
Kansschade: Wat te doen bij een gemiste kans door uw adviseur?
Misgelopen kansen door fouten van uw adviseur? Ontdek wat kansschade is en hoe u uzelf kunt beschermen in onze nieuwste blog.

Child support usually flows in one direction: the parent the child does not live with pays a contribution to the parent the child does live with. But what if it works the other way around? What if the non-caring parent claims that the caring parent should pay him?
That sounds illogical, but it is legally possible. The Gelderland District Court addressed exactly such a request on 3 June 2025. The ruling sets clear limits: when is it possible, and when is it not?
After a divorce, the child lived with the mother. She was the caring parent. The father, the non-caring parent, asked the court to order the mother to pay him €100 per month in child support. His reasoning: the mother earned significantly more than he did.
The mother filed a defence. Her position: there are no special circumstances that justify such a reversed payment. Alternatively, she acknowledged that if the court were to set a contribution, it could be at most €17 per month, and the father was willing to accept that.
The court dismissed the request. Entirely.
Child support follows a fixed logic: the parent with whom the child has their primary residence bears the above-residence costs and the daily care costs. The other parent pays the costs associated with the child staying with them, and possibly a contribution to the caring parent.
Deviation from this main rule, a so-called reversed maintenance obligation, is only possible in special circumstances. Case law has established four relevant factors:
Importantly: it is up to the parent requesting the reversed contribution to state these special circumstances and, if the other party disputes them, to substantiate them.
The mother disputed that any special circumstances were present. The father did not respond with concrete substantiation. He did not explain which circumstances would specifically justify a reversed payment.
That was his fatal error. Legally, he needed to clear the bar: demonstrating why the situation is so exceptional that the main rule should not apply. That substantiation was absent.
Moreover: although the mother did indeed have a significantly higher earning capacity, that in itself is insufficient. A higher income on the part of the caring parent does not automatically make her liable to pay support to the other parent. More is required.
As the caring parent:
As a non-caring parent considering making such a request:
Child support is about the child, not about equalising the financial relationship between parents. Whoever bears the daily care also bears the costs. The financially stronger parent does not automatically become the paying party, certainly not when the child lives with her.
This ruling confirms that courts are cautious about reversed child support. And rightly so: the exception must not become the rule.
Are you facing a request for reversed child support, or are you considering filing such a request yourself? Make sure you get proper advice on the chances of success and the legal requirements. A request without adequate substantiation is bound to fail.
This post is based on ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2025:4187.

Misgelopen kansen door fouten van uw adviseur? Ontdek wat kansschade is en hoe u uzelf kunt beschermen in onze nieuwste blog.

Als mediator zie ik dagelijks ondernemers wegrennen van conflict. Maar wat als dat conflict juist de motor is van betere samenwerking en betere beslissingen?

Een rechter kan jou als stichtingsbestuurder schorsen zonder je eerst te horen. Wat betekent dit voor jou en hoe bescherm je jezelf?
Feel free to contact me for personal advice.
We gebruiken anonieme cookies om te zien hoe de website wordt bezocht en deze te verbeteren. Geen tracking, geen advertenties, geen delen met derden.