Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

What is fair in this situation re child support?

244 replies

EElisavetaOfBelsornia · 10/03/2016 16:44

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?

OP posts:
Original poster
EElisavetaOfBelsornia · 10/03/2016 18:27

Wow bit aggressive katenka. He can continue to work FT, but PT will be better for his health. This will be better for his family. Not sure why people think DSis going FT would be a good solution as BiL would legally not be obliged to pay at all, but both are public sector without job security, so both retaining employment is safer.

OP posts:
Original poster
EElisavetaOfBelsornia · 10/03/2016 18:29

Missed the question from rookiemere - he's 12. He's a bright boy so I think he will do further education, so probably another 10 years.

OP posts:
TheFormidableMrsC · 10/03/2016 18:29

I am hmm at anyone who decides to start dictating what someone should be paying towards their children

Indeed, I have this problem with my ex-husband and OW. Thus, he pays a pittance. Her child doesn't go without though, obviously Hmm

In my view, the first family should not have to suffer because your sister and her DH have made a lifestyle choice. Is your sister assuming that the first family should also adjust their "lifestyle" to accommodate hers? What a cheek! Your BIL at least sounds like a decent human being. If they can't maintain what your BIL already pays, maybe they should reconsider their decision.

Theoretician · 10/03/2016 18:35

OK my last post was unreasonable. Probably most posters are consistent from one thread to another.

The truth in OP situation is we don't know what is reasonable, without having a full picture of both households finances. The fact that people can reach conclusions without this is just projection/bias, which was what set me off.

RudeElf · 10/03/2016 18:36

RudeElf it's not for financial reasons. They think it would be better for DCs, less stress and as BiL has health condition give him time to keep fit etc.

Well based in that then i think it would be like a kick in the teeth to then reduce financial support to his other child, especially given that BIL doesnt provide any childcare for that child and the new arrangement wont benefit him at all but is being done for the benefit of his siblings.

lunar1 · 10/03/2016 18:37

Stop defending your sister, she is behaving like a real bitch. She wants to improve hers and her children's life at the expense of her son. A mid way point is not a fair compromise. If he is no practical help in his sons life then he cannot reduce hours at the expense of his eldest.

Your sister needs a good bloody shaming if she insists on this. It's fucking nasty and greedy.

lunar1 · 10/03/2016 18:38

That should have said her stepson not son.

notinagreatplace · 10/03/2016 18:38

I think quite an important factor here is - is your BIL planning to have his sone more often, e.g. for longer stretches of the summer holidays, when he's working less?

I think both parents going part-time is a good idea, in general - much more tax efficient than one giving up work entirely as well as giving you greater reassurance against redundancy, etc.

foodiefil · 10/03/2016 18:39

Katenka OP has pointed out it's because of his health as well hasn't she? Unless I've misread. Decisions can be taken out of our own hands at times and just because it's 'their decision' doesn't mean they should put themselves in a poor position so they don't upset his ex's and his child's lifestyle.

It's a shame his child from a previous relationship lives far away from him. Hopefully the BiL will use some of time to spend with them also.

Moving15 · 10/03/2016 18:44

He sounds like a good father not only for reducing his work hours for the benefit of the children he lives with but also to maintain the financial contribution towards the child he doesn't live with.

twirlypoo · 10/03/2016 18:45

I currently work 2 jobs and have sole care of my Ds as his dad lives abroad. It would be better for my health if I had the chance to reduce my hours (any of my hours!) so I could have a bloody break, but I don't get that choice to opt out, and I do what I do because it is best for my family. I am thinking that the step sons mum probably feels similar. It would stick in my throat somewhat if my Ds dad went part time because he wanted to spend more time with his other kids and because it was better for his health.

TheFormidableMrsC · 10/03/2016 18:53

What lunar1 says. That.

Original poster
EElisavetaOfBelsornia · 10/03/2016 18:55

I'm defending my sister because she's getting a rough ride from the First Wives Club here. BiL has never shirked paying child support, but his disability is advancing, and working fewer hours would be better for him. He does plan to talk to the boy's mum, she's not his "ex" as such, he was a ONS. I'm surprised the consensus is that there should be no reduction in payment when his income reduces.

OP posts:
cannotlogin · 10/03/2016 18:57

fucking hell. the double standards on these forums just rumble on and on, don't they?!

2 adults - capable of working 2 full working weeks between them, making a choice to work only one full week between them, ostensibly 'for the good of our health' (nothing concrete given to suggest there is any real health reason to reduce working hours). Will those two adults and their children be entitled to additional tax credits, child benefit, housing benefit etc. as a result of this lifestyle choice? The child in the 'first' household will have no additional entitlement to additional state support as a result of his father's reduction in support. The child's mother will, presumably, have to tighten her belt - depending on her circumstances that might not mean much at all or could result in the loss of housing or the ability to buy fresh, healthy food. She has no choice but to suck it up and get on with it - legally, anyway.

I will ask again. If I, as a single parent of 3, made a decision to reduce my working hours (thereby increasing my entitlement to benefits) and demanded that my ex made up any difference, what would people say? Is that acceptable? I would most certainly benefit from part-time working - I would be less stressed, I would have time to go to the gym (which I would get at a reduced rate because my income would be lower) and have the opportunity to seriously calorie count and make healthy, nutritious food. My health couldn't help but benefit - and my children would benefit from a healthier, happier mum who was at home at least part of the time to help them with homework etc. etc. etc.

OP - your sister and her husband need to avail themselves of the rules of Universal Credit- this has been specifically designed to stop 2 adults making a decision not to work like the rest of us have to do.

Micah · 10/03/2016 18:58

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

It's really not that simple though.

It was DH's ex choice to swap him for a newer version- that's her "lifestyle choice".

If DH wants to change his lifestyle I'd say he has every right, without any consideration of his ex, just like she didn't consider him or the children when she kicked him out.

Their "pre-agreed maintenance" is CSA minimum. So he keeps to that. Any extra he either puts in a savings account, pays for one off expenses, or gives it directly to the children.

twirlypoo · 10/03/2016 19:00

What difference does it make if she is an "ex" or a ONS? She is the mother of his child.

cannotlogin · 10/03/2016 19:01

It was DH's ex choice to swap him for a newer version- that's her "lifestyle choice

Child maintenance. Clue is in the title. Fuck all to do with what choices any of the adults in any of these situations made for themselves. The point is to support the children.

notinagreatplace · 10/03/2016 19:03

OP - your sister and her husband need to avail themselves of the rules of Universal Credit- this has been specifically designed to stop 2 adults making a decision not to work like the rest of us have to do.

Not necessarily relevant - depends how much they earn, if they earn a good wage, they won't be on UC.

lunar1 · 10/03/2016 19:03

Piss off with your first wives club. That's just a way to dismiss a large number of people's opinions as irrelevant, that don't happen to fit in with what you want.

Is there any way in which this part time work will help the eldest child and his mother?

The ons is a distraction, they had sex and made a baby. The child needs supporting by his parents no matter what the circumstances.

cannotlogin · 10/03/2016 19:05

Not necessarily relevant - depends how much they earn, if they earn a good wage, they won't be on UC

so is it OK for me to give up work, claim more benefits, expect my ex to make up the difference in supporting our children? Or not?

NotMeNotYouNotAnyone · 10/03/2016 19:05

My health is suffering from working full time, I have mental health problems and would greatly benefit from reduced hours but can't afford to. Many people would rather work less but most of us don't have a choice.

Presumably they won't go to their LL or mortgage company and say "sorry we don't feel up to working more than half a week each so we'll be reducing our monthly payments". Children are a non negotiable expense just like that.

Sorry no sympathy for the ONS excuse, use protection.

Your BIL sounds like he's trying to be a good dad to all his children, your Sister is the stereotypical "new wife" who wants to have it all and sees her stepson as a resource drain on her family

lunar1 · 10/03/2016 19:06

Would a couple really get more benefits if they chose to work less?

RudeElf · 10/03/2016 19:07

I'm surprised the consensus is that there should be no reduction in payment when his income reduces.

The decision is being made to benefit his family.

Which part of it is benefitting his eldest child who is his family?

I cant see any benefit to him. So At the very least it shouldnt negatively affect him which it would if support is reduced.

cannotlogin · 10/03/2016 19:09

Would a couple really get more benefits if they chose to work less?

Potentially, yes. Universal Credit will make it more difficult but not impossible.

notinagreatplace · 10/03/2016 19:10

so is it OK for me to give up work, claim more benefits, expect my ex to make up the difference in supporting our children? Or not?

I have absolutely no idea what this has to do with Universal Credit and the OP's sister and BIL