Court rule on Mr G

K-9

Carrigart Exile wrote:

why not, women have been doing it for years. If you want to experience instiututionalised sexual discrimination supported by the state be a man in the divorce courts. She can be a crack addicted lady of the night and still it will be assumed she will get the child(ren), the house, your pension, your future salary, the dog and get to make access as awkward as blazes for you with the law not prepared to take action against her even if she breaches court orders.

Problem is, there has been 921 views of this thread and yet there has not been one post agreeing with your view of no spousal maintenace. You'd need to argue it a lot better than, "well we're discriminated against for years, let them get it out now"

Carrigart Exile

Seanies32 wrote:

Doesn't mean childs rights have to be ignored!

Well prove, she's a crack addicted lady of the night then!
If it's that bad it will affect the children, so you would be awarded custody.A wee bit overdramatic methinks!

Again and it has been said over and over by me and others, the system needs overhauled. Believe me, I know where you are coming over access and that needs overhauled!

Again, going back to your idea of no spousal maintenace, stay at home parents would be committing financial suicide.

Do you want revenge or serious, fair reform?

serious and fair reform of course and yes that was an extreme example I used. But back to the spousal maintenance, I will reiterate the point I made, why should one grown up support another grown up after they have separated. Childcare is each of their responsibilities but adultcare is not; a clean break is just that, a clean break.

Carrigart Exile

Seanies32 wrote:

Problem is, there has been 921 views of this thread and yet there has not been one post agreeing with your view of no spousal maintenace. You'd need to argue it a lot better than, "well we're discriminated against for years, let them get it out now"

I have yet to hear an argument from you convincing me that one adult having to maintain another adult is right. We had the spurious nonsense that marraige was a one sided contract and now you are suggesting that in addition to losing the house, the children, the pension, paying child maintenance, etc the ousted adult should also provide sufficient income for the stay at home parent to continue sitting on their backside.

Lets look at the practicalities of that, child maintenance payments are set at a level that provides for some coverage of housing costs, the stay at home parent is also expected to contribute to the upkeep of the home and child yet from what you suggest their contribution will come from the state and the former partner.

Divorce is already heavily weighted against men (usually its men) and you want to pile on further financial responsibility on to them. I do some voluntary work with a homeless charity, the number of men made homeless and resultantly 'down and out' as a result of divorce is frightening.

And, you now want this responsibility passed outside of marraige to people who are not married??

Nevyn

Carrigart Exileor wrote:

the stay at home parent to continue sitting on their backside.

So stay at home parents are all just sitting on their arse ?

Right!

K-9

Carrigart Exile wrote:

serious and fair reform of course and yes that was an extreme example I used. But back to the spousal maintenance, I will reiterate the point I made, why should one grown up support another grown up after they have separated. Childcare is each of their responsibilities but adultcare is not; a clean break is just that, a clean break.

Childcare may be a stay at home parent. You want to force women to work?

Carrigart Exile wrote:

I have yet to hear an argument from you convincing me that one adult having to maintain another adult is right.

Most people here see there may be circumstances for it. You have to convince us! Your on your own here, convince us!

Carrigart Exile wrote:

We had the spurious nonsense that marraige was a one sided contract and now you are suggesting that in addition to losing the house, the children, the pension, paying child maintenance, etc the ousted adult should also provide sufficient income for the stay at home parent to continue sitting on their backside.

Lets look at the practicalities of that, child maintenance payments are set at a level that provides for some coverage of housing costs, the stay at home parent is also expected to contribute to the upkeep of the home and child yet from what you suggest their contribution will come from the state and the former partner.

Divorce is already heavily weighted against men (usually its men) and you want to pile on further financial responsibility on to them. I do some voluntary work with a homeless charity, the number of men made homeless and resultantly 'down and out' as a result of divorce is frightening.

And, you now want this responsibility passed outside of marraige to people who are not married??

No, you are reading what you want into it!
Look over the parts of my posts where I said spousal maintenance needed to be reformed. I don't see why a mother of teenage children should have high childcare costs and why she couldn't work.

However, I also fail to see how a mother with, say, 3 chidren under 5, should have to pay maybe €250 a week chidcare and work for the minimum wage in a job with no prospects? Do you see any point for that?

You have ignored my main point, should unmarried fathers get the same rights as married fathers but none of the responsibility? The fact that spousal maintenance may be unfair is not the main issue. You either want them treated the same as married fathers or you don't.

Nevyn

Carrigart Exile wrote:

The 'rights of the child' have been used by women to ride roughshod over men's rights for decades

Actually children to not have a body of rights under our legal system.
The governments of this country have refused time and time again to ratify the U.N.un charter on the rights of the child.

Heaven forbid they would have to spend the money to introduce child advocates and to have children properly assessed and parents properly assessed in order to see that that child is with the best parent for that child,
or to sort out joint custody.

Carrigart Exile

Most people here see there may be circumstances for it. You have to convince us! Your on your own here, convince us!


Dont confuse numerical superiority (4 of you) with intellectual superiority. Your argument is not just flawed but spurious. And yes, why shouldn't €250 a week be paid on childcare and the mother work for a living rather than her deciding its not worth her while and sitting back and letting another adult provide for her?

Let couples decide what they want to do regarding childcare but do not introduce the concept of spousal maintenance and not expect it to be abused.

Carrigart Exile

Thaedydal wrote:

Actually children to not have a body of rights under our legal system.
The governments of this country have refused time and time again to ratify the U.N.un charter on the rights of the child.

Heaven forbid they would have to spend the money to introduce child advocates and to have children properly assessed and parents properly assessed in order to see that that child is with the best parent for that child,
or to sort out joint custody.

Children's rights would to some extent stop mothers gaining revenge on former partners; no wonder it has not been ratified. we will jail a mother for not sending her child to school but we will not, no matter how many court orders she breaches, take action against her for stopping a father seeing his child

Carrigart Exile

Thaedydal wrote:

So stay at home parents are all just sitting on their arse ?

Right!

No, but why should a partner who has split from them subsidise their lifestyle

flyz

Carrigart Exile wrote:

And yes, why shouldn't €250 a week be paid on childcare and the mother work for a living rather than her deciding its not worth her while and sitting back and letting another adult provide for her?

If before a couple separate one was a stay at home parent, I don't see why the working parent wouldn't still decide to maintain this lifestyle for the kids.
I see it as the couple still maintaining a partnership of some sort for the wellbeing of the kids. 1 provides the financial security and the other provides the care and attention needed for the kids.

Looking after kids is a fulltime job, Unlike you, I wouldn't class it as sitting on their backsides.

Carrigart Exile

flyz wrote:

If before a couple separate one was a stay at home parent, I don't see why the working parent wouldn't still decide to maintain this lifestyle for the kids.
I see it as the couple still maintaining a partnership of some sort for the wellbeing of the kids. 1 provides the financial security and the other provides the care and attention needed for the kids.

Looking after kids is a fulltime job, Unlike you, I wouldn't class it as sitting on their backsides.

we are not talking about the effect of 'spousal maintenance' on the super rich, we are talking about spousal maintenance on ordinary Joes. Okay so your take home pay is €2,000 per month, from that you pay maintenance for your child of €400 per month, you need to rent or buy property to live in so there goes another €800 per month. Usual expense to get you to and from work another €100 per month so now you have €700 left from which you have to live, heat and light your house, pay off any debts, maintain a decent relationship with your child and now lo and behold pay maintenance to a spouse who cannot be bothered getting a job.

Effectively, it would be better for both parents to simply not work.

flyz

I think you missed my point.

I'm not talking about a spouse who "can't be bothered to get a job".

I'm talking about a couple who, after splitting up, choosing to maintain the same routine/lifestyle that their kids are used to.
It's about the working partner valuing the effort and work that the stay at home partner does.

The Corinthian

Carrigart Exile wrote:

Dont confuse numerical superiority (4 of you) with intellectual superiority. Your argument is not just flawed but spurious.

The argument of opportunity cost has been raised (whereby one souse sacrifices their longer term ability to earn for the combined good), to which which your only response has been "tough, she chose it".

The reality is that she didn't - they did. That is the point of a marriage contract, decisions become joint (regardless of who is the dominant partner). In that circumstance, compensation in the form of spousal maintenance is certainly on the cards, although the level, form and duration is debatable - I am not advocating that compensation is the same as "maintaining/subsidizing a lifestyle".

flyz wrote:

I'm talking about a couple who, after splitting up, choosing to maintain the same routine/lifestyle that their kids are used to.

Sorry, but that is a little ridiculous. They split up. They will not and should not expect to maintain the same routine/lifestyle. If they did, they should have remained together. People need to live with the consequences of their choices.

Breaking up will mean your life will change. 'We' returns to 'I' and so while you may be due some compensation for your sacrifices, you can't expect to maintain the same lifestyle that you had when you were a couple. Bleating "won't someone think of the children" isn't good enough.

flyz

What I meant by routine/lifestyle was the point of choosing between putting the kids into daycare or providing maintenance for the parent to continue staying at home.

I think this is a fair statement and consider it no more bleating than some of the stuff that has been said by Carrigart Exile.

Yes there exist some people who would insist on spouse maintenance for all the wrong reasons but there are also some who would do so for valid reasons

K-9

Carrigart Exile wrote:

Most people here see there may be circumstances for it. You have to convince us! Your on your own here, convince us!


Dont confuse numerical superiority (4 of you) with intellectual superiority. Your argument is not just flawed but spurious. And yes, why shouldn't €250 a week be paid on childcare and the mother work for a living rather than her deciding its not worth her while and sitting back and letting another adult provide for her?

Let couples decide what they want to do regarding childcare but do not introduce the concept of spousal maintenance and not expect it to be abused.

We know the deficiencies of the current system. Your system discriminates against SAHP's. Why replace one flawed system with another?

The Corinthian

flyz wrote:

What I meant by routine/lifestyle was the point of choosing between putting the kids into daycare or providing maintenance for the parent to continue staying at home.

Tough. That may have been viable as part of a marriage and if both parents agree to maintain that type of arrangement, but when single again either you can afford it with your reduced income (which incidentally already includes provisions for child maintenance) or you can't. You cannot expect to maintain the financial advantages of married life when you leave it.

I think this is a fair statement and consider it no more bleating than some of the stuff that has been said by Carrigart Exile.

It is 'bleating'. You are using children (who are already dealt with another form of maintenance) as an excuse to maintain a lifestyle and coercing another person - who should frankly have an equal say in their children and whether such a lifestyle is necessary - to subsidize it.

TBH, it sounds like a bit of a scam.

Carrigart Exile

The Corinthian wrote:

Tough. That may have been viable as part of a marriage and if both parents agree to maintain that type of arrangement, but when single again either you can afford it with your reduced income (which incidentally already includes provisions for child maintenance) or you can't. You cannot expect to maintain the financial advantages of married life when you leave it.

It is 'bleating'. You are using children (who are already dealt with another form of maintenance) as an excuse to maintain a lifestyle and coercing another person - who should frankly have an equal say in their children and whether such a lifestyle is necessary - to subsidize it.

TBH, it sounds like a bit of a scam.

Thank you The Corinthian, it was lonely in hear

The Corinthian

Carrigart Exile wrote:

Thank you The Corinthian, it was lonely in hear

Hold on there

I don't concur with your view to the extent that you take it - I do believe that spouses do deserve compensation for the opportunity cost of their relationships had they never taken place, however I would agree that spousal maintnance should not be confused with child maintenance (as flyz is doing) or that it should be used to subsidize or maintain a lifestyle that one spouse has not sufficiently contributed to or could ever achieve on her own.

Put it this way. A woman (without children) stays at home and abandons her career for the benefit of her husband for five or ten years while the husband pursues his. He certainly has benefited and she has suffered for that investment and thus she should be compensated. However, this does not mean that she is entitled to 50% of all he owns as her contribution and sacrifice simply is not worth it.

My principle objection to what flyz wrote is that he/she was pushing spousal maintenance on the basis of child maintnance. It's all too common a scam, IMO, to hear the convenient argument that it's for the good of the children when in reality it's the spouse that benefits principally.

I actually once heard one mother suggest that she should receive holiday money from the father to bring their child on foreign holidays as it would benefit them. She didn't like the suggestion that perhaps the father might be able to do that...

K-9

Carrigart Exile wrote:

Most people here see there may be circumstances for it. You have to convince us! Your on your own here, convince us!


Dont confuse numerical superiority (4 of you) with intellectual superiority. Your argument is not just flawed but spurious. And yes, why shouldn't €250 a week be paid on childcare and the mother work for a living rather than her deciding its not worth her while and sitting back and letting another adult provide for her?

Let couples decide what they want to do regarding childcare but do not introduce the concept of spousal maintenance and not expect it to be abused.

Your arguement is also flawed and based on economics only. You do not value Stay at home parents. You value a mother with 3 kids under 5, working to earn €300 per week, paying no tax or PRSI and paying €250 per week childcare, over a stay at home parent.

Do you not see any benefits in having stay at home parents. The mother staying at home is actually saving costs!

Your proposals have no chance of becoming a reality.

K-9

Carrigart Exile wrote:

we are not talking about the effect of 'spousal maintenance' on the super rich, we are talking about spousal maintenance on ordinary Joes. Okay so your take home pay is €2,000 per month, from that you pay maintenance for your child of €400 per month, you need to rent or buy property to live in so there goes another €800 per month. Usual expense to get you to and from work another €100 per month so now you have €700 left from which you have to live, heat and light your house, pay off any debts, maintain a decent relationship with your child and now lo and behold pay maintenance to a spouse who cannot be bothered getting a job.

Effectively, it would be better for both parents to simply not work.

So in the above scenario, there is no mention of childcare costs. The mother would be paying these or staying at home. It is her choice to stay at home or work, depending on what she thinks is best. If you want to take away that right to choose, good luck! you'll need it!:rolleyes:

You remember the controversy over tax individualisation? Expect an even bigger backlash!

Spousal maintenance should be means tested, maybe go on a percentage of disposable income after rent/mortgage paid, work expenses etc.

K-9

The Corinthian wrote:

The argument of opportunity cost has been raised (whereby one souse sacrifices their longer term ability to earn for the combined good), to which which your only response has been "tough, she chose it".

The reality is that she didn't - they did. That is the point of a marriage contract, decisions become joint (regardless of who is the dominant partner). In that circumstance, compensation in the form of spousal maintenance is certainly on the cards, although the level, form and duration is debatable - I am not advocating that compensation is the same as "maintaining/subsidizing a lifestyle".

The Corinthian wrote:

Sorry, but that is a little ridiculous. They split up. They will not and should not expect to maintain the same routine/lifestyle. If they did, they should have remained together. People need to live with the consequences of their choices.

Breaking up will mean your life will change. 'We' returns to 'I' and so while you may be due some compensation for your sacrifices, you can't expect to maintain the same lifestyle that you had when you were a couple. Bleating "won't someone think of the children" isn't good enough.

The Corinthian wrote:

Tough. That may have been viable as part of a marriage and if both parents agree to maintain that type of arrangement, but when single again either you can afford it with your reduced income (which incidentally already includes provisions for child maintenance) or you can't. You cannot expect to maintain the financial advantages of married life when you leave it.

It is 'bleating'. You are using children (who are already dealt with another form of maintenance) as an excuse to maintain a lifestyle and coercing another person - who should frankly have an equal say in their children and whether such a lifestyle is necessary - to subsidize it.

I think the above quotes show how compex dealing with spousal maintenance reforms will be. There will be cases where a case could be argued for it and others where it wouldn't. The level, form and duration is the issue.

Carrigart Exile wrote:

Thank you The Corinthian, it was lonely in hear

I think we are more in agreement than not. I think something that is well thought out and takes account of different scenarios has more chance of working than just saying no, no, no to spousal maintenance!;)

Carrigart Exile

I think we are more in agreement than not. I think something that is well thought out and takes account of different scenarios has more chance of working than just saying no, no, no to spousal maintenance!;)[/QUOTE]


spousal maintenance in the 21st century .....unbelievable. Ah demand a dowry.

Right we are never going to agree so here endeth my part in this debate. Interesting stats tho' that people choosing to live together rather than get married increased by 65%. People starting to vote with their feet?

K-9

Carrigart Exile wrote:

spousal maintenance in the 21st century .....unbelievable. Ah demand a dowry.

Right we are never going to agree so here endeth my part in this debate. Interesting stats tho' that people choosing to live together rather than get married increased by 65%. People starting to vote with their feet?

Fair enough, if you can't find the common ground and see any compromise, good look with the politicians and getting your ideas into law!

Interesting too, the new ideas for co-habitating couples. Stay at home parents would be entitled to a share of the house after 2 years, i.e. they would be entitled to a share of somebody elses house after 2 years with no financial input. You agree with these new 21st century laws?

Your ideas seem to be going against the new 21st century laws!

Don't go, you've not answered my questions! You haven't responded to:

Do you agree a stay at home unmarried/seperated father/mother has a right to stay at home? Do you want to take away the right of a parent to stay at home and mind the children?

Do you value stay at home seperated/unmarried parents? Do you see any scenario where it may be better for the parent to stay at home?

A Father V. Mother and Child rights, will never win, legally or politically.

You decided to leave the debate, despite your intellectual superiority! As far as I can see, you bring generalised statements or headline grabbing lines into the debate, but when somebody actually challenges you on your ideas, there is very little to back them up.

Your black & white, I'm intellectually superior opinion, will never work, in reality. You need to take into consideration everybody involved.