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?

Pasting indeed. If I don't answer questions (even meaningless ones) I'm blanking, if I do, I'm giving irrelevant detail and having a dig.

Hoggle - is additional payments a better phrase than extras? Same thing but without the negative slant. The ONS is relevant because it's why BiL lives a long way from his son, why DSis and DNs don't get to see him much. Of course some posters will maintain that's rubbish and they're all just uncaring gits.

Deo they always lived far apart, BiL has never lived near his son, including when he was conceived.

lifeisunjust - how would it work where the child lives about 400 miles from his DF? 50:50 sometimes isn't possible.

Jolse - I think that's right and a good way of looking at it. Micah - thank you for recognising that DSis and DNs are people too.

katenka why are you determined to see this as something it's not? I never said it was about not wanting to pay for childcare. In fact I said they will be financially worse off. But they want to provide childcare themselves for their DCs, and BiL's health is also a major consideration. There are limits to what BiL can do for his son because of the distance, but he does what he can. If he follows his position of not reducing the support then his son won't be worse off.

maybe because you put this in your Op

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

Your assumption that there was a financial motivation though katenka. This is now the fourth time I am explaining - they won't need to use childcare and think this will be better for the DCs and less stressful for the parents. It's not about the money. Clear now?

neon of course parents spend more than 15% to raise a child. 2k a week would be £300. Do you honestly think the parent spends 1700 on themselves in that scenario, while the 300 covers everything from food, clothes, the cost of a 2nd bedroom, childcare, utilities etc for their child?

I'm with Katenka.

You dripfed the health issues, which became increasingly debilitating as you needed more justification.

Point still stands that your BIL and Sis are making theirs and their shared DC'S lives better at the expense of his first son.

The son is the only one who loses out here. They are making this decision at the sole detriment to his first child, and that is horribly selfish, no other way to describe it.

Bollocks Aye. Are you even on the right thread? At no point have I described my BiL's condition as debilitating. And my DSis isn't doing anything, they are still in the process of discussing what's right.

I posted for advice. I'm sorry I did, it's actually been incredibly unpleasant. Do posters forget there are real people behind a screen? That calling my sister names and attributing the worst possible motives to everyone might be upsetting? Or am I just asking for it cos it's AIBU?

I am with Katenka too.

I can't see where she even said the motivation was money.

She has said they are doing it to benefit the kids with your sister, not to benefit the first child.

The first child gets no benefit from this. If his health was really so bad, I would have thought you wouldn't only put childcare in the Op. The main reason is child care.

I suspect your BIL doesn't want to reduce payments as he realises that is ex has no say in this and the child won't be cheaper for her to look after.

I think he is being a responsible parent.

Had you have put he was having to give up some days due to poor health. The thread may have gone differently.

EElisavetaOfBelsornia

This actually puts me off Mumsnet. People seem to use it as a place to vent their frustrations in life.

I can understand why your sister has suggested lowering the payments. Regardless of whether you use the cs calculator or not how much maintenance you pay should be attributed to two things - how much you earn and how much time they spend at your home.

It's up to your sister's family to decide what they can afford to pay in child support. It's up to all of them because as a family they are a unit and it's their budget. Hopefully this one can be resolved without anyone having to suffer.

By the comments of some of you you'd think OP's sis was taking the food from the boy's hands. You really need to work on your communication skills, just because you're anonymous doesn't give you carte blanche to argue with strangers online with such venom. Hope it's made you feel better.

Perhaps we'd all better stick to asking how to make a block of cheese last 3 weeks in case we cause hissy fits up and down the country.

I suspect a lot of women think absent men have no idea what it really costs day in day out to raise a child and these issues of child maintenance bring it to the fore (and I write as someone who pays or paid when all were at home - 2 are grown up and left now for 5 children alone including a legal obligation to pay 5 sets of school fees pa i.e. £50k+ out of after tax income - not fun and then we meet fathers on dinner dates who go on about how they have hidden their wealth off shore from their wife and think that will make us find them attractive! Sadly there are a lot of men in the UK who don't pay even 50/50 for their child's full time childcare costs never mind food and even more who choose to disappear or move far away - that does not mean all mean are like that. There are also plenty who have more chidlren with a second woman when they could not really afford even the first children and had they stayed married would never have had that 3rd or 4th child due to expense but are happy to have those later children they cannot really afford with someone else. Then people get upset knowing about all those men like that out there and assume all men are the sasme which is not so. Plenty want to pay 50% of all the child costs and more importantly have the child half the week and do half its washing and sick clearance and homework supervision on a day in day out basis.

Thank you foodiefil I appreciate that.

There are lots of things unfair about this situation. It's unfair BiL has a disability. It's unfair on his son that his dad lives so far away, and the impact that has on relationships with that side of his family. It's unfair BiL pays above the required amount, the father of the boy's older sister spins what his income is to pay a minimal amount, and the father of the younger two pays nothing. But there is no way on this earth that my sister would contribute to that unfairness by leaving her stepson short, or that BiL would either.

The nastiness about both of them and their motives on this thread is unwarranted and not helpful to me. I do still think that they have a right to take decisions that are right for their family, and as long as the oldest has enough for his needs, some reduction in the amount paid to his mother, possibly delayed or tapered to minimise the impact, is possibly not unreasonable.

Could it be that Bil's maintenance supports the other 3 children because of the lack of maintenance their 2 absent fathers pay, as well as his own child? Is that correct or am I misunderstanding?

Why is it unfair that he pays above the minimum marked as CM? have you thought of raising a child on 15% of your net salary? You will see that amount covers very little, especially when the parent with care earns far less than the NRP. It is a marked minimum, not a maximum.

Personally, I think that if his dad has so little contact with the child, the more important it is that he pays more. When separated both parents pay for the upkeep of the children, it is not as if the whole needs of the child are covered by the 15% child maintenance, the NRP stills buys food, clothes and pays for child related expenses when their children are with them.

If the NRP is struggling to cover their expenses, fine but this is a lifestyle choice which benefits 2 kids and damages the other one. The fact that he was the product of ONS is not to be considered, there is still a child who needs that money for their upbringing. Or what, are yo so rubbish to think your nephew/nieces have more rights because they are "legitimate"??? I hope not.

If I were you, I would suggest your sister to drop the subject, she doesn't want her husband to get all over protective about the first child when he realises that your sister is behaving like a wicked stepmother.

Inevitably it will be. I don't blame the mum for that, she has to pay for them somehow and she can hardly spend loads on her DC2 and less on others. But not BiL's responsibility either. Actually he and DSis give birthday and Xmas presents to all four.

Did you actually read the whole sentence MeMy? Or just quote the part that suits your world view?

What wannabe said.

Also do you ever call 'the boy' you nephew OP?

Out of sight should not be out of mind, your SIL is being foolish.

the father of the boy's older sister spins what his income is to pay a minimal amount, and the father of the younger two pays nothing

How on earth do you know so much about the finances of a woman your BIL had a ONS with before you even knew him?

wonders who knows what (or think they know) about my finances

sorry, your nephew!

And not only her finances but her former partners' finances!

That's really kind of them, and kind to their mum as it means her children aren't ALWAYS being treated differently. So your Dsis isn't as villainous as she once sounded! (to some ...)

RudeElf Is it unreasonable to think that Bil's ex might have told him at some point how little help she gets from her other ex partners and then he's told his DP who told her Dsis?

People do talk ...

I know about her finances because she has told BiL and he has tried to help her. I called him the boy rather than using his name. I don't really think of him as my nephew to be honest (evil step aunt), but I've only met him twice.

whatever the CB calculator works out Haven't RTFT so sorry if missed but, does this mean that if the minimum that the calculator from CSA states is higher than the 3/5ths then she wants to drop it anyway - even though his salary would suggest he should pay more?

I thought their plans where off anyway but if that is the case your Dsis is a peach.

I don't understand the question Sanity. I suspect it's a suggestion that DSis is trying to scam the process leaving her stepson short because she's an uncaring bastard though - in which case, no, that's not correct.

In the country where I live, indeed where a parent has a child(ren) and there is a split and there is maintenance involved, when subsequent children are born, the first set of children's maintenance is NEVER reduced. If a parent decides to have more children, the subsequent children must be maintained entirely on whatever is left in income AFTER the first set of children receive their maintenance. This is how it is in many countries in Europe.

50/50 is not always possible, but if a parent moves away (there are few one night stands) then the parent who moves away will usually work out a way of keeping up as close to 50% with that child they've chosen to move away from. They've be well out of the country at 400 miles though :-) Usually if this happens, the parent who gets less time has to compensate further the parent who has the greater time.

The entire maintenance system here is set up not on a stupid 15/20/25% of income as basic maintenance from the non resident parent or less resident parent, but the "cost" of the child(ren) is ulated and divided according to parental income. Housing costs are divided amongst the number in household, school costs, food costs, all sorts, it is all added up. For example, each of my children costs me 500 euro per month. The father never sees the children so all costs are paid by me. The court decided the father must pay 60% of their costs and that is what he pays every month. If his income dips, too bad, he still has to pay!!!!! If he gives up his job, too bad still, the court still makes him pay. Absent parents are almost non existent here.

The OP's BIL sounds a really good father, despite the distance. He has taken responsibility and the sister unfortunately has a lot to learn.