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?

[neonrainbow]

Op i think you've handled yourself really well here . your big mistake here was starting a thread involving a stepmum and then adding maintenance is like a red flag to a bull to a lot of posters on mumsnet as you've found out. Sometimes it's like they think you have asked for a mauling when actually you just asked a question.

As a stepmum, if paying the current amount left dsis and bil struggling each month i would recalculate. If they can still cope paying that much id maintain. Although when my dh and i start ttc we probably won't be amending maintenance for the dsc. That would be the last thing we would cut and it would have to be drastic measures so im on bils side.

[Lucyccfc]

The question you need to ask your DSIS is 'If you and BIL split up, would you be happy with a reduced amount of maintenance for your child, because BIL decided to reduce his hours at work?'

If the boot was on the other foot, I bet your DSIS would not be happy. She should be ashamed of herself - she gives decent mothers a bad name.

[FeelingFine89]

Have they considered your Sis doing an extra day so they have more money and she can pay the extra CM so they don't lower it?

I thought maintenance was none of her business though. Therefore why should she put her hand in her pocket to pay towards it?

[arethereanyleftatall]

You could add to that Lucy - 'because bil decided to reduce his hours at work to spend more time with his new children, not yours.'

[lifeisunjust]

If the NRP lost their job, then they have to find another one. It's what happens in the country I live. IF they cannot, then they go back to court or mediated agreement and thrash out another level of payment, as then income support/unemployment benefit would set in and the money would be deducted usually at source. In the country where I live, it is absolutely none of the business of the step-mum, ever. It's the income of the parents which count, not the second families. It works well. It leads to more responsibility NOT to go and keep having more kids you cannot afford to support.

If a NRP stops working of their own accord or reduces hours of their own accord, the maintenance remains the same. If it is beyond their control, then the situation is re-assessed of course, but if it is deliberate, then the maintenance does not change. Most people where I live have 50/50 care and most mums work as well, very few SAHMs, less than 10% ie those well off enough not to work, it does mean maintenance is not actually the norm anyway, as salaries between parents are more even and with 50/50 parenting in 90% of cases, maintenance when it happens, is not usually too high. It leads to far more responsibility expected from parents to provide for their children. A NRP who doesn't pay is very rare indeed here and the equivalent of CMS is highly successful in tracing and forcing payment from the minority of parents (yep usually dads) who don't pay. As one of the last countries in the EU to set up an equivalent of CMS and with the background of mainly 50/50 parenting, it is one of the few success stories of bureaucracy here.

[AyeAmarok]

Well I didn't say that Feeling, but I'm more of the all money in one pot school of thinking for married folk. So maybe Sis pays extra of the mortgage and BIL pays his CM if that's more palatable for you.

If they needed more money for their rent/mortgage because of BIL's reduced hours, would Sis just suggest the bank/landlord just lumps it? Or would she say "we can't afford to only do 5 days between us, we need one of us to do one more".

BIL's first child should be considered a fixed cost too, IMO; given BIL's input into his life is so minimal, and CM rates for a NRP is so low anyway in comparison to what it costs to raise a child.

[neonrainbow]

If the vast majority have 50/50 then maintenance wouldn't be payable would it?

It does sound in some ways like a fairer system. for eg my dscs mum is single and unemployed and my dh's income is helping to supplement her decision to stay at home. I suppose that kind of thing doesn't happen where you live then?

[FeelingFine89]

Aye I agree the maintenance is a fixed cost just like the rent/mortgage. I never suggested that the bank or landlord lumps it. I've also never said the maintenance should be reduced.

But I do think it's his responsibility alone to pay for HIS sole responsibility. The mortgage is a shared one- the child isn't. If he can't afford to lower his hours then he can't afford it.

[NeedsAsockamnesty]

That explains why you appear have an issue with CM then neon the poster explained upthread quite clearly the circumstances that CM would be payable.

[AKissACuddleAndACheekyFinger]

He is absolutely right and your sister should be proud to have such a well balanced and loving father as a husband. What a thoroughly decent chap.

[AyeAmarok]

AKissACuddleAndACheekyFinger your username made me

[neonrainbow]

I don't have an issue with CM sockamnesty why do you say that? IDidn't just say my dh and i wouldn't consider reducing CM except in dire circumstances?

I have an issue with the way anything involving a stepmum is jumped all over regardless of what's really going on. I think the op has been given an unnecessarily hard time.

[lifeisunjust]

Yes Neon you are right, in most cases here, there is no or little maintenance payable, because the 2 parents' incomes tend to be little different, but if they ARE different and WERE different before a split, then the system requires the bigger earner to pay maintenance to the lower earner and any deliberate reduction of income by either parent is simply discarded, they have to continue to pay at the income which was before.

However a 50/50 system of parenting won't take off in the UK really until affordable child care is in place nationwide, enabling and encouraging both parents to work and take financial responsibility for their children. With a system and society which doesn't encourage 50/50 parenting as the norm, in the UK far too often it is the mother left with the children nearly the entire time, making it very hard to become financially more independent and this system encourages sole mothers to stay that way. I have great compassion for those mums in the UK stuck in this position, unable to further their careers, held back by father who far too often don't pay decent maintenance and far far too often go off and make a second family, with no consideration to the first family left behind with their new partners who think they shouldn't have to share what they see as THEIR income with the previously born children and see it as depriving any further children of income. Sorry, but the maintenance due to the first children, it should never be seen as in the family pot of the second family. If you do choose to have children with a parent who already has children with someone else, the moral thing to do is to is to do that only if you can afford it.

[leelu66]

Not rtft but how refreshing to read about a man not shirking his responsibilities and keen to maintain good quality of life fir his DC.

[lifeisunjust]

And Neon, you must not think the maintenance going to your partner's children is helping his children's mother stay at home, it is in fact FEEDING HIS CHILDREN!!!!! It is your choice to be with a man who has children and those children deserve to be fed. I would also guess their mum would not be at home by choice but perhaps because it is too hard and too expensive to pay for child care!!!!

[lifeisunjust]

I think the only solution I can see for the OP's sister is she increase her hours to pay for THEIR children really, instead of expecting her husband to effectively deprive HIS children in order to give THEIR children a nicer life. That's life you know, if you make the decision to have children, you should at the same time take responsibility to provide for them.

[Micah]

Dh

[neonrainbow]

How funny! I have just said i don't have any problem with paying child maintenance nor did i actually say i had any particular point of view on whether dscs mother chooses to work. How interesting that two posters jump to the conclusion that i resent it.

I was interested in whether an unemployed parent would be expected to work where you live whereas here she is free to make that choice.

I couldn't give a monkey's what dsc mother does i think it's good for them to have her around so much.

[lifeisunjust]

I doubt the majority of sole parents in the UK who are resident parents and are unemployed are unemployed by choice, more by circumstances. However, until there is child care which is affordable, that will continue in the UK. If and when the UK get their act together, scrap the child tax credit system and instead replace it with a system which encourages work for longer hours with less means testing, plus put in place child care from 8am to 6pm based around school from the age of 3, affordable to all, you will continue with the situation of sole parents finding themselves in the poverty trap and dependent upon the NRP to provide a part of income along with benefits.

I repeat again, I very much doubt the sole parent who is unemployed HAS MADE A FREE CHOICE as claimed.

[EElisavetaOfBelsornia]

Where do you live, lifeisunjust?

[wallywobbles]

So if your sister was the ex she'd really be ok with this would she. Yeah I thought not.

[emilybrontescorset]

Excellent points lifeisunjust.

My ex packed in his job and the ow ( who did not work when they met) has goneback to work ful time. My children receive nothing at all.

I personally agree with what you have written. If their father was made to pay maintenance at the rates he previously did, then I very much doubt he would have stopped working.

This was raised in court and the judge who dealt with my case was not impressed at all with my ex h. However as the law stands there is nothing the courts can do and my children have to suffer.

They do detest their fathers new wife, they see hear as responsible for their current situation as well as hI'm.

Dd1 asked why on earth this situation is legal. Nobody can justify it.


Lifeisunjust- the system of parents sharing responsibility sounds much better to me.

[lifeisunjust]

Shared parenting also discourages OWs as they quickly realize in fact their new catches have responsibilities which will always be there and then suddenly their new catches don't seem so desirable, when every other week they have to share their new catches with the children.

Shared parenting means few parents will deliberately give up their jobs to avoid paying maintenance, because you know what, society expects them NOT to walk out on their children when they walk out on the (mainly) mums. They have to take on 50% of the parenting, unless there is a mutually arranged lesser amount, which might happen if one or the other moves further away (the situation of expected shared care again discourages it though).

Shared parenting creates a system where absent parents are rare, where parents who leave the (mainly) mums and children to fend for themselves are thought of as lower humans that they are, as immoral (mainly) men whose only concerns are themselves and (far too often) their replacement partners the OWs.

[BlackeyedSusan]

I think possibly half way house, because there are health implications for bil. after all there will be no maintenance or income if bil makes himself so ill that he can not work. depends on what the health implications are though. whatever it is a bit shit for bils ex.

if they can afford to keep it the same, all the better. it is a case of balancing the needs of both sets of children. must not make one significantly poorer than the other, taking into account that one child will also benefit from seeing dad more, and thus expect to do less paid for things as would happen in a family where both parents are still together.

[lifeisunjust]

Health implications?
Ok next time my husband with the FCO who is on his 37 hour week tells me "oh I am just going to reduce the pathetic £5 a day I pay for the kids I abandoned because I want a better life-work balance with the OW and her 3 kids by 2 other men" whilst I work 50 hours a week to make up the shortfall from the £5 per day which covers only about 30% of their daily basic needs for food and housing, yep I'll be steaming even more than I already have done.

What about the health implications f the mum bringing up the child? Or the health needs of the child now having to live on less money?