What is fair in this situation re child support?

[EElisavetaOfBelsornia]

DSis has asked for my advice. She works 2 days a week, BiL is FT but asked to reduce to 3 days so they will not need to use any childcare. BiL has a child from a previous relationship for whom he pays child support. DSis thinks he should pay about three fifths of what he currents pays, whatever the CB calculator works out as, because his income has reduced. BiL thinks it's unfair for the child and his mum to have less money because they are taking a lifestyle choice - he said he, DSis and their DCs would benefit but his DS and his mum would suffer. She asked me for advice. I am thinking of suggesting a half way position - the rate that 4 days would work out as if that makes sense. What do you think?

[MadameJosephine]

It depends, in principle he is right, the CSA calculations are a minimum surely and his child should not have to suffer because of his fathers choice to reduce hours. However, this is also true of his children from his current relationship so if paying the higher amount means they struggle to provide for those children then a midway amount may be fairer all round

[wannaBe]

Well, if a child spends a part of its time living with said SM then surely one would expect a relationship to exist between them. However the level of running around after said child that is expected should surely be between the child's parent and the step parent not outsiders.

However the amount of money paid would be the concern of the child's mother in this instance given it will affect her directly?

[wannaBe]

MadameJosephine but the reduction in hours is a choice. If the children's lifestyle is impacted then that is because of the choices the parents have made.

If we were talking redundancy or similar then that would be a different matter entirely.

[Katenka]

How is this better for his first DC? That child isn't benefiting at all, in fact is losing out.

He needs time to get fit?

I have two kids, work ft and still keep myself fit.

[EElisavetaOfBelsornia]

DSis is getting a hard time. She wants to be fair, and thinks CSA rates would be. katenka BiL has a disability, it's not just being a gym bunny, his health and longevity will improve by a less stressful and healthier lifestyle. His son lives 100s of miles away so there can't be much more contact through this arrangement, maybe a bit more in school holidays b

[rookiemere]

If he change his circumstances and afford to keep paying the existing rate without causing financial distress to his new family that's what he should do.

But by financial distress I mean leaving them at a rate where they need to go to food banks and can't pay bills, rather than they need to holiday in the Lake District rather than Lake Como.

To be fair very few families could afford the set up where one parent works 2 days a week and the other works 3, so I'm surmising from that that they are on reasonable incomes to begin with.

[Katenka]

I didn't say it was about wing a gym bunny.

Again how is his first DC benefitting?

How is the DC cheaper for his/her mother to raise?

[Katenka]

It also sounds like you are padding this out to defend your sister.

You said it was so they will not need to use childcare.

Now it's 'he has to give up work so because he disabled and this will mean he lives longer'

[wannaBe]

No the only people she wants to be fair to is herself and her family, at the expense of a child who lives hundreds of miles away.

For the child who will be disadvantaged by this plan it's also about so much more than money. It's about his dad reducing his hours at work so he can spend more time with his other children, at the older child's expense if your sister gets her way.

How do you think this child will feel growing up, knowing that he was deliberately disadvantaged in favour of his half siblings? It won't exactly make for a great relationship as he grows up and understanding increases that's for sure.

[rookiemere]

What age is the oldest son? How many years would this arrangement need to be paid for?

[Micah]

Plug his new income into the CM calculator to get a starting figure.

You might say it's none of dsis business, but it is in some ways as it's their household income that will be affected, so the more they give ex the less they have to live on.

Just from another pov- I don't think RP should be forced to keep paying at the same level- circumstances change. Jobs are lost, people choose to go part time (even without kids), lifestyle changes happen. These would happen if the NRP were still with the childs mother, and they'd still get the cut in income.

He needs to talk to his ex about finances, and about his choices. If she is dependent on the existing amount of CM, some budgeting on both sides may be needed. Maybe agree to pay for another year, give her time to get used to the change. Another option might be to have a savings account for his son, that you can put the extra in, then they have money to help her out with big expenses like school trips etc.

[AutumnLeavesArePretty]

Your BIL sounds like a real gentleman, there's not way the first child should suffer as they don't want to work much each.

Your sis needs to remember she had the choice to choose a spouse that had no existing children but chose not too.

If she truly had his health in mind she'd let him stay home and work full time so that says it's more about saving on childcare and reducing the ex's payment.

[Micah]

No the only people she wants to be fair to is herself and her family, at the expense of a child who lives hundreds of miles away.

For the child who will be disadvantaged by this plan it's also about so much more than money. It's about his dad reducing his hours at work so he can spend more time with his other children, at the older child's expense if your sister gets her way.

How do you think this child will feel growing up, knowing that he was deliberately disadvantaged in favour of his half siblings? It won't exactly make for a great relationship as he grows up and understanding increases that's for sure

How do you know the child will be disadvantaged? Presumably access won't change, or may improve if his dad has more free time. His ex may be financially secure that CM doesn't make any difference to their lifestyle.

[rookiemere]

Let's remember as well before we crown BIL father of the year that the CB amount is the minimum recommended amount that a separated parent should pay.

I'm always surprised by how low it is and how little it takes into account the practicalities of raising a child i.e. compromise of career and earnings if you work p/t, childcare costs if you work p/t or f/t, uniform costs, living in a bigger house than you would do otherwise etc. etc. CB doesn't come close to covering half those costs.

[CheeseAndOnionWalkers]

The CSA amount is a minimum. Good on your BIL for paying more.

If your BIL and sister can both afford to work part time it shouldn't be at the expense of child from previous relationship.

If there is a compromise gat can be made eg BIL doing more childcare for child from previous relationship then it's worth talking to his mother and seeing if a deal can be struck.

[chinam]

I think your sister needs to take a good hard look at herself. She wants a better life for her child at the expense of another child. Sorry, she is totally out of order.

[foodiefil]

They should pay what they can afford. To anyone saying it's not your sister's business what he pays, guess what - it is. It is now THEIR joint income not him and his ex's.

Their family shouldn't be the only ones who have to tighten their belts - he should pay a proportion of his income that is appropriate. Neither child should have to go without.

[cannotlogin]

I would love to be able to work part time for the benefit of my health. Unfortunately I have 3 children to support and therefore don't have that luxury. If as a single parent I gave up my well paid full time job I can imagine what people would have to say about that.

I agree your sister needs to re-think her priorities and accept that your BIL has a child who needs supporting. There should be no compromise to reach: this is a lifestyle choice.

[arethereanyleftatall]

I think this is a horrible way of thinking from your sister.

Why doesn't she go the whole hog and she can work full time, and him not at all, to reduce payments even further and to benefit his health?

[Trollicking]

Hopefully having a fit and healthy Dad is a benefit to your DBILs child. If working 5 days a week is detrimental to his health then it's not a lifestyle choice.

I think a halfway position sounds good.

[Katenka]

Their family shouldn't be the only ones who have to tighten their belts - he should pay a proportion of his income that is appropriate. Neither child should have to go without.

Why shouldn't they be the only ones to tighten their belts?

It's their decision?

[cannotlogin]

Yes trollicking it is perfectly acceptable to expect the child's other parent to make up the difference...as I said, my health would benefit from me working part time. I think I will cut my hours and expect my ex to make up the difference.

[WhereYouLeftIt]

Yes, the ex-partner has no say in your BIL's decision. No taxation unilateral reduction of child support without representation!

[Theoretician]

For people saying that he should continue to pay the same amount because other childs needs haven't changed, is the corollary of that that if the money makes no difference (because ex has lots of money from other sources) it's OK for him to pay nothing? In other words, is it needs or CSA calculator of the law that should determine it?

(I know the MN answer: it's whichever of the two gives the higher number, unless it's your own partner paying to someone else, in which case it's the lower of the two.)

[NotMeNotYouNotAnyone]

BIL is right, it's not fair on the older child to reduce payments because of his new family's lifestyle choice. His pre agreed maintainace should be viewed as a non negotiable bill like rent, it doesn't change to suit your lifestyle