In practice, the calculation of child maintenance – particularly where there are several children from different parents – unfortunately often gives rise to disputes. A recent judgement by the District Court of East Brabant dated 18 May 2026 (ECLI:NL:RBOBR:2026:5673) illustrates how the court may approach the allocation of financial capacity where there are both ‘biological’ and ‘step’ children.

What were the facts of this case?

The parties were previously married. They divorced in 2017. A son was born from this relationship (child 1). He lives primarily with the woman and has contact with the man. In 2017, the court ruled that the man must pay child maintenance for child 1 to the woman.

At a later date, the man remarried. A son was also born from this marriage (child 2). The man’s new partner has a daughter from a previous relationship (child 3).

In 2025, the mother of child 1 applies to the court to increase the child maintenance for child 1 set in 2017. She argues that, as a result of changed circumstances, the 2017 order no longer meets the statutory criteria.

Legal framework

Change in circumstances

Under the law, a court order or agreement concerning maintenance may be amended by a subsequent order if, due to a change in circumstances, it no longer meets the statutory criteria.

It is established that the man has become a father again (and is therefore now liable for maintenance not only for Child 1 but also for Child 2). This constitutes a change in circumstances, as a result of which the amount of child maintenance must be recalculated, taking the current circumstances into account.

Maintenance obligation towards stepchildren

The law stipulates that a step-parent – in addition to the parents – also has a maintenance obligation towards his or her stepchildren. You become a step-parent when you enter into a marriage or a registered partnership with the child’s parent and when the child lives in the step-parent’s household. This is the case here. Consequently, the man has also become liable to pay maintenance for child 3.

A step-parent is obliged, for the duration of his or her marriage or registered partnership, to provide maintenance for the minor children of his or her spouse or registered partner who are part of his or her household.

In principle, the maintenance obligation for a biological child and a stepchild is of equal standing.

How will the court rule in this case?

The man is liable to pay maintenance for three children. In this case, the court calculates the amount the man must pay for each child. This depends on the needs of the child in question (which are determined on the basis of the family income of their parents during the relationship) and the financial capacity of all those liable to pay maintenance. For child 1 and child 2, the biological parents are liable for maintenance, but for child 3, this liability falls on both the biological parents and the step-parent. The man’s financial capacity is apportioned proportionally across the needs of the three children.

For child 2 and child 3, the persons liable for maintenance have sufficient financial capacity to meet their full needs. However, the persons liable for maintenance (in this case, the biological parents of child 1) do not, collectively, have sufficient financial capacity to meet the needs of child 1.

The court faces a choice: either to add the surplus financial capacity for child 2 and child 3 (which the man still has after paying for child 2 and child 3) to the financial capacity for child 1 (of which the man has too little for child 1), or, given that there is now a shortfall in the financial capacity for child 1 and the parents of child 3 are able to meet her needs in full, to rule that the man need not pay a contribution for child 3.

The court has opted for the latter solution, as it considers this to be the most reasonable course of action, taking all circumstances into account. This means that the man’s financial capacity is divided amongst his biological children, namely child 1 and child 2. His stepchild is not included in the calculation, as her biological parents have sufficient financial capacity to meet her needs. The step-parent’s obligation therefore remains in force, but is not actually applied because the stepchild’s biological parents have sufficient means to provide for her needs. The court has subsequently recalculated the amount of child maintenance to be paid for the children.

Conclusion

The judgment of the Rotterdam District Court of 29 April 2026 shows that the court weighs up the interests involved when assessing whether a marital home may remain undivided or must be sold. The circumstances of the case are of key importance in this regard. To assess which circumstances are relevant in such a situation, it is advisable to seek legal advice from a solicitor specialising in family law.

At SPEE Advocaten & Mediation, we have extensive experience in family law. We support clients in Maastricht and beyond with expert and dedicated advice. If you have any questions about calculating child maintenance or would like to know what this ruling might mean for your situation, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Patty Wetzels, Attorney-at-law