He Got His Child Support Dropped After Ex Asked for More, Internet Says NTA

A Redditor’s “clever” plan backfired in an unexpected way. What started as a minor annoyance turned into a legal reset that cost his ex nothing, and delighted him.

For years, this dad was paying $200 per month in child support because his ex insisted it was necessary, even though they had equal custody. He saw it as a small ticket to peace, and he didn’t challenge it.

Then life changed. He took a new job with a different schedule, and although the salary was barely different, it triggered an adjustment in custody income assessments. His ex, hearing about the new job and dollar signs in her head, pushed for a review.

In court, the numbers told a different story: they make roughly the same. With 50/50 custody and him still handling insurance, his support obligation dropped to zero. He’s now celebrating the savings, counting the cash he’ll keep over the next two years.

Many in his family and online see this very differently from him.

Now, read the full story:

Reading this story, you can practically hear the snickering and the eye rolling. The narrator revels in the reduction of child support, framing it as a victory over an ex he clearly doesn’t respect.

I get the appeal of a financial win. I also see how deeply personal feelings about an ex can warp the way someone talks about a legal decision that affects a child’s well-being.

What’s missing from this narrative is reflection on the kid’s experience. Is this about justice? Or about out-grinning an ex? Children aren’t poker chips, and support isn’t just a monthly transfer. It’s a mechanism designed to help maintain a stable environment for them.

Whether you agree with him, dislike his attitude, or see deeper issues in how he frames the situation, this story taps into a common internet conflict: where does relief for a parent become harm to a child?

Calculating whether someone is an “a__hole” in a child support context means looking beyond the immediate result and into the intention behind actions and their impact on the child’s welfare.

Child support systems aim to balance financial responsibility fairly between parents, often based on income and custody schedule. In many jurisdictions, including across the United States, child support formulas consider both parents’ incomes, the percentage of custody time, and costs such as insurance. The goal is to provide a predictable baseline of support for the child’s needs.

A critical point of research into family law and child support is this: the child’s best interest is the guiding principle, even if legal processes are used by either parent for strategic advantage. According to a publication by the American Bar Association, child support is not a “win or lose” negotiation between ex-partners but a legal mechanism to ensure the child’s stability and well-being.

In this case, a shift in support obligations arose because of a court-ordered review initiated by the ex-wife. That review re-evaluated each parent’s income and responsibilities. Because custodial time and finances were equalized by the insurance arrangement, the support payment dropped to zero by formula.

Some commenters labeled the OP’s language “trickery,” but legally, he did not falsify information or influence the court improperly. He simply did not object when the ex initiated a review that clarified the updated financial picture. In that sense, he did not “trick” her so much as the system matched facts to formula.

Even so, child custody experts observe that parents’ motivations matter psychologically and practically. When parents frame child support in terms of “winning” versus “providing,” the child’s sense of security and fairness can be undermined. The Attachment & Human Development journal shows that children’s emotional well-being correlates more strongly with cooperative co-parenting than with strict financial metrics.

That research suggests that while a zero-dollar support obligation may be legally correct, the way it is handled and discussed between parents influences the child’s sense of stability.

Neutral legal advice for parents in this situation would usually recommend:

1. Focusing discussions on the child’s needs, not financial resentment.

2. Communicating respectfully with the ex about shared expenses outside basic support.

3. Reviewing support obligations regularly when income or custody arrangements change, but doing so transparently and collaboratively if possible.

4. Avoiding triumphalist language when discussing the outcome in front of or around the child.

Legally and ethically, a child support recalculation based on updated incomes and custodial time is valid. Emotionally and socially, the narrative becomes complicated when one parent appears to delight in another’s “loss,” even if that loss was merely a recalibration.

Calling someone an a__hole in this context depends not just on the letter of the law but on whether their framing and behavior ultimately prioritize the child or vindication.

Check out how the community responded:

A large group emphasized fairness and the mechanics of the situation, noting that the OP didn’t fraudulently manipulate anything.

Some commenters offered practical suggestions and support for positive use of the outcome.

Others questioned whether the child’s interests were being centered.

Child support exists to help balance financial responsibilities for the child’s benefit, not to score points between ex-partners.

Legally, recalculating support after a change in income and custody share is correct. Emotionally, celebrating that outcome by poking at an ex’s disappointment is more complicated.

What matters most is how both parents use that recalculation to support the child’s needs collaboratively. Rejoicing when a former partner pays less can feel personal, but the child’s stability and well-being still matter above all.

So what do you think? Is it fair for a parent to enjoy a lower child support payment if it results from a neutral legal process? Or does celebrating someone else’s loss, even an ex’s, cross a line when children are involved?