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?

[RubbleBubble00]

ok so boils down to - does her dh want to do this? If he doesn't then she needs to let it go. If he does then he needs to talk to his ex, explain that he needs to reduce hours due to his health and talk about a possible reduction. Honestly unless money is super tight then I'd leave it as they are possible setting themselves up for major agro.

[BertieBeats]

Katenka no ,they have a private agreement. So his 3 eldest have never taken a hit financially. That's just how CSA work it out ,it even applies when the father moves in with a woman who already has a child. That child will get taken into account even though it's not biological his and the mother could be receiving child maintenance from the father.

[Katenka]

Thanks bertie

[EElisavetaOfBelsornia]

I'm not blanking, it's a rhetorical question. His son isn't resident with him so doesn't benefit from his dad having more time at home, except possibly increased contact in school holidays (with his mum's agreement ). He does benefit from his dad having better health, but that doesn't seem to cut much ice here. My sister isn't in much of a position to "help" her stepson as she doesn't have contact. What I said was that she wants to be fair.

[BertieBeats]

Katenka sorry I thought you were aiming that question at my situation. Yes ,if they go officially through CSA then the mother would have received a cut already and will do again when 2nd child comes.

[RudeElf]

So how will a £50 reduction Benefit the eldest child? The others benefit by having more time with both their parents. I'm assuming the reduction will benefit eldest son in some way?

[EElisavetaOfBelsornia]

katenka I know increased contact would be fine, as the mum has discussed this before. I don't want to say more in case it looks like having a dig at the mum.

rubble I think that's right. I'm seeing them tomorrow so can talk to BiL directly then. He is a decent person so I think he will probably be keen to do the most right and fair thing.

[FeelingFine89]

£100 reduction is quite a lot. As is a £50 one really. It may just tip the balance.

[RubbleBubble00]

and I think £100 a month reduction is too much. £50 is more palatable

[RudeElf]

it's a rhetorical question.

It certainly isnt!

He has made a choice to benefit his family. His son is his family (and was there before the rest of the family) so what is the benefit to him?

[Katenka]

Thanks Bertie.

So potenially the mother has already taken a couple of hits since the op refers to 'children'.

By the sounds of it though the BIL wouldn't have wanted to do that, so hopefully that didn't happen.

[cannotlogin]

Can you afford to lose £50 from your monthly (I assume monthly?) budget then?

[RudeElf]

My sister isn't in much of a position to "help" her stepson as she doesn't have contact.

So where does eldest spend his contact time with his dad if your sister doesnt see him?

[arethereanyleftatall]

I'm pleased to realise that if i were your sister in this scenario, it wouldn't have occurred to me to ask my dh to reduce payment.
I did go when I got to the part of your op suggesting reduced payments.

[neonrainbow]

There's more to life than money. Of course it will benefit all the children to have a dad who is fit and healthy. The needs of the second family don't come before the first. It should all be equal. Nobody knows how much above the csa minimum the guy pays here. But if he needs to reduce his hours for the good of his health and yet is still paying a decent amount the ex should adjust to the new payment. Nobody knows what he is paying. If its £1000 a month a child can easily be kept on less than that considering the mother is meant to pay half as well. Circumstances change.

[FeelingFine89]

RudeElf Her sister might be at work or elsewhere. She doesn't have to be there every time her stepson is there.

[arethereanyleftatall]

Actually - are you the 'sister'.

Only because you asked for advice, 100% of posters have said reducing payment is wrong, and you've argued against everyone.

[cannotlogin]

There's more to life than money

Easy to say when it's not you that is going to have to make up the difference in budget, isn't it?

[RudeElf]

RudeElf Her sister might be at work or elsewhere. She doesn't have to be there every time her stepson is there.

The child lives hundreds of miles away so i assumed he stayed at least one night at a time when he visits his dad, who presumably lives with OPs sister. It would be odd for her never to see him.

[neonrainbow]

How do you know there will be a significant shortfall? What if the bil already pays well over the odds and the reduced amount will still be very generous?

[Katenka]

Her sister might be at work or elsewhere. She doesn't have to be there every time her stepson is there.

The step son lives far away. I doubt he only visits for the day.

[MeMySonAndl]

He sounds like a decent guy, your sister on the other hand

[DeoGratias]

Men do this all the time - work fewer hours or give up all work so that their second family benefit and the first is much worse off. It's an appalling tactic although legally it works.

[cannotlogin]

What is way over the odds? It is widely acknowledged that legal/statutory rates of child maintenance are inadequate in terms of making a 50% contribution towards the cost of bringing up a child. I get 'shit happens
' and we all have to deal with financial issues not necessarily of our making....but it is not unreasonable that the ex assumes an agreed contribution continues in all but loss of job situations. Otherwise, what is the point? Surely a parent should be making a regular, reliable contribution and not making decisions which impact on the income of another household without prior discussion and agreement

[FeelingFine89]

She probably doesn't see him much though, therefore doesn't really have much of a relationship with him. And then when you factor in the fact that she might be working or have plans when he's there, it reduces her time seeing him even more.

I'm not actually sure how any of this is relevant any way. He's the dad's responsibility