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?

[Katenka]

Wow bit aggressive katenka. He can continue to work FT, but PT will be better for his family

Really aggressive? Can you point out where I was aggressive or is that just an attempt to shut down the conversation.

His family is also his first child. Why is this better for him?

[wheresthel1ght]

IF this decision was being made as a result of redundancy then I would be inclined to agree with your sister. However, as they are making the choice to improve their own life then your BIL is correct and maintenance should stay at the current rate.

And for the record I am the second family. DP has 2 kids with his ex.

[Katenka]

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.

Which she didn't mention until people pointed out that his choices should impact his first child.

The primary reason is so that he and his new wife don't have to pay for childcare.

[cannotlogin]

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

sigh. My point (again) is this...the OP's BIL wants to reduce his hours for the good of his health. I would love to do the same. Only I'm a single parent. Is it OK for me to do the same as the OP's BIL - bearing in mind that will be an increase in benefits and an expectation that my ex makes up the difference? Just as the OP's sister thinks it perfectly acceptable to reduce her hours (and thus - potentially - increase her likelihood of being eligible for benefits) and expects her husband's ex to make up any short fall in bringing up their child.

[Katenka]

I'm defending my sister because she's getting a rough ride from the First Wives Club here.

Sounds like another attempt to shut people up, when you don't like their opinion.

They are making a decision based on what's best for their family. This will have implications for the ex and the son she shares with BIL. Does she get any say in this?

[WhereYouLeftIt]

Ooh OP, you lost a lot of moral high ground with your 'First Wives Club' dig. And I think you'll find there's a lot of second wives on here BTW.

Your sister chose to marry a man who already had a child to maintain. Her children will will be exchanging family money for more time with dad. BIL's first child will not have that trade-off, will he? Dad will be contributing to his upkeep less, so that he can spend more time with his other children. You cannot deny that that is how this child is likely to see it. AND HE'D BE RIGHT.

Your sister needs to back off and let her husband be the decent human being he is.

[TheFormidableMrsC]

"First wives club". ODFOD.

[BertieBeats]

Slightly different situation but same principle. When partner and I went on to have 2 children he carried paying the same amount to his 3 children from a previous relationship as he didn't agree with reducing it like CSA does. The payments don't put us under financial strain as partners wages have always stayed the same so when we've planned our family we've removed maintenance payments and worked out our finances with what's left. We've decided on a third child but 2 of his children are now adults so he only pays got the one child left. We wouldn't have opted for a 3rd if his children were younger as he's never wanted to reduce payments and we would have struggled.
Obviously for situations that can't be prevented like job loss, a drop in wages etc.... then child maintenance should reduce for the parents contribution would drop even if he was living with his children. But ,it's not fair for children and mother to take a hit financially when it can be prevented.

[foodiefil]

Katenka I don't think that is the primary reason at all, I find it really odd that you've decided that it is for that reason. As you've asked OP for details on your aggression, can you point out what makes you think that is the main reason?

And you are being aggressive. You can get your point across without being aggressive. It's your tone, the way you're cutting and pasting people's points and stripping them down. And NO ex partners don't get a say in current family's situations. TRUST ME.

You sound personally offended by this. Which perhaps you are. It can be very hurtful for an ex to move on and have children with someone else when you're still bringing up your children with him and any thought that they have a better life than you would sting.

[Katenka]

Does CM take a hit if the NRP has another child with a new partner?

[TheFormidableMrsC]

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

Surprised? Really? They are choosing to reduce his income for lifestyle purposes as you made very clear in your OP. You still haven't clarified why the first family (ONS being a particularly rotten dig) should suffer as a result?

[FeelingFine89]

wheres I agree if he was being made redundant, was sacked or had to leave work due to ill health etc... then both households should have to re jig their finances as shit like that happens. Even in the case of him being sacked, why is one child worth protecting from that than the other?

If it's a lifestyle choice and he has he choice of lowering his hours, then he needs to think about whether him lowering his hours will actually benefit his family, which includes both children.

People shouldn't underestimate how this plan may effect his youngest child, as well as his oldest.

[EElisavetaOfBelsornia]

Finances are not the primary reason. It's about quality of life. They are not on any benefits, and won't be in the new situation. I gave the information about ONS because posters were describing this as an 'ex' and 'first family' which was never the case.

I apologise for the First Wives Club comment, I feel like my sister (and me by association) is getting absolutely castigated, and I do genuinely think she wants to be fair. She hasn't rejected BiL's view, she asked for a third opinion. Telling her she has no right to a view, or is a bitch will hardly help.

Looking at the more measured comments, I think the key is to focus on his son and his needs, as a equal factor with the other DCs. I'm not sure if BiL has considered that an advantage of this might be more time for increased contact with his son.

[BertieBeats]

Katenka CSA (or CMS as it's called now ) take a percentage of the parents wages according to how many children they have in total and then divide it for each child. For instance, partner has 5 children which I think is 25% now so each child would receive 5%. Which means that we'd get 10% back for our 2 children so the mother to his other 3 children would only receive 15% as opposed to the original 25%.

[RubbleBubble00]

unless they are on their knees and struggling to pay bills he should pay the same maintenance. They are making a lifestyle choice to suit their family so should stay the same, even more so if the dad can't practically help out.

[Katenka]

I'm not sure if BiL has considered that an advantage of this might be more time for increased contact with his son.

But that's not a given is it?

Who is to say the mother would be willing to give up more time with her son?

How often does he see him now?

[Katenka]

bertie so does that mean the mother of his first child has already had the CM reduced each time the BIL has had another child. And is now going to have to take another hit?

[lunar1]

Your sister doesn't want to be fair though, she wants to take money from a child to benefit herself.

[EElisavetaOfBelsornia]

I'm sure the mother would agree katenka.

[RubbleBubble00]

Your sister is allowe to have an opionion but it's intimately her dh choice with the maintenance that paid. If he wishes to reduce then he should have a conversation with his sons mother. I applaud him though, csa levels don't really cover the costs for the child. If payments are reduced then I'd expect his ex to ask them to cover things life uniform, shoes ect so may not be an easier option

[EElisavetaOfBelsornia]

Wow lunar, you know my sister and her motivations far better than I do. Have you discussed this a lot with her?

[RubbleBubble00]

what's the actual monetary reduction your sister wants?

[EElisavetaOfBelsornia]

I think it would work out at about £100 a month reduction. So I'm suggesting £50 as a midway point. He does contribute in kind with things like shoes or winter coat on top.

[lunar1]

It's what you have included in your posts, and you have absolutely blanked every time anyone has asked in what way the eldest child will benefit from this reduction in money.

Can you explain how your sister is trying to help her step son?

[Katenka]

I'm sure the mother would agree katenka.

How do you know? How do you know so much about a woman you BIL had a ONS with and who lives at the other side of the country. Especially when you say other people can't know your sisters motivation.

Let's be honest she may say no to extra contact because she doesn't want more time away from her son, or because she thinks this (possibly) third hit to CM is takin the piss.