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?

Ok. He pays quite a bit more than the calculated amount, and gives extras as I said. No, I'm not my sister . BiL usually goes to see his son for contact, he stays with his DB who lives near there. He has had him to stay but it's logistically hard as he's not old enough to travel alone and it's a long without a direct train or bus. My budget is not relevant.

How much is the difference in maintenance between the 2 options? I bet is a negligible amount. He is right to want to keep paying the higher amount, your sister is being pety.

So he has no relationship with his half siblings? Never stays in his father home?

I'm actually coming to the view that it is fair to keep the rate of pay as is. I do feel that the attacking of my sister and projecting worst possible motives on all of us is a bit unnecessary.

It's limited katenka. There is a massive geographical distance between their homes, school holidays are the main option and he goes away with his mum and half siblings on that side too. He has been on holiday with DSis and family, and they Skype a lot.

I think it's very simple. Unless you have an extremely high income, everyone knows supporting a child to independence takes a hell of a lot more than 15% of your income. Therefore any nrp worthy of the title 'dad' (or mum) would be willingly contributing more.

So it's really quite straightforward. Bil seems to be a proper dad who pays above the pittance of legal maintenance. If he wants to treat his eldest dc as inferior to younger dc he can reduce it. And if he wants to be a selfish twat unworthy of the title dad he can drop to the 15% joke level.

And while it's none of dsis business, if the latter excuse for a father is something she finds an attractive quality in a man perhaps she should have started a relationship with one of the many arsehole fathers available, instead of trying to change one that wants to support their child.

Ok- so look at it this way:

Bil is reducing hours for his health.

Presumably, that is going to extend his working life.

So over time it will even out, his son will either get 10 years at the current rate if he works full time, or 20 years at 3/5 of the current rate.

My dad worked his arse off to pay for his family. Worked himself into an early grave (at 40), left us with no income at all.

Good on your BIL!

My dickhead ex cut down his hours at work ( for childcare reasons) and decided it would be nice to stop paying whilst he worked out how much he'd now have to pay. 6 weeks worth of maintenance my son missed out on!! Suffice to say I now use the CMS....

I think you'll find OP that this is a bit of a "red rag" situation for a lot of people. My ex-h OW decided that my maintenance would be cut by £150 a month. As a carer for my ASD child this had a significant effect on our lives. They don't give a shit that they are swanning round having holidays, new cars, horses and generally flashing the cash. Ex-h has even allowed his own company to dissolve yet loudly proclaims that our DS is "his world" unless it comes to money obviously. The lengths some people will go to!

Therefore, it is quite refreshing to read about a man who is willing to step up for his child, regardless of his beginnings, and do the right thing. Your BIL sounds like one of the rare decent ones and your sister should be very glad that she's married a man like that frankly.

I have a lot of time for NRP's who pay above the legal minimum.

Having been involved with one for quite a while previously who had a temp health problem and couldn't maintain payments I paid them on his behalf because I felt it was important his child did not suffer the loss.

I do not have time for petty grasping partners of NRP's who resent the CM payments or try and frustrate them. It's vile.

Lurkedforever how can you say 15% doesn't support a child adequately? That entirely depends on 15% of what! 15% of £100 a week won't go far but 15% of £2000 a week is bloody loads!! How much of the income of the RP do you reckon is spent solely on the child? I doubt in most households it's more than 15%. Unless they do loads of expensive extra curricular activities which are not compulsory.

So your BIL hardly sees his son as well? Or is it a few days every school holiday?

If your BIL is going to see more of this child what will you dsis do for child care? When BIL is away with his son?

Why do they live apart? Did the mother move the child after the divorec? I always think that should be banned and which ever parent who wants to move far should be forced to move without the child and leave the child with the parent who isn't moving.

I'm sorry you feel people are attacking you OP but I don't think you have any concept of how insulting some of the things you have said are.

You said your BiL also pays 'extras' on top of maintenance such as winter coats. These are not 'extras', surely? They're just what people who have children do. I presume the child's mother is also funding these 'extras'. You almost made it sound as though the fact this happens on top of maintenance is something to be grateful for.

You saw fit to mention that the child is a result of a ONS. You said you did so to make it clear that it's not a 'first family, second family' situation but actually it's worse - it's almost as if you feel a ONS child has less reason for decent support. I'm sure that wasn't your conscious intention but I'm flabbergasted you mentioned it at all to be honest.

I'm glad you're coming round to the view that the payments shouldn't decrease but honestly I really do feel for your bil's eldest child - he lives so far away from his dad that he rarely stays overnight, it sounds as though he rarely sees him - certainly not enough to have any sort of meaningful relationship with his stepmother. And he's seen as expendable enough that when your sister and bil's finances get tighter, that's where the cloth is cut. It's not on. I think your BiL sounds as really decent person.

This really pisses me off.

The DS will not get extra time with his Dad, by the sounds of it he is very much on the outside anyway. Yet money meant for him will be reduced.

I really do think people shouldn't have more children if it means radically reducing the quality of life of an existing child.

Deo - there wasn't a divorce. OP has said already that the child was the result of a ONS.

I think you have taken a bit of a pasting OP. However whilst I understand that your BIL has good reasons for wanting to reduce his hours, his son has no benefit nor control over this. It will benefit your BIL's family with your DSis, but actually negatively affect his DS. If he was bringing extra childcare or contact time to the table, then that would balance out the impact of the reduction in CM. I appreciate that this isn't an option due to the distance involved, in which case the CM payment needs to be maintained.

Your DSis needs to try and move out of the mindset of 15% CMA calculation because it's pretty irrelevant in this scenario. Your BIL had already come to a private arrangement for his son. If there was something drastic - i.e. he loses his job, or becomes ill - then it would be out of his hands and the reduction in payment would unfortunate but unavoidable. However in this case the reduction in payment is entirely avoidable and he knows that the cost of raising his son is not going to change, just because his hours at work have reduced. Therefore the payment needs to stay the same.

I think you're letting yourself down with the digs about the child's mum. The ONS comment (it's still his first family, regardless how the child is conceived, it's not less of his responsibility just because they weren't married). And the " 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. "

Don't start that. It's irrelevant.

Bottom line, your DSis and BIL are making a decision that benefits them. This will not benefit his first child at all. So continuing to pay the same CM is frankly the least he should do.

Since he doesn't spend much time with him, he should consider him a fixed cost. Like your rent or mortgage. Make his decisions around that.

Bottom line, your DSis and BIL are making a decision that benefits them. This will not benefit his first child at all.

If his dad is healthier for the change, and is around/working for longer (and therefore paying)- it is of benefit to the first child.

As I posted upthread, if the dad works himself into such ill heath he can't pay at all, it's no benefit to anyone.

neon 15% of 2k wouldn't even keep one of my kids in there school placement for a week.

It's lifestyle, the child is entitled to one in line with both parents income, what joe blogs down the streets kid costs does not matter

I live in a country where 50/50 parenting is virtually obligatory, the UK has a lot to learn.

In this country, there are less arguments over maintenance as 90% of children spend 50% time with each parent, but when one parent has a larger income than the other, maintenance is payable to the poorer parent. In this country, if a parent DELIBERATELY reduces work hours and income or DELIBERATELY gives up work, they MUST continue to pay any maintenance at the rate before they DELIBERATELY change their income.

The OP's sister sounds a really selfish person. She is with someone she knew had a child, that child is ALWAYS going to be the child of her partner and deserves NOT to have a less comfortable life because the new partner, the sister, wants to have a more comfortable life. The sister appears yet to not realize she is in a relationship with her partner alone but her partner who MUST put the needs of the partner's child BEFORE her and any of their children.

partner who MUST put the needs of the partner's child BEFORE her and any of their children

No. All the children needs should be considered equally. No one child's needs are more important than any other.

Are you seriously saying younger children should go without because an older child always comes first? If you have two children, your eldest's needs are put before anyone else because they were born first? If you only have money for one set of music lessons, the eldest should get them and the youngest should go without?

Bollocks.

The bil isn't giving up work to DELIBERATELY reduce his CM. He's doing it for health reasons.

DeoGratias, I am taken aback by your comment. I am in the unenviable position to be forced to move away because of the utterly shit financial position my ex-h left me in. This is in order that my children have a secure roof over their heads. I wish I had the choice. I don't. So, you are saying that I should therefore hand my ASD son over to his father who does absolutely nothing for him, refuses to attend any courses to help our DS, pays barely any maintenance but plies him with MacDonalds and guilt toys. I could go on and on and on about what shit father he is. Don't get me started on OW who should be nowhere near children. I don't bloody think so! I have been forced into this position by them...why on earth should I be "banned" from moving?

The bil isn't giving up work to DELIBERATELY reduce his CM. He's doing it for health reasons.

No he isn't. The main reason he is doing it is to avoid paying childcare.

The op only added the health but later, when everyone said it was unfair.

But the main reason is childcare. If it was his health why not put that in the op?

His mother has made a lifestyle and has made financial obligations based on her income as we all do. To have that suddenly cut would be awful. She may not have made some decisions if she'd known there is less money in her pot.

Compare it to a sudden wage cut. Most people would struggle.

Bil and dsis have made the decision to cut their income. It's not fair to pull the rug under the boy and his mum - certainly not without a lot of advance notice.

her partner who MUST put the needs of the partner's child BEFORE her and any of their children.

Why does the needs of his first child come before his second child? Aren't they supposed to be equal? You're basically saying similar to what the sister is saying with the above quote.

Why does it always have to be such a competition about which child is more important?