When Your Fifteen-Year-Old Decides Where He Lives — And What That Means for Child Support

Your Child Lives with You, But You're Still Paying Child Support to the Other Parent

It sounds contradictory: you carry the daily care, the costs, the responsibility. And yet every month you transfer money to the parent your child no longer actually lives with. How is that possible?

This is exactly what happened to a father who appealed to the 's-Hertogenbosch Court of Appeal. On 5 June 2025, the court largely ruled in his favour, and that ruling says a great deal about how family law deals with the child's voice and child support when the care situation has been reversed.

What Happened?

A boy, born in 2009, formally lived with his mother. But in practice he had been living with his father since January 2023. The district court formalised this: primary residence with the father. So far, logical.

What followed was less logical: that same court still required the father to pay child support to the mother, €244.73 per month. On top of that, the court established a more extensive contact arrangement than the boy himself wanted: not just one weekend every two weeks, but also a fixed evening per week with the mother.

The father appealed. And the court listened, literally.

The Boy Spoke for Himself

The court gave the now fifteen-year-old boy the opportunity to share his views. He did. His message was clear: he wanted one weekend every two weeks with his mother, from Saturday to Sunday. Nothing more. The additional weekday evening felt like too much to him and did not fit his life.

The court took that view seriously. A fifteen-year-old is old enough to make his own choices about his living situation and contact moments. His wishes deserve respect, even if that is painful for the other parent.

The mother wanted more contact, an equal division. But the court reasoned: compulsion does not work. Forcing contact puts the relationship under further pressure and does not serve the child's interests. The arrangement the boy himself wanted, one weekend every two weeks, was already working well in practice. It stayed that way.

And the Child Support?

The mother had previously requested an increase in child support, but only for the situation where the boy would continue living with her. The district court had interpreted that request too broadly and had also set an amount for the new situation (primary residence with the father).

That was a procedural error. The court of appeal found that the district court had gone beyond the limits of what had been requested: it had decided on something the mother had not asked for in that situation.

The conclusion was simple: now that the father carries the daily care, there is no longer any basis for support payments to the mother. The contribution was set to nil.

Repayment: Rare, but Applicable Here

The court went one step further: the mother had to repay the child support she had received since October 2024. That is exceptional, courts are normally cautious about this, because it is generally assumed the money has already been spent on the child.

But in this case, the mother had left the hearing before the child support issue was discussed. She filed no defence against the retroactive effect. That gave the court free rein. And the court noted: the mother incurred almost no costs for the boy's care, only during the limited contact weekends. Repayment was therefore reasonable.

What Can You Learn from This?

• The actual living situation carries significant weight. If your child has already been living with you for some time, even if it is not yet formally established, that is relevant to both primary residence and child support. Get it formalised as soon as possible.
• The voice of an older teenager genuinely counts. Courts take children seriously, especially from age 12, but younger children are also heard. A fifteen-year-old has a strong position in proceedings.
• Child support follows care. Whoever carries the daily care also bears the costs. If the care situation reverses, it is logical that the support obligation changes too, but this does not happen automatically. You must actively file a modification request.
• Procedural errors by the court can be corrected. If a court decides beyond the scope of the request, that is challengeable on appeal. Know exactly what was asked and what was decided.
• Being present at the hearing is crucial. The mother left the hearing early and filed no defence. That cost her the repayment obligation. A hearing is not a formality.

What Should You Do Now?

Is your child factually living with you, but are you still paying child support to the other parent? Or has the division of care shifted so much that the existing arrangements no longer reflect reality? Then it is time to have the legal situation reassessed. A modification request to the court is the appropriate route, but well-prepared, with the facts in order.

Case Reference

This post is based on ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2025:1573.