Guest viewing is limited
- You have a limited number of page views remaining
- 2 guest views remaining
- Register now to remove this limitation
Single mum
- Thread starter Emiliska
- Start date
hi Emilska
im new on here but the things that I've read does not suggest in any way that there is a hard done competition, but as a way for people who need help, and the only way anyone can help is to know what is going on.
I think that as a woman who I assume would want equal rights, then it should be for everyone and unfortunately that is not the case in legal proceedings for men, regarding children, as men we are always presumed guilty until proven innocent.
I can only speak for myself but the reason that I am on here, it is to find help from people who have gone through similar things I have and get advice for the best interest of my children.
I would like to hear your story of what has brought you on to a forum for dads, and hearing some advice from yourself about how we can be thinking more about our children, as it is always good to hear from another point of view
im new on here but the things that I've read does not suggest in any way that there is a hard done competition, but as a way for people who need help, and the only way anyone can help is to know what is going on.
I think that as a woman who I assume would want equal rights, then it should be for everyone and unfortunately that is not the case in legal proceedings for men, regarding children, as men we are always presumed guilty until proven innocent.
I can only speak for myself but the reason that I am on here, it is to find help from people who have gone through similar things I have and get advice for the best interest of my children.
I would like to hear your story of what has brought you on to a forum for dads, and hearing some advice from yourself about how we can be thinking more about our children, as it is always good to hear from another point of view
Are you still here?
Anyway, apologies for gatecrashing your dads forum. I really needed somewhere to vent but I respect your space. I've really struggled in the pandemic that my daughter's dad has had no accountability. From the start of the pandemic he told me that he couldn't pay anything. Today he still tells me will contribute what he can. This has carried on for 18 months. I am able to support my daughter, and I would move the earth to make sure the mortgage is paid and there is dinner on the table. So why is it that the contribution of dads is not fixed, but tied to their income or lack of?
hi Emiliska
I agree with you a dad needs to pay for the upkeep of his children but I think it goes a bit deeper than that, and once again I can only speak for myself,
I get your point of it being fixed, but that is a double edged sword.
as in my opinion the wealthier people would be better of and the people on the other side would be worse of due to the fact that although they have children, they also need to be able to live, and pay bills and so forth,
which is why its means tested (I believe). but I think you need to bear in mind that the means test is based on what they earn before they pay any of their bills (ie rent gas electric and food). so if a typical earner earns say a £1000 a month after bills they could be left with £100-£200, to live off which in this world is next to nothing, and some matinance payments would be £250 (possibly more) a month so then they would be having to find this extra money (I am only using the figures as an example)
once again I will assume that you are your the sole carer for you kid(s) and I would imagine that you get the benefits for that which means although I know its hard especially as prices are going up so much that you still will get some financial help.
while the other side gets nothing, and in some case not even help to keep a roof over their head, and I hope that you would agree that your children father would be no good to them homeless.
im not sure if you are talking about your own case about access rights are fixed or in general, but if it is in general then they are not fixed for men, and a lot of women (not all of them) use their own children as ways to keep the benefit money and still make their ex partners pay.
I understand your frustrations on the system of child maintenance, but these are the same systems designed (once again in my opinion) to help women, whist men get very little to next to no help.
women have various charity's to help them actually play the system, for their own gain, and not in the interest of the children, while men have been accused of terrible things (although I know some men are guilty of these accusations) on the most part they are not, in a way to get lawyers barristers and all other types of financial help, while men have to self rep and fight for their own flesh and blood on their own, as is in my own case, please don't get me wrong I have daughters so I agree that women who truly need the help I am glad it is there for them, but the ones who use and abuse the system puts a stain on the ones who truly need them
I have personally had to sell nearly everything I own to fund a defence of my name and character while my ex can say I have done things that are not even true or a total mis representation of what actually happened, to suit her own story, in the name of keeping the home the children and everything WE both worked hard for over the years, and get all the help in the world.
I personally feel like not only is there a fight between me and my ex, but im fighting the British legal system and their bottomless pockets, and would give my right leg to be in a position where you are.
you have your children, and although it is hard for you financially, a lot of people on this forum don't have that, so I would urge you to count your blessings, because I wouldn't care about money if it meant that my kids was by my side permanently, if I knew that they had food in their belly and a roof over their head
I agree with you a dad needs to pay for the upkeep of his children but I think it goes a bit deeper than that, and once again I can only speak for myself,
I get your point of it being fixed, but that is a double edged sword.
as in my opinion the wealthier people would be better of and the people on the other side would be worse of due to the fact that although they have children, they also need to be able to live, and pay bills and so forth,
which is why its means tested (I believe). but I think you need to bear in mind that the means test is based on what they earn before they pay any of their bills (ie rent gas electric and food). so if a typical earner earns say a £1000 a month after bills they could be left with £100-£200, to live off which in this world is next to nothing, and some matinance payments would be £250 (possibly more) a month so then they would be having to find this extra money (I am only using the figures as an example)
once again I will assume that you are your the sole carer for you kid(s) and I would imagine that you get the benefits for that which means although I know its hard especially as prices are going up so much that you still will get some financial help.
while the other side gets nothing, and in some case not even help to keep a roof over their head, and I hope that you would agree that your children father would be no good to them homeless.
im not sure if you are talking about your own case about access rights are fixed or in general, but if it is in general then they are not fixed for men, and a lot of women (not all of them) use their own children as ways to keep the benefit money and still make their ex partners pay.
I understand your frustrations on the system of child maintenance, but these are the same systems designed (once again in my opinion) to help women, whist men get very little to next to no help.
women have various charity's to help them actually play the system, for their own gain, and not in the interest of the children, while men have been accused of terrible things (although I know some men are guilty of these accusations) on the most part they are not, in a way to get lawyers barristers and all other types of financial help, while men have to self rep and fight for their own flesh and blood on their own, as is in my own case, please don't get me wrong I have daughters so I agree that women who truly need the help I am glad it is there for them, but the ones who use and abuse the system puts a stain on the ones who truly need them
I have personally had to sell nearly everything I own to fund a defence of my name and character while my ex can say I have done things that are not even true or a total mis representation of what actually happened, to suit her own story, in the name of keeping the home the children and everything WE both worked hard for over the years, and get all the help in the world.
I personally feel like not only is there a fight between me and my ex, but im fighting the British legal system and their bottomless pockets, and would give my right leg to be in a position where you are.
you have your children, and although it is hard for you financially, a lot of people on this forum don't have that, so I would urge you to count your blessings, because I wouldn't care about money if it meant that my kids was by my side permanently, if I knew that they had food in their belly and a roof over their head
Hi Emiliska. We do welcome supportive Mums, Step parents and grandparents 
. There is a lot wrong with the Child Support system - for both parents - it adds to the issues separated parents face and the fact it is linked to the number of nights with each parent just adds to those issues.
The CMS usually encourage parents to make a family based arrangement, before doing an assessment - and that is what I have - so the amount stays the same all the time, regardless of whether my income goes up or down. We agreed a reasonable amount that is slightly more than my assessed rate. However so much depends on both trying to be reasonable. If a Dad is out of work and has no income then they can't pay - the Government has dumped all responsibility onto Dads to pay. If a Mum remarried someone with a good income and could manage with less then they should also be reasonable and suggest a lesser amount if the Dad is struggling.
Because this issue becomes so contentious, some Dads will only pay via the CMS at the assessed rate - and yes it goes up and down so isn't reliable. Some Dads get so incensed when they can't get to see their children regularly that they feel like paying less CMS (ie getting it assessed at the minimum rate allowable). We advise not to do this as retaliation as the money is for the children - and to use the courts to resolve time issues. However you can see the issue there - the Dad then has to find money to go to court as well as pay CMS! And sadly there are some Mothers who manipulate this thinking the Dad will just give up and go away as it's all too expensive. They have to pay CM at the assessed rate by law. But if they can't afford to go to court as well......
Partly this site is here to support Dads who are struggling emotionally and financially after separation (some are even homeless) and to help them through the court process if they can't afford legal fees.
It is the parent with care who is eligible for the CMS which is usually, but not always, the Mother, and except in cases of equal shared care.
Rather than blame the other parent though, I think it needs to be recognised that finances can be tough on both parents after separation and being dependent on an ex H's salary is not very reliable. It may mean retraining and starting a new job, or even downsizing a home if you can't manage the mortgage yourself.
I have also had tough financial times while caring for my son about 48% of the time for many years, while paying CMS I couldn't afford (kept to the same agreed amount) and for a few years had to live in three rented rooms to provide a home for my son.
I think it needs a perspective for the child's home lives with both parents - yes the children come first. The child needs suitable accommodation with both parents and to feel at home at both homes. A Dad isn't just someone who pays the bills.
We know what you mean although the term "access" became legally defunct in the early 2000's. It changed to "contact" then in 2014 it changed to "Spends time with" or "lives with" under the Child Arrangements Programme. Which is better - "contact" and "access" sounds very impersonal.
These times aren't actually "fixed". They are left for parents to agree between them - and when they can't agree the court generally orders a "standard" of every other week-end, one midweek overnight and half the holidays. And yes sometimes 50/50 shared care.
With 50/50 shared care, neither parent pays the other any child maintenance - they are both expected to equally provide for the children in their own home and split the cost of things like school uniform, lunches, school trips, shoes etc. Or if one parent is earning more they can agree to pay for the bulk of those costs.
50/50 is good though because it doesn allow both parents to pursue a reasonable career and earn and have a life outside of childcare - while the children get a quality life with both parents.
I'd ask you not to take our gripes personally! The Dads who come on here are the ones who have an ex who is not letting them see their children - and are trying to negotiate the court system (often without the funds to do so). When we know that the vast majority of Mums are reasonable in that way and there are just minor issues over scheduling.
Is your daughter still seeing her Dad and throughout the pandemic? All I can say is - I am really sorry you have been struggling - I don't know all the circumstances but the pandemic has hit a lot of people hard - economically and healthwise. People have ended up using their savings to live (costs went through the roof) and some have lost their jobs either from companies going bust or through health.
The CM will be based on his ability to pay. Which is not ideal for you if you're dependent on it. And that's not really his fault, if he doesn't have the income.
I would suggest - if you're amicable enough to talk, that you try and work out a temporary plan until matters improve financially for either of you. Like work out a financial plan to pay for shoes and clothes - how you can both do that cheaply and you could also maybe look at remortgaging on interest only to reduce the payments for now.
Yes the kids do come first - emotionally as well as practically. Which is why the Government still give Child Benefits and Child Tax credits to the main parent with care. It might not be much - I think my ex has about £4,000 in total with two children - but it's a help. And one gripe we get on here is Dad's don't get any help when they have to provide a home too! Unless both parents agree to split the Child Benefits between them or one get the benefits for one child and the other get the other benefits for the other child.
The only other thing I can suggest is what my partner and I had to do for years to afford to feed and cloth my son. Clothes were bought and sold on ebay - it was time consuming but basically a straight swap each time and we got some nice stuff. Food and heating came first as a priority. We didn't buy anything for ourselves at all for Christmas and Birthdays, to afford a present for my son. We lived in cheap rented accommodation and made it homely - and were happy there and had lots of friends around. So ultimately it came down to happiness rather than material benefit.
It's hard to give up a home and lifestyle you've had or for the childrens lifestyle to change downwards - but don't blame the Dad if he can't pay. And actually it teaches kids life skills and not to be too entitled. My son respects when money is tight and doesn't expect too much.
. There is a lot wrong with the Child Support system - for both parents - it adds to the issues separated parents face and the fact it is linked to the number of nights with each parent just adds to those issues.The CMS usually encourage parents to make a family based arrangement, before doing an assessment - and that is what I have - so the amount stays the same all the time, regardless of whether my income goes up or down. We agreed a reasonable amount that is slightly more than my assessed rate. However so much depends on both trying to be reasonable. If a Dad is out of work and has no income then they can't pay - the Government has dumped all responsibility onto Dads to pay. If a Mum remarried someone with a good income and could manage with less then they should also be reasonable and suggest a lesser amount if the Dad is struggling.
Because this issue becomes so contentious, some Dads will only pay via the CMS at the assessed rate - and yes it goes up and down so isn't reliable. Some Dads get so incensed when they can't get to see their children regularly that they feel like paying less CMS (ie getting it assessed at the minimum rate allowable). We advise not to do this as retaliation as the money is for the children - and to use the courts to resolve time issues. However you can see the issue there - the Dad then has to find money to go to court as well as pay CMS! And sadly there are some Mothers who manipulate this thinking the Dad will just give up and go away as it's all too expensive. They have to pay CM at the assessed rate by law. But if they can't afford to go to court as well......
Partly this site is here to support Dads who are struggling emotionally and financially after separation (some are even homeless) and to help them through the court process if they can't afford legal fees.
It is the parent with care who is eligible for the CMS which is usually, but not always, the Mother, and except in cases of equal shared care.
Rather than blame the other parent though, I think it needs to be recognised that finances can be tough on both parents after separation and being dependent on an ex H's salary is not very reliable. It may mean retraining and starting a new job, or even downsizing a home if you can't manage the mortgage yourself.
I have also had tough financial times while caring for my son about 48% of the time for many years, while paying CMS I couldn't afford (kept to the same agreed amount) and for a few years had to live in three rented rooms to provide a home for my son.
I think it needs a perspective for the child's home lives with both parents - yes the children come first. The child needs suitable accommodation with both parents and to feel at home at both homes. A Dad isn't just someone who pays the bills.
We know what you mean although the term "access" became legally defunct in the early 2000's. It changed to "contact" then in 2014 it changed to "Spends time with" or "lives with" under the Child Arrangements Programme. Which is better - "contact" and "access" sounds very impersonal.
These times aren't actually "fixed". They are left for parents to agree between them - and when they can't agree the court generally orders a "standard" of every other week-end, one midweek overnight and half the holidays. And yes sometimes 50/50 shared care.
With 50/50 shared care, neither parent pays the other any child maintenance - they are both expected to equally provide for the children in their own home and split the cost of things like school uniform, lunches, school trips, shoes etc. Or if one parent is earning more they can agree to pay for the bulk of those costs.
50/50 is good though because it doesn allow both parents to pursue a reasonable career and earn and have a life outside of childcare - while the children get a quality life with both parents.
I'd ask you not to take our gripes personally! The Dads who come on here are the ones who have an ex who is not letting them see their children - and are trying to negotiate the court system (often without the funds to do so). When we know that the vast majority of Mums are reasonable in that way and there are just minor issues over scheduling.
Is your daughter still seeing her Dad and throughout the pandemic? All I can say is - I am really sorry you have been struggling - I don't know all the circumstances but the pandemic has hit a lot of people hard - economically and healthwise. People have ended up using their savings to live (costs went through the roof) and some have lost their jobs either from companies going bust or through health.
The CM will be based on his ability to pay. Which is not ideal for you if you're dependent on it. And that's not really his fault, if he doesn't have the income.
I would suggest - if you're amicable enough to talk, that you try and work out a temporary plan until matters improve financially for either of you. Like work out a financial plan to pay for shoes and clothes - how you can both do that cheaply and you could also maybe look at remortgaging on interest only to reduce the payments for now.
Yes the kids do come first - emotionally as well as practically. Which is why the Government still give Child Benefits and Child Tax credits to the main parent with care. It might not be much - I think my ex has about £4,000 in total with two children - but it's a help. And one gripe we get on here is Dad's don't get any help when they have to provide a home too! Unless both parents agree to split the Child Benefits between them or one get the benefits for one child and the other get the other benefits for the other child.
The only other thing I can suggest is what my partner and I had to do for years to afford to feed and cloth my son. Clothes were bought and sold on ebay - it was time consuming but basically a straight swap each time and we got some nice stuff. Food and heating came first as a priority. We didn't buy anything for ourselves at all for Christmas and Birthdays, to afford a present for my son. We lived in cheap rented accommodation and made it homely - and were happy there and had lots of friends around. So ultimately it came down to happiness rather than material benefit.
It's hard to give up a home and lifestyle you've had or for the childrens lifestyle to change downwards - but don't blame the Dad if he can't pay. And actually it teaches kids life skills and not to be too entitled. My son respects when money is tight and doesn't expect too much.
Last edited:
For now I would suggest having a meeting with the kids Dad - either via mediation or some kind of online discussion - having prepared first. And try to both be civil (even if a bit strange). Or set out some kind of proposal in writing. Suggest a set amount monthly that doesn't vary - even if it's lower than you would like. Set it out in a parenting agreement that says this will be reviewed.
Already though that creates issues - money is a messy business. Once he gets used to paying less he may resent paying more and feel he'd rather see his kids more than pay more! This is the system that sets separated parents against each other. Money should not be linked to time.
Are you feeling he is deliberately trying to get out of paying more as some kind of bad feeling? Or to get you to go to work or sell the house?
Ultimately - blame the Government - who set up the CSA in the first place. Rather than support single Mums they put the onus on the separated Dads to do this, to save the Government money. Many people end up in a financial trap when they can't earn as much as they'd like or they'd lose the housing benefit.
Already though that creates issues - money is a messy business. Once he gets used to paying less he may resent paying more and feel he'd rather see his kids more than pay more! This is the system that sets separated parents against each other. Money should not be linked to time.
Are you feeling he is deliberately trying to get out of paying more as some kind of bad feeling? Or to get you to go to work or sell the house?
Ultimately - blame the Government - who set up the CSA in the first place. Rather than support single Mums they put the onus on the separated Dads to do this, to save the Government money. Many people end up in a financial trap when they can't earn as much as they'd like or they'd lose the housing benefit.
Last edited: