To not pay SIL?

[basketcase1]

Basically...SIL is my childminder, she is a Sahm since her 2 dc were born. When I had my ds I was going to put him in nursery and she offered to have him daily and I would pay her a fee. This fee was only payable when he went (so if he was sick- no payment, and during holidays - no payment) I am a teacher so it worked really well for us! I paid her cash ( so it was extra cash for her and it was much cheaper for me!)

When all of this Covid 19 kicked off, schools were shut and now I am home. I am managing with DS at home as he is 18months and still naps. Obviously, now that I am home I don't need childcare so I wasn't paying SIL (as per agreement). All fine, but now dh is saying (even though his pay has been reduced) that we need to pay SIL something as this has been going on too long! They are not hard up as such, her dh is in banking and is still working.
SIL has never mentioned anything to me...so imo all is fine and the agreement we had still stands- no attendance = no pay!
DH is becoming adamant and is bringing it up daily at this rate.
So...AIBU to not pay her!??

@Pinkyyy that's basically what I said to dh. She went into all of this (as did I) knowing that it had no security as such. She was happy to engage in it!! It was her bloody idea. And now I'm the one getting the flack

I think since you’re both dodging tax she won’t be able to claim anything from the self employed schemes, I would probably offer to pay if I could afford it, purely because it’s family

She's not your childminder, Op: she's your baby-sitter.

Was waiting for the 'dodging tax' comments. Brilliant.

OP, you've got quite a good set up here and I think if you want to keep it then maybe a token gesture wouldn't go amiss

If she's not a registered childminder and she's not using up a place to care for your dc, then this sounds like a completely informal family arrangement and there's no reason that you should be changing it now.

She's not having to juggle the needs of your dc with her own at the moment so she doesn't need compensating.

Would it be useful for him to go to her on a reduced basis. Maybe once a week so you can have a day to wfh without distractions and lo has the continuity of childcare to make it easier for him to go back when schools return.

Could be a good compromise as that way both households are getting benefit albeit reduced.

I agree with @2007Millie a token gesture to keep them sweet wouldn't go amiss.

Stop speaking to your DH and speak to SIL without your DH (or hers in case they have a weird control dynamic and that’s why she needs the money). Mention your DH had suggested you should be paying her something but you are hesitant to unless they need it because your household now has less income too due to the pay cut, but say you will contribute if they need it. That way you have offered but you’ve made it clear they shouldn’t take you for the money unless they NEED it. It was SIL’s decision to be a SAHM and I bet she still would be one if you didn’t have kids. I would only pay while my child is actually there but it’s his sister and he maybe feels bad.

I pay my cm and ds not attending, I find it hard to believe you didn't think to offer something, Are you still getting paid? If so, I think you should offer something

This is an internal family arrangement, of course no tax is involved 🙄.

OP, you made the arrangement.
Tell your husband keep his nose out of it and you are discussing it.

This is between you and SIL.

Your husband sounds like a meddling twat.

A loose arrangement that worked perfectly before.

You do NOT owe your SIL anything.

If you want to confirm that with your SIL, do.

I would be well pissed off with your husband.

NOT discussing it!

@ArdoCycle how am I avoiding tax??

But it could affect the family’s overall tax position, I think

Why would you think this?

It sounds like neither family will be entitled to benefits (BIL is in banking, which implies well paid) although the OP may be entitled to help with childcare costs, but only if she uses a registered provider which would presumably cost more and offer less flexibility.

The SIL is a SAHM so it is likely that what OP pays is well under her annual tax allowance, so the money wouldn't be taxable anyway so the money that the OP pays will just serve as extra income to their family that they probably don't 'need' it's just an extra 'nice to have'.

The OP benefits because she has flexible childcare from a family member that she trusts, that probably costs less than a formal provider - win win, more of this should be encouraged IMHO. Lots of people could benefit from arrangements like this and make working for feasible for many SAHPs.

The only issue would be if BIL is financially abusive and by not paying the SIL, she is losing access to money that she might otherwise need, but if this was the case, it's not the OPs responsibility to keep paying, when that wasn't their arrangement, but practical help in making sure SIL either has equal access to their family money, or separating from BIL would be more appropriate than just bridging the gap with money that they might not be able to afford to give, especially as the OPs family income has gone down and the SIL family has not.

It is obvious that SIL was used to getting a small amount of money for looking after your DC, you dont know the impact the lack of that is having on her finances. You dont know if her DH is controlling and limits her funds and she relied on the small amount you gave her. It does seem odd that if they are financially fine why the DBIL would be making an issue- perhaps your DH should speak to his sister instead of deciding its an issue

I think you need to have a proper chat with your sister in law.
Your arrangement was fine but she would have expected a reasonable amount of money during the last 3 months. You say her husband is "in banking". At what level? Has your income carried on at the same level?
You will benefit hugely from not having to pay standard nursery costs as a teacher. I think you need to open up communication.

@Murraygoldberg I never pay her on days that my DS doesn't go. It's not like a normal childcare arrangement. If my DS is sick then I don't pay. I only pay term time! I don't pay at weekends. I literally only pay for days we use!!

Hmm. If you had both done things "properly" she would be entitled to govt support (I think?). You both saved by not going that way so perhaps you owe her half?

What is DH's reasoning for thinking you should pay? It seems odd to me that you haven't got to the bottom of why he wants to pay.

You dont need to pay her anything, however I still think your DH needs to speak to his sister to understand why the DBIL is making digs

no...she is not a registered childminder so she only minds DS. It was just an arraignment between us

I really think this is illegal actually, I'm sure you can't pay family for childcare unless they are a registered childminder.

If we're getting into the nitty gritty about who's income has been most affected, you also need to look at who's costs have been affected most too, because many who are still being paid and are now WFH have seen their day to day costs drop enormously, no commuting costs and no food and drink taken out of the house. Some people are saving hundreds of pounds a month.

So your husband has decided that he thinks you should be paying his sister, even though that's not the agreement, because he's getting a funny feeling that BIL is annoyed at him for not paying and that now means you have to fix it? Could he not ring his sister and sort it out? Why is he badgering you about it?

@LagunaBubbles it is not Illegal 🙄

It is illegal. Relatives don't need to be registered to mind children but they do if they are paid to care for children, under 8 for more than 2 hours.

How much are we talking about here?

@WowLucky yeah I just saw that... however I am not in the U.K. so that doesn't apply in this case.