Child support is almost never a "set it once and forget it" arrangement. Life moves, prices rise, children grow, jobs change, new partners arrive. And so, sooner or later, one parent asks a court to change the number.
I sit with both sides of that conversation. The parent watching an amount fixed years ago quietly lose its value, wondering if they're allowed to ask for more. And the parent bracing for a demand that feels wildly out of proportion to anything real. Let me tell you, gently and honestly, how Polish courts actually decide, because in two 2026 rulings they drew the line with unusual clarity.
The short version: in Poland, support can rise to keep pace with real change, inflation, a genuinely growing child, an improved ability to pay. But a number plucked from hope, not evidence, gets cut down to size.
When the number should go up: inflation is a hard, countable basis
Here is something many parents don't realise they're entitled to lean on: inflation alone can justify an increase, and a Polish court will do the maths.
In a 2026 case, instead of waving at "the cost of living has gone up," the court took the official cumulative inflation figure (about 25.4% over the relevant years) and worked it through: support of 700 złoty set in 2022 had the buying power of only about 558 złoty today, so roughly 880 złoty would be needed just to stand still. That alone, before a single new need of the child, justified a meaningful rise. (The court went further, to 1,200, because the toddler had become a kindergarten child with real new costs.)
This matters to you because it turns a vague feeling into a concrete, defensible figure. If support was fixed years ago and inflation has quietly eaten it, you are not "asking for more", you are asking to be kept whole.
Two more things from that case translate directly to international families:
- A new partner can increase the ability to pay. The paying father (earning around €2,000) argued nothing had changed. But years earlier he'd lived alone and carried most of the housing costs; now a partner with similar earnings shared them, freeing money for support. A new relationship cuts both ways under Polish law.
- Your past words follow you. He claimed he'd always earned €2,000 and always had a partner, "nothing changed." The court pulled the file from the previous case, where he'd testified he lived alone and earned far less. Inventing a tidier history is easy to expose, and it poisons the credibility of everything else you say.
When the number should not go up: a 240% demand at 4% inflation
Now the other side, because this is where I reassure the parent who's frightened of an enormous claim.
In a second 2026 case, a mother asked to lift support from 1,000 to 3,400 złoty, a 240% jump in a period when inflation was around 4%. The court raised it modestly and dismissed the rest. Three principles drove that, and they're worth holding onto:
Support is set for the long term, not for a temporary peak. The court deliberately refused to chase a passing spike in costs (an expensive private nursery), knowing baby costs would soon fall away and nursery would give way to cheaper kindergarten. A support order is meant to last, not force everyone back to court every few months.
A public subsidy reduces the real cost of a need. The nursery's headline price was over 2,000 złoty, but after a state subsidy, the parent's actual outlay was only ~600–700. Only the real burden counts, not the gross sticker price. (Separately, child benefit like "800+" does not raise support at all, by statute.)
Earning capacity means what you could earn, not what's convenient to declare. Once the child was in nursery and the mother had time freed up, the court treated her own earning capacity as higher, and expected her to contribute financially too. The same rule that can hold a paying parent to account applies to the receiving parent.
What this means when one parent lives abroad
The principles travel; the evidence needs care:
- Index honestly. If you're owed support and it was fixed years ago, inflation is a legitimate, calculable basis to revisit it, across borders too.
- "Nothing has changed" is checkable. Earnings abroad, a new partner sharing costs overseas, statements made in an earlier case, all of it can be examined. Consistency protects you; a re-written history doesn't.
- Aim for a durable number. Especially with young children, demanding the maximum "for today" often backfires. Courts average needs over a realistic horizon, a sensible, well-evidenced figure ages far better than an inflated one.
- Subsidies and benefits. Foreign childcare subsidies and allowances affect the real cost picture; know which reduce a cost and which (like core child benefit) simply don't count.
Which country handles a variation, and how a foreign income is proven, depends on your situation under EU rules, worth settling early, in whichever direction support flows.
A steady word to end on
If you're owed support and it has quietly lost its value, you are not being greedy by asking to be kept whole, inflation is a real, countable basis, and Polish courts will do the arithmetic. And if you're the one being asked for a number that makes your stomach drop, take a breath: courts reward evidence and realism, not the size of the demand.
Either way, the smart move is the same, bring me the real figures, the real changes, and the history, in English or in Polish. We'll build a number that is fair, that holds up, and that you won't be back fighting over in six months.
This article explains principles from recent (2026) Polish court rulings, anonymised in the public case database. It is general information, not legal advice, and every case turns on its own facts. For advice on your situation, please contact the firm.