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?!

Didn't read the thread then, @taxpayer1 ? Again, people's circumstances are different. The cost of living varies around the country. People who earn more pay a far higher percentage in tax, do not get UC, do not get 80% of childcare paid, do not get help with housing costs etc. Of course it's possible that for many people £1k comes nowhere close to covering 50% of the essential costs of a child when many nurseries charge £2k per month for childcare alone!

Of course. I am sure that for some people 10k a month won't cover half the costs.

Perhaps there could be some give on both 'sides' here.

From your friend's perspective - if that money is what the CMS calculates her ex should be paying (or if he chooses to pay more than the CMS minimum) then she is entitled to take that money from him, to help bring up their child. Depending on the cost of chilcare locally (including before and after school when they are older), and her own earning potential, £1,000 may be a good amount or not enough. If your friend's total income isn't enough to pay for their child then of course she will be worried.

From your perspective - you may also be suffering financially. You may be worried about the future. Unlike your friend you don't have your own home. You may have lower earning ability or more debts. You are as entitled as your friend to be concerned about your finances, and it's hard for you if she only sees it from her perspective. Especially if it's all she'll talk about.

If you are really friends, then you need to listen to each other, see each others' perspectives, provide mutual support (financial and emotional - it sounds like she's had an awful time of it, but maybe you've had tough times too).

If you have sympathy fatigue and your friend doesn't want to hear about your problems, then at some point you might decide the friendship has run its course. But don't rush to do that if she's been a good friend until now. She's lost her husband - to her friend! - and he doesn't seem interested in their child. She's been going through hell and needs good friends right now.

Of course. I am sure that for some people 10k a month won't cover half the costs.

You've completely missed the point. For even a basic lifestyle, if you live somewhere where nursery costs £2k per child and you can't rent anywhere suitable for children for under £1500 for example, and then you have to pay food and utilities and clothes etc, £1k is clearly not sufficient as maintenance. The absent parent should pay half of what is needed for the children to continue with a reasonable life in the area where they live, as a minimum, considering the other parent would then be paying the other 50% plus doing all the work of raising the children. It's astonishing that anybody would be arguing against this.

If you have sympathy fatigue...

Sounds more like the misery olympics than sympathy fatigue. Dismal.

OP I don't think you are this woman's friend.

What is astonishing is that you think after a separation an ex has to continue funding his ex's lifestyle. She is responsible for her rent, utilities, council tax, own food, etc. Not him. A 100k salary is approximately 5,500 pounds a month without considering pension contributions. For your calculation, he needs to give her around 3.5k pounds a month leaving a high earner to live on 2k a month (close to minimum wage). Who would do that? Work in a high-paying (probably stressful) job to end up with 2k a month.

To some posters on this thread, it isn't a race to the bottom. Just because she's getting more than you, that doesn't mean you can't have sympathy for her.

When she was living with the father of her child, she would expect him to contribute to the house (that is housing their child) and its costs as well as her costs a lot more than £1000 a month. As it is, she will barely cover her childcare and has to pick everything else up - financial and non financial - alone. Just because she's getting £1000 doesn't mean she isn't justified in thinking it isn't enough and it certainly doesn't mean that you should think she's not worthy of your sympathy.

What is astonishing is that you think after a separation an ex has to continue funding his ex's lifestyle. She is responsible for her rent, utilities, council tax, own food, etc

Huh? We're talking about the expenses for the child, not the ex. 🤣

A 100k salary is approximately 5,500 pounds a month without considering pension contributions. For your calculation, he needs to give her around 3.5k pounds a month leaving a high earner to live on 2k a month (close to minimum wage). Who would do that? Work in a high-paying (probably stressful) job to end up with 2k a month.

Well. I earn more than that myself, and end up with far less than £2k per month by the time I've paid for the costs of providing for my children because my ex doesn't. I also raise them single handed as he has no contact.

So I guess the answer to your question about who would work such a stressful job just to spend all the money on their children and end up with no money for themselves, is single mothers. That's who does that. Sorry you don't think fathers should make similar sacrifices to provide for their children.

@Bessyioo everyone commenting about the childcare costs. She will get help towards that. Basic benefits are enough to cover everything so that 1k is on top of normal costs. Most people don't get anything towards the dc and have to pay childcare costs. She works so she has benefits, salary and child support...she should be thankful. OP....there'd no financial hardship for her there, she just wants more cake to eat...

This does not even cover the full time nursery. I pay 1k for 3 days for a one year old and this is a standard price.

Why would you assume she'd get benefits?

No, absolutely not. But he is paying her £1000 a month towards their child. In no world is this an insignificant amount.

People cannot expect to live the same lifestyle they did when in a couple. You'd be stupid to expect that because it simply does not happen. Not when there is two sets of everything to fund.

He's paying what he's supposed to. If she's not happy with that, fine, but telling op, her even less well off friend is tone deaf.

Do I think the system could be better? Absolutely..but I realise in the real world it's unlikely to be improved.

My bar is very high, but the bar for myself is high as well. I would never have had a child I couldn't 100% pay for and house completely alone. I was brought up by a single mother with a dad who didn't care. I know what it's like and there's no way in hell I was going to voluntarily put myself in that position, ever.

I think the point is that your friend had a baby with a man who is a high earner.

Because of his affair, she now shares a child with someone who contributes just over £1k. That will represent a huge change in lifestyle and future security for her.

In many other countries absent parents are expected to pay a far higher proportion of their children's costs. And it is enforced, the same way that Council tax payments are enforced here. It's not difficult to do. Give the issues with child poverty it's a disgrace that the UK doesn't do this.

Having a child is a commitment to put their needs above your own. If people do not wish to do so they should not have children. And if they do decide to do so they should accept (and be forced to accept by better laws, if necessary) that this takes priority over their own standard of living.

Tough shit if walking out on their kids leaves them poor. Why should it leave the children poorer than before if that's avoidable? Why do people like you seem to think it's perfectly fine that the children and the parent who still does all the parenting (almost always the mother) should accept a huge drop in living standards but the irresponsible parent who does no parenting, should not expect one of similar proportions?

God it's depressing reading these posts, that women would rather attack women they perceive to have more than them than stand together against feckless, useless "fathers" who neither raise their children nor sacrifice anywhere near as much financially as the mothers left holding the baby do.

My bar is very high, but the bar for myself is high as well. I would never have had a child I couldn't 100% pay for and house completely alone. I was brought up by a single mother with a dad who didn't care. I know what it's like and there's no way in hell I was going to voluntarily put myself in that position, ever.

And I'm actually doing this for my children myself. No state help or maintenance for us. So yes I made damn sure I can provide for them and I do. That still doesn't make it ok that their father doesn't pay 50% of the cost of raising them. Why shouldn't he?

I wouldn't get involved in discussion about her finances - just be there to provide emotional support after the unpleasant divorce. If he's paying what he is legally obliged to (or more) there's not a lot that can be done anyway. If he isn't, she should pursue it by legal means.

To attack women who do get something, when it's still not enough, seems to be driven purely by the worst kind of green eyed monster. 💸💵💶💷

Women should be standing shoulder to shoulder with each other on this whatever their circumstances and insisting that all men who abandon their children are forced to pay for half of the cost of raising them. I cannot understand any woman with your attitude to it, it's awful.

I've never said it does. Just that realistically CMS won't change drastically whilst our children are children.

The most sensible thing you can do is ensure you're financially secure alone, really. I'm not saying let's not make men pay, but im aware they can become an arsehole, be unemployed, incapacitated or dead.

At the end of the day, he's paying what he's supposed to. If she's not okay with it, it's tough, there's nothing she can do. It's not a small amount at all. We don't know if it's 50% of the cost of the child and really, you can't work that out because what one person thinks is essential for a child, another does not. No child costs exactly the same as another. And that's why CMS won't change. You cannot work out 50%.

You're very angry, so angry that you seem to be in incorrectly reading.

I think everyone should expect a drop in lifestyle post split. You cannot pay for two homes and expect to have the same surplus. It is basic maths.

As for the jealousy, why would anyone be jealous of this situation? She is clearly very unhappy or this thread would not have been written.

I’m really surprised by the number of people who think that £12k per year is more than enough to completely look after a child and compensate for that.

Assuming the child goes to state school, even wraparound care is easily £100 per week where I am. Then holiday clubs are around £35 per day (£175 per week) So 39 weeks at £100 is £3900 plus 13 weeks of £175 is £2275. So over half of that money goes just allowing the resident parent to work - and if they don’t, their overall income is affected, as is their pension, savings, ability to go on holiday, move house etc.

With the remaining £6k money needs to go on any clubs and hobbies, school uniform, medical or health related extras, shoes/boots/trainers/wellies, coats, a birthday party, presents for birthdays and Christmas, clothes etc.

By this stage you are already in a deficit but you also have to pay extra for lighting, heating, general household costs. Then, of course, you have to feed them (and it’s £500 per academic year for school meals where I am, before having any snacks).

But that's not considering any contribution from the resident parent?

I said a drop in living standards if similar proportions.

It doesn't seem to be me that's having problems reading.

The children's welfare should come first and their living standard should not be significantly reduced to benefit a parent who has fucked off.

Yes I'm angry. I'm angry with attitudes like those you have expressed which lead to women and children being hugely disadvantaged in society. And are also one of the main reasons we have such high levels of child poverty.

My children are fine, they aren't in poverty at all. Because I pay for everything and am in a fortunate enough position to do so. That doesn't make it right though, does it, that their father does not pay half of their costs? (Any in fact but that's not the point in this thread). And many women can't provide everything without absent fathers paying their proper share. Why should children suffer because their father doesn't feel like paying his half of what it costs to raise a child? Why do you support a system where the % contributions through CMS (if any is paid at all as it's usually not enforced properly) is so low that it rarely meets his half of the costs for the child(ren)?

Because there's no otjer explanation for the OP posting this thread that makes any sense.