits while they hoard their wealth?

So a man earning £120k should be able to leave his kids on FSM/benefits, expecting the state to pay to bring up his kids, because otherwise shock horror he might have to adjust his own standard of living?

Poor poor men, they can’t expected to go without a Rolex to ensure their child is clothed and fed! Make the resident parent claim benefits instead.

seriously what I am reading here.

@Changechangychange of course not but she's getting over £1000 a month so they won't be on school meals surely.

I didn't know he was on £120k so does seem a bit short. If he was paying 7% pension should still come up at just shy of £1400 a month? But maybe he has other kids at home ?

Do you need more than 1k a month to clothe and feed a child?

Do you think there will be a difference in lifestyle between somebody earning £6k per month after tax, and somebody on benefits and £1k maintenance?

And as I have said repeatedly upthread, yes, nursery around here is £2k per month for children under 2. It costs a lot more than £1k to bring up a child. Your view that if a husband walks out on his family, the mother should give up work and sit at home on benefits, grateful for any crumbs he throws her way, while he continues on with his lifestyle essentially unchanged, says a lot about you, none of it good.

Do you need more than 1k a month to clothe and feed a child?

It really isn't even about that though.the child's father brings home 5k per month. Why shouldn't his child benefit from that? The man ditched his kid, therefore he is legally obliged to contribute proportionate to his income.

regardless of what the child's mother "needs".

For most, this actually falls way short of the actual cost. In some cases, of which this is one, its a decent amount.

You are forgetting that what you are saying you spend on your children covers your house, your food, your utility, your car, etc. too

Am I? How could you possibly know? I pick up 100% of my children’s costs - clothes, food, tech, shoes, haircuts, childcare, tutor, mobile phone, costs related to one child’s disability, school trips, travel to/from school……none of those relate to my house, utilities, car or anything else.

But in your eyes, it’s unreasonable my ex makes a contribution to that?

and please bear in mind he has no concerns about pick up/drop off, managing sick days and the child with the disability, managing hospital appointments (frequent) or anything else. Why on Earth shouldn’t he have to pay?

So you've argued until you're blue in the face about how a grand isn't enough for this woman, who's circumstances you do not know. You don't know where she lives. You don't know what her ex earns. You don't know whether she's had to buy a bigger house or if she had one anyway. But you've deemed it not enough.

Except now you're saying it all depends, which is what I've said all along. Which you said meant I was defending men who abandon their children. Right then.

Yes, I bloody do! My husband works nights miles away, no school pick ups from him. My hours are based around how quickly I can get to bloody after school club / nursery and always have been. My career progression has also been hampered - no, not as much as a single parent, but hampered nonetheless.
I know how much childcare costs, exactly how much it costs. I know the impact of having kids.

It's Asif you cannot possibly know how the world works if you aren't a single mother. Can't possibly understand how much children cost unless you're a single mother. I'm not saying I know how hard it is to be one, but financially, I know what FT childcare costs because I pay for it, and have done, for years. As a family we have also received a pittance of maintenance (£26 a week) so I also know what it's like paying a much higher percentage for a child than the other parent, but because the other parent in my situation was a woman, it was absolutely fine.