Keeping Things Fair

oligopoly

AylesburyDuck wrote: »

Presumably (from reading the OP) your SIL had her child first (you said she paid it when the child was younger), so on the basis that you didnt say you got £180 per month for not having a child (but do now when you do) what makes you think she should get an extra £180 now?
Nope, it's for child care, not for spending how you want.

Great point. Hadn't thought of it this way.

Cheeky_Monkey

oligopoly wrote: »

She hasn't - if you read the OP you'll see it's a hypothetical question.

Hypothetical or not, it's still none of your business so why are you even asking the question.

libra10

When our daughter married several years ago, we contributed money towards the wedding.

It doesn't look like our son will marry and we have now given him an equal amount of money.

Although not the same issue, similar contribution towards our two children.

It seemed fair to us.

rach_k

I think it depends whether she's trying to treat her daughters exactly the same or trying to treat her grandchildren exactly the same. If daughters, treating them the same would mean paying both the same amount*. If grandchildren, it would mean only paying for the child each family has.

This:

oligopoly wrote: »

We now have a second child and she's alluded to the fact that she will do the same for this one when she is at nursery age.

makes me think that MIL is actually paying money for the child, not for the daughter, so I'd say no, she should just pay the fixed amount per child (if she wants to!).

*Of course, treating somebody exactly the same isn't necessarily the same thing as treating them fairly.

moneyistooshorttomention

Peoples personal choices (ie in this case whether to have child/2nd child or no) are down to them.

A parents' responsibility (as I see it) is to treat both adult "children" totally equally. It shouldn't be the case imo that one gets "rewarded" more for their personal choice (ie to have a second child) than the other does (ie not to have a second child).

However many children these "adult children" have - whatever income they get (from whatever source) is likely to all just go into The Pot anyway (ie the bank account) and not be specifically set to one side for whatever-it-is (in this case a 2nd child).

It's not at all clear how much money both households have coming in either (the 2nd child household may have a higher income and/or live in a cheaper area for instance).

Imo the only fair way is to treat both adult children exactly equally - ie subsidise them both by exactly the same amount (regardless of how many children they have).

Not to mention - what happens if two-child family goes on to have a third child? Would they then get subsidised even further (and despite that meaning they'd had more than two children)?

*********

As sister of a grabby type brother (who certainly thinks/acts like he is due for a lot more than his childless sister) then I "paid up" and bought presents for his two children at Christmas and birthday initially (despite nothing ever coming back from his direction - when a bit of help with DIY on my house would have felt like it was a two-way thing and not just me giving and him taking). But that came to an end when they were discussing whether to have a 3rd/maybe even 4th child. At that point I stopped giving and their first two children (though, thankfully, they never went on to have extra children) stopped getting anything from me - as the thought of subsidising them to have a 3rd/maybe even 4th child and it still all being a one-way thing (of me giving/him taking) was the last straw. My conscience wouldnt have allowed me to help him have "extra children" and my finances would have taken even more of a hit from that One Way Street. That was what I saw as fair to both myself and the World.

So maybe MIL would stop giving if it looked like there was going to be more than 2 children from the first "Adult Child" (if only because she couldnt afford that).?

bertiewhite

AnotherJoe wrote: »

Its for childcare costs

I presume costs will be incurred. On which the above money for childcare costs will be spent.

So why would MIL pay other daughter £180 when she doesn't have those costs ?

Look at it another way, if your sister was having medical treatment, lets say physio for a bad back and it was £180 every month which MIL was paying for, would you want / expect £180 a month as well?

But like I've said - it's the daughter's CHOICE to have children and therefore incur childcare costs.

AnotherJoe

bertiewhite wrote: »

But like I've said - it's the daughter's CHOICE to have children and therefore incur childcare costs.

Yep, thats another perspective. Its up to MIL which one she chooses.

Pollycat

oligopoly wrote: »

Sorry if this is the wrong place for this...

My MIL kindly pays us £180 per month for childcare costs. She did the same to my sister in law when their child was younger and is a firm believer in keeping things equal between her 2 daughters.

We now have a second child and she's alluded to the fact that she will do the same for this one when she is at nursery age.

I'm unable to work out whether she should also pay £180 to her other daughter to keep things 'fair' or not. What say you?!

I say - like a number of other posters - that it's really none of your business working out what somebody else does with their money.

System

I look at it like this....

Two adult children, both have childcare fees. Grandparent offers to pay the childcare fees for both their 'children'. What does it matter if one adult child has one child in childcare and the other has 2?

escortg3

Your MIL is paying your child care cost of £180.00. Why not give your sister £90 a month to make it fair. your still saving £90 a month on childcare