Maintenance Payments (How much)

Nevyn

gizmobilly you need to check that you are getting fis.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/social-welfare/social-welfare-payments/social-welfare-payments-to-families-and-children/family_income_supplement

Information

Family Income Supplement (FIS) a weekly tax-free payment available to married or unmarried employees in Ireland with children. It is designed to offer assistance to people on low pay.

You must have at least one child who normally lives with you or is financially supported by you. Your child must be under 18 years of age or between 18 and 22 years of age and in full-time education.

To qualify for FIS, your net average weekly family income must be below a certain amount for your family size. The FIS you receive is 60% of the difference between your net family income and the income limit which applies to your family. (Read more about net family income in ‘Rates’ below).

If you are getting FIS you may also be entitled to the Smokeless Fuel Allowance and the Back to School Clothing and Footwear Allowance.

If you consider that you have been wrongly refused FIS, or you are unhappy about a decision of a Social Welfare Deciding Officer about your entitlements, you have the option of appealing this decision.

Your income from FIS is not taken into account in the assessment for a medical card

Again, to qualify, your net average weekly family income must be below a certain amount for your family size.


From January 2008, if you have: And your family income is less than:
One child €490
Two children €570
Three children €655

gizmobilly

should all cases not be means tested?we found it so unfair

gizmobilly

we checked out fis.not entitled to it because his payment is social welfare and im on maternity leave

gizmobilly

The Corinthian wrote: »

Under Irish law, both parents have a responsibility to financially support the child. If never married, however, the non-custodial parent does not have any responsibility to maintain the custodial parent.

Additionally, regardless of married or not, the non-custodial parent does not have any responsibility to pay the custodial parent for his/her time spent caring for the child. If the custodial parent cannot work, then maintnance will be based upon his/her income - not whether he/she is putting in the hours with the child.

There is no minimum or maximum level of maintenance. The limits are simply with regard to which court needs to be used for each level of maintnance.

There's no formula for maintnance. For example, if both parents have the same income and circumstances then the expenses for the child would be calculated and split 50-50. If the non-custodial parent has a very high income, then they may be directed to pay more so that the child benefits beyond the bare minimum.

As for levels, many solicitors will tell you that a non-custodial parent on €60k and custodial parent on SW, would likely result in something like €100 p.w. Of course, there are so many other factors to take into account (not least of all the judge on the day) that the same scenario could see anything between €50 (or less) and €150 (or more). Roll the dice.

my partner was ordered to pay 50 out of 190.at the moment its a lot when we have 3 children to support.he looks after his child very well and would do anything for him.he is not shirking his responsibilities but its a lot for him to pay out based on his income at the moment as he is sick.when he gets back to work no problem at all.either way some of the children lose out.in this case its ours.it wasnt means tested so very unfair.all children should be treated equally

Nevyn

gizmobilly he can appeal it.

In the mean time go to your local welfare offer about your situation.

gizmobilly

Thaedydal wrote: »

gizmobilly he can appeal it.

In the mean time go to your local welfare offer about your situation.

he asked the judge at the hearing for an appeal but he refused

MojoMaker

Quick question, do the costs incurred by a child rise linearly with the income of the father? Isn't maintenance apportioned in direct relation to the cost of raising the child at the various stages of development of that child?

Just because a father can afford to pay more, courtesy of a good job, doesn't mean that he should as long as what he pays is sufficient to cover 50% of the costs of the childs welfare.

After all it's not a lifestyle decision here, unlike spousal maintenance.

Kildrought

Just because a father can afford to pay more, courtesy of a good job, doesn't mean that he should as long as what he pays is sufficient to cover 50% of the costs of the childs welfare

So lets just take that to it's logical conclusion...

A married couple (or couple in a long-term relationship) with children will often see their family income improve as time goes on; but you don't think that the children should be entitled to any share of that increase in family wealth? Be that in the form of extra-curricular activities, school trips, family holidays or whatever?

I'm pretty sure your parents didn't think that way....the vast majority of parents will do their best by their children - why should parents who are separated be any different?

ntlbell

Kildrought wrote: »

So lets just take that to it's logical conclusion...

A married couple (or couple in a long-term relationship) with children will often see their family income improve as time goes on; but you don't think that the children should be entitled to any share of that increase in family wealth? Be that in the form of extra-curricular activities, school trips, family holidays or whatever?

I'm pretty sure your parents didn't think that way....the vast majority of parents will do their best by their children - why should parents who are separated be any different?

I don't think you have understood the point.

If parents split the father/mother are entitled to pay for 50% of whatever the costs are for raising the child.

"extras" are out of realm of the court so the father/mother can add in extra holidays or treats or whatever the case may be but it can't be forced by the law which makes sense no?

K-9

As The Corinthian said, there is no hard and fast rule. All things being equal, the expenses should be split 50/50. If one parent has a higher income they should pay more, subject to the court limits.

Also the FIS information Thaedydal posted also applies to maintenance payers.

Gizmobilly, your case shows that there often is 2 sides to the story!

Kildrought

If parents split the father/mother are entitled to pay for 50% of whatever the costs are for raising the child.

Regardless of their living arrangements, both parents are legally obliged (not entitled) to support their child.

Maintenance is not based on 50% of 'child rearing' costs; it is based on the income and expenditure of both parents.

As regards to 'extras' - if your child was very keen to (say) learn to play the piano, and the family budget allows, wouldn't you be happy as a parent to support that?

I don't know of any parents (who are living together), who wouldn't sit down and look at their budget and work out if they could afford something their child wanted to do - why should separated parents be any different?

ntlbell

Kildrought wrote: »

Regardless of their living arrangements, both parents are legally obliged (not entitled) to support their child.

Maintenance is not based on 50% of 'child rearing' costs; it is based on the income and expenditure of both parents.

As regards to 'extras' - if your child was very keen to (say) learn to play the piano, and the family budget allows, wouldn't you be happy as a parent to support that?

I don't know of any parents (who are living together), who wouldn't sit down and look at their budget and work out if they could afford something their child wanted to do - why should separated parents be any different?

Both parents are obliged to support their child.

Maintenance is based on sharing the costs of rearing the child it can't be anything else.

if parents sit down and budget or not is irrelevant as anything after the maintenance is entirely out of the hands of the law so it's a mute point

Kildrought

Maintenance is based on sharing the costs of rearing the child it can't be anything else.

Nope.

Maintenance is based on each parents income and expenditure; that is why parents have to complete an Affidavit of Means to document their total income and expenditure.

if parents sit down and budget or not is irrelevant as anything after the maintenance is entirely out of the hands of the law so it's a mute point

I don't quite follow this statement; however, it is open to either parent to request a variation order.

Generally speaking this can be at any time if there is a major change in circumstances of either party or within 2 years of the original maintenance order.

ntlbell

Kildrought wrote: »

Nope.

Maintenance is based on each parents income and expenditure; that is why parents have to complete an Affidavit of Means to document their total income and expenditure.

huh?

regardless there sharing it? i don't see why this is so confusing?

ntlbell

Kildrought wrote: »

Nope.

Maintenance is based on each parents income and expenditure; that is why parents have to complete an Affidavit of Means to document their total income and expenditure.

I don't quite follow this statement; however, it is open to either parent to request a variation order.

Generally speaking this can be at any time if there is a major change in circumstances of either party or within 2 years of the original maintenance order.

What part don't you understand, if people decide outside of the maintenance agreement to give "extras" this is down to the individuals and can't be infoced by the court so there's no real point talking about it

Kildrought

What part don't you understand

Your sentence construction was less than clear.

...can't be infoced [sic] by the court

On the contrary, either party can apply for a variation order. Since maintenance is based on income and expenditure and (say) piano or swimming lessons are expenditure it is entirely possible that an increase in maintenance could be ordered.

ntlbell

Kildrought wrote: »

Your sentence construction was less than clear.

On the contrary, either party can apply for a variation order. Since maintenance is based on income and expenditure and (say) piano or swimming lessons are expenditure it is entirely possible that an increase in maintenance could be ordered.

Of course, but your talking about parents wanting to volunteer to give the kids "extras" of course they could, but what difference does it make if it can't be dealt with in law?

it's all fluff

Kildrought

Sigh....

Yes it can be dealt with 'in law'.

ntlbell

Kildrought wrote: »

Sigh....

Yes it can be dealt with 'in law'.

So how would the law force me to give my kids "extra" after they have given the OH the maintenance they deem is required based on my salary? they can't i choose to give extras when i see fit not when the law does your talking rubbish now..

Kildrought

Sigh...even more heavily....

As I have already explained, either parent can apply for a variation order.

Nevyn

Ladies and Gentlemen I am locking this thread.
Thanks for taking part, Ntlbell you will have to get your arguement fix elsewhere.