Mainteance & Creche fees.

ntlbell

Seanies32 wrote: »

OK.One more time as it's not sinking in!

With no independent links from yourself to prove what you are saying!

We aren't going round and round, you think you are! Even your €150 argument has been shown not to be true, the circuit and high courts are UNLIMITED! That is your main basis, it's been proved incorrect, yet you persist!


EVERYTHING is included. Usually only ONE parent has childcare expenses, not 2! So it usually is counted for one parent, not both. Therefor, rent/mortgage is allowable for both parents, childcare isn't.

If a couple seperate and both are working and have childcare bills, that is a child expense! Same as if a mother works previous to the birth it should be assumed she will continue after, unless that is not the case!

Goodnight!

We are going around in circles, the MAXIMUM for the family court is 150e

we have established that the average ind wage is around 35k in cases were the wages are average or below they wont be going to any circuit court as there would be no point as one on that wage couldn't really afford to give anymore than 150e so it wouldn't make much sense...READ THIS PARAGRAPH REALLY SLOWLY...

Every single bill/outgoing BOTH parents have are put forward to the judge I'm telling you this as someone who has been involved in this procedure very recently so I take it has slightly more weight than someone who hasn't ever been through it?

phone/esb/gas/food/credit cards/credut unions loans/mortgages/remortgages just about every single outgoing you have on both sides is put forward.

now from the above in the case of an AVERAGE COUPLE (WHICH IS MOST OF THE COUNTRY SEE?)

The maximum figure is 150E now if we take into account

average rent/bills/food/car/insurance/tax blah blah from a single person on the average ind wage been 35k regardless of what court you go to they can't award the other partner something you don't have

so after all that if in just about every single case involving THE AVERAGE the OH won't be paying for 50% of the childcare as 150e wouldn't even cover that!

ding dong....

K-9

ntlbell wrote: »

We are going around in circles, the MAXIMUM for the family court is 150e

No, we aren't!:pac: What family court? The District, Circuit or High Court?

ntlbell wrote:

we have established that the average ind wage is around 35k in cases were the wages are average or below they wont be going to any circuit court as there would be no point as one on that wage couldn't really afford to give anymore than 150e so it wouldn't make much sense...READ THIS PARAGRAPH REALLY SLOWLY...

Just because you repeat something over and over doesn't make it right. €150 is not the Court limit! The mechanism is there. The person may be able to pay more, depending on expenses!

ntlbell wrote:

Every single bill/outgoing BOTH parents have are put forward to the judge I'm telling you this as someone who has been involved in this procedure very recently so I take it has slightly more weight than someone who hasn't ever been through it?

Been there, bought the t-shirt. Again repeating it doesn't make it right. Normally, only ONE parent has childcare bills!

ntlbell wrote:

phone/esb/gas/food/credit cards/credut unions loans/mortgages/remortgages just about every single outgoing you have on both sides is put forward.

They are usually common expenses, perfectly allowable. Childcare usually isn't common! One person pays it!

ntlbell wrote:

now from the above in the case of an AVERAGE COUPLE (WHICH IS MOST OF THE COUNTRY SEE?)

Average, not ALL!

Ntlbell wrote:

The maximum figure is 150E now if we take into account

No it isn't! Again, what is the limit in the Circuit Court and High Court?

ntlbell wrote:

average rent/bills/food/car/insurance/tax blah blah from a single person on the average ind wage been 35k regardless of what court you go to they can't award the other partner something you don't have

so after all that if in just about every single case involving THE AVERAGE the OH won't be paying for 50% of the childcare as 150e wouldn't even cover that!

ding dong....

What you fail to grasp or actually will not admit as it means you are wrong is they can take a person to the Circuit or High Court. The fact that it may not be financially worthwhile is irrelevant! The exact reason that is there is for a people with higher incomes!

And of course you'll still say there is a €150 limit despite links and information showing that not to be true. Averages does not make what you are saying correct!

If you want to continue this, use your own thread!

ntlbell

Seanies32 wrote: »

N
What you fail to grasp or actually will not admit as it means you are wrong is they can take a person to the Circuit or High Court. The fact that it may not be financially worthwhile is irrelevant! The exact reason that is there is for a people with higher incomes!

And of course you'll still say there is a €150 limit despite links and information showing that not to be true. Averages does not make what you are saying correct!

If you want to continue this, use your own thread!

Words fail me.

If the limit of the district court is 150e based on the fact the majority of the country is on average or below ind wage especially outside of Dublin were it drops dramatically then the majority of the country in these cases won't be going to the high or any other bleedin court as they couldn't afford in the MAJORITY of cases to pay more than 150e a week!

christ all mighty.

K-9

Until you provide a link saying creche fees are specifically disallowed, you are wrong!

Your problem is with the average wage, not the court limits!

Person 1

Income 3000

Expenses 2500
of which childcare 1000

Person 2

Income 3000

Expenses 2500
Childcare Zilch!



Penny dropping yet?

ntlbell

Seanies32 wrote: »

Until you provide a link saying creche fees are specifically disallowed, you are wrong!

Your problem is with the average wage, not the court limits!

Person 1

Income 3000

Expenses 2500
of which childcare 1000

Person 2

Income 3000

Expenses 2500
Childcare Zilch!



Penny dropping yet?

It's not a case of them being disallowed or not.

The mother/father doesn't HAVE to work she's/he's not been forced to pay creche fee's the child doesn't HAVE to go to a creche there is always options.

So if SHE/he chooses to put the child in a creche then why would the OH have to pay for that choice?

Should he/she start paying for the baby sitter while she/he socialises in the evenings too?

come off the stage..

Kildrought

If the limit of the district court is 150e based on the fact the majority of the country is on average or below ind wage....

Actually that's not correct.

The maximum maintenance award available per week per child in District court used to be €75 per week; some time back (2 -3 years? don't recall exact date off the top of my head) it was doubled to a maximum award of €150 per child per week.

At around the same time SW officers started to insist that parents claiming OPFA were obliged to make every effort to seek maintenance from the non-resident parent. And that is why the max District court figure was set to €150 - it had nothing to do with actual costs or average wages and everything to do with saving SW money.

You should also note that the District Court maximum is per child per week, someone with 2 or 3 children could be paying €500 or €750 per week on foot of a District court order.

ntlbell

Kildrought wrote: »

Actually that's not correct.

The maximum maintenance award available per week per child in District court used to be €75 per week; some time back (2 -3 years? don't recall exact date off the top of my head) it was doubled to a maximum award of €150 per child per week.

At around the same time SW officers started to insist that parents claiming OPFA were obliged to make every effort to seek maintenance from the non-resident parent. And that is why the max District court figure was set to €150 - it had nothing to do with actual costs or average wages and everything to do with saving SW money.

You should also note that the District Court maximum is per child per week, someone with 2 or 3 children could be paying €500 or €750 per week on foot of a District court order.

150e per child per week, yes. no one said any different

i'm also not saying the amount awarded has anything to do with average wages, what i was stating was people on average wages in ireland today couldn't afford to pay much more than 150e a week per child as of the costs of living in this country are pretty high so it wouldn't make sense in those situations which make up for about 8/10 cases to go to any higher court as the money simply wouldn't be there regardless of judge or court

K-9

ntlbell wrote: »

It's not a case of them being disallowed or not.

The mother/father doesn't HAVE to work she's/he's not been forced to pay creche fee's the child doesn't HAVE to go to a creche there is always options.

So if SHE/he chooses to put the child in a creche then why would the OH have to pay for that choice?

Should he/she start paying for the baby sitter while she/he socialises in the evenings too?

come off the stage..

It is the case as my basic statement of means shows.

The rest is an opinion piece and I'll refer you to my previous replies.

The fact remains that the maintenance payer is subsidising the childcare of the other person.

Many Dads would argue that if they have the child half the time they will pay less maintenance. Why, because they are providing some of the childcare! So less childcare, less maintenance! Therefor it is counted!

My God that took a long time!

K-9

Kildrought wrote: »

Actually that's not correct.

The maximum maintenance award available per week per child in District court used to be €75 per week; some time back (2 -3 years? don't recall exact date off the top of my head) it was doubled to a maximum award of €150 per child per week.

At around the same time SW officers started to insist that parents claiming OPFA were obliged to make every effort to seek maintenance from the non-resident parent. And that is why the max District court figure was set to €150 - it had nothing to do with actual costs or average wages and everything to do with saving SW money.

You should also note that the District Court maximum is per child per week, someone with 2 or 3 children could be paying €500 or €750 per week on foot of a District court order.

The limit was €135 in 2005, then increased to €150.

ntlbell

Seanies32 wrote: »

It is the case as my basic statement of means shows.

The rest is an opinion piece and I'll refer you to my previous replies.

The fact remains that the maintenance payer is subsidising the childcare of the other person.

Many Dads would argue that if they have the child half the time they will pay less maintenance. Why, because they are providing some of the childcare! So less childcare, less maintenance! Therefor it is counted!

My God that took a long time!

I would of thought if the child was at the dads half the time they would pay less maintenance because of the following..

less food is consumed at the mother's = less money required

any esb/heating/ even clothing and anything else you can think of that's consumed there = less money required

= less maintenance

makes more sense no?

Kildrought

The mother/father doesn't HAVE to work she's/he's not been forced to pay creche fee's the child doesn't HAVE to go to a creche there is always options.

Unless one is of independent means, the only other option is to claim SW; that still does not remove the requirement to pay maintenance.

In any event it is generally better from the child's perspective to be in a family where their parent(s) are working rather than living long-term on SW.

(Before anyone jumps up and down this is a general statement; there are good reasons why lone parents would chose not to work when children are very small or have special needs and I'm not disrespecting that. But long term, and all other things being equal, families tend to do better when parents are in employment).

Assuming you want to do the best for your child, why would you have a difficultly with supporting the resident parent to continue working?

Should he/she start paying for the baby sitter while she/he socialises in the evenings too?

In setting out one's income and expenditure, reasonable allowances for social activities should be included. As are holidays, Christmas etc.,

K-9

ntlbell wrote: »

I would of thought if the child was at the dads half the time they would pay less maintenance because of the following..

less food is consumed at the mother's = less money required

any esb/heating/ even clothing and anything else you can think of that's consumed there = less money required

= less maintenance

makes more sense no?

Yes.

Also childcare required say only 3 days instead of 5!

Maintenance payers can claim FIS. The fact that the payer has the child a large percentage of the time can be counted as taking care of the child. Basically it recognises the financial cost saved.

http://www.welfare.ie/foi/depsqc.html

(4) Substantial contribution by the other parent

Where

• the parent with whom the child is residing is not in receipt of a Social Welfare payment (other than Child Benefit, Guardian's Payment (Non-Contributory) or Supplementary Welfare Allowance)
• AND the other parent is contributing substantially towards the maintenance of the child

the child may be deemed to be normally resident with the other parent, and would not be considered normally resident in any other household.
"Contributing substantially" in this context is taken to mean at least the current equivalent of the Increase for a Qualified Child.
Monetary Contribution
If the claimant is making a monetary contribution towards the maintenance of each child of at least the equivalent of the current Increase for a Qualified Child, it can be accepted that s/he satisfies the "contributing substantially" condition. Where the claimant is not currently making such a contribution but the Deciding Officer is satisfied that s/he would do so if IQC were awarded (e.g. if the claimant had previously been making this level of contribution when last in a position to do so), it may also be accepted that the condition is fulfilled.
Contribution in-kind
In some cases there may be an arrangement in operation whereby, in addition to or instead of direct monetary contribution, the claimant has care of the child(ren) for some period/s during each week e.g. regular visits by them. IQC may be payable in such cases if the cost of expenses incurred by the claimant equates to "substantially contributing" to their maintenance i.e. if the cost is at least the equivalent of the appropriate IQC rate. It will be for the Deciding Officer to consider each such case by reference to all the facts.
Only costs actually incurred by the claimant on behalf of the child(ren) which could reasonably be construed as necessary their maintenance (e.g. transport, meals, social activities, ensuring accommodation is suitable, cost of overnight accommodation where applicable, etc.) should be taken into consideration in this context.
All such cases should be dealt with sensitively and sympathetically. In cases of doubt, the Decisions Advisory Office should be contacted for advice.

Kildrought

The limit was €135 in 2005, then increased to €150.

Fair enough - it was in 2005 that the big increase was made so.

ntlbell

Seanies32 wrote: »

Yes.

Also childcare required say only 3 days instead of 5!

But the "childcare" creche is the OH'S choice to do, if I choose to do it during my half of the week i wouldn't expect anyone else to pay for it bar me???

as it's my choice not my expense.

K-9

ntlbell wrote: »

But the "childcare" creche is the OH'S choice to do, if I choose to do it during my half of the week i wouldn't expect anyone else to pay for it bar me???

as it's my choice not my expense.

You seem to be suggesting being a SAHP is the default situation?

That isn't the case anymore, times have moved on!

Edit: The other person if it's such an issue, could stop work and provide the childcare. Obviously then there would be no childcare to pay for.

ntlbell

Seanies32 wrote: »

You seem to be suggesting being a SAHP is the default situation?

That isn't the case anymore, times have moved on!

the only assumption i'm making is if i was to choose to put the child into a creche during my half of the week instead of looking after the child myself I wouldn't expect anyone to pay for it?

fairly straight forward...i'm making a choice, that choice is costing ME money, why would anyone else have to pay for that choice?

K-9

ntlbell wrote: »

the only assumption i'm making is if i was to choose to put the child into a creche during my half of the week instead of looking after the child myself I wouldn't expect anyone to pay for it?

fairly straight forward...i'm making a choice, that choice is costing ME money, why would anyone else have to pay for that choice?

It may not be a choice to give up a career that you had previously.

Mother works previously, the assumption should be she'll work after! Why would it be otherwise?

You have a point if she didn't work previously and decides to work.

Kildrought

...she didn't work previously and decides to work.

Since both the family and the child benefit enormously where the parent is working; I don't understand why a non-resident parent would have such a difficulty in supporting that?

ntlbell

Seanies32 wrote: »

It may not be a choice to give up a career that you had previously.

Mother works previously, the assumption should be she'll work after! Why would it be otherwise?

You have a point if she didn't work previously and decides to work.

What she did previously and you can make the assumption she can work after I can't see why she shouldn't and I'd hope she would but it comes down to her choice and how she goes about having the child cared for during that time but if she chooses a creche I don't see why the OH would have to pay for it? the same way I wouldn't expect my OH to pay for the creche if i chose to use it during my "half" of the week?

back to the circles we go..

There's always the choice of waiting until the child starts school but again these are choices that the parent has to make

K-9

Kildrought wrote: »

Since both the family and the child benefit enormously where the parent is working; I don't understand why a non-resident parent would have such a difficulty in supporting that?

I said he may have a point!

It could be argued that what the other parent decides to do after the relationship is there business.

Usually in relationships decisions are reached jointly.

That may not be the case here.

ntlbell

Kildrought wrote: »

Since both the family and the child benefit enormously where the parent is working; I don't understand why a non-resident parent would have such a difficulty in supporting that?

how? the child spends all day with a stranger? it's not always a benefit.

K-9

ntlbell wrote: »

What she did previously and you can make the assumption she can work after I can't see why she shouldn't and I'd hope she would but it comes down to her choice and how she goes about having the child cared for during that time but if she chooses a creche I don't see why the OH would have to pay for it? the same way I wouldn't expect my OH to pay for the creche if i chose to use it during my "half" of the week?

back to the circles we go..

There's always the choice of waiting until the child starts school but again these are choices that the parent has to make

I refer you to my previous replies. That is your opinion, many disagree.

The law expects the maintenace payer to contribute.

Deja Vue!

ntlbell

Seanies32 wrote: »

I refer you to my previous replies. That is your opinion, many disagree.

The law expects the maintenace payer to contribute.

Deja Vue!

The women will disagree and the men will be searching for a better lawyer..;)

Kildrought

how?

I'm going to let you go Google some words like Social Welfare, poverty trap, inter-generational poverty....

the child spends all day with a stranger

One would sincerely have to hope that isn't the case in your child care arrangements... :eek:

Nevyn

ntlbell wrote: »

It's not a case of them being disallowed or not.

The mother/father doesn't HAVE to work she's/he's not been forced to pay creche fee's the child doesn't HAVE to go to a creche there is always options.

So if SHE/he chooses to put the child in a creche then why would the OH have to pay for that choice?

Should he/she start paying for the baby sitter while she/he socialises in the evenings too?

come off the stage..

Don't have to work ?
really ?
So she should stop working have no money for 3 months while she waits for her single parents allowances to be processed and leave where ever she is leaving due to not being able to afford the rent/mortguage and end up living in an emergency B&B accommodation. Yes that really is good for the child.

ntlbell

Thaedydal wrote: »

Don't have to work ?
really ?
So she should stop working have no money for 3 months while she waits for her single parents allowances to be processed and leave where ever she is leaving due to not being able to afford the rent/mortguage and end up living in an emergency B&B accommodation. Yes that really is good for the child.

I'm not saying what she should do I don't care my concern is the child not her mother's career.

and with working all those years before the baby, it's a perfect example why one should always have a 3-6 month emergency fund built up..

ntlbell

Kildrought wrote: »

I'm going to let you go Google some words like Social Welfare, poverty trap, inter-generational poverty....

One would sincerely have to hope that isn't the case in your child care arrangements... :eek:

are you just pretending?

do you know what the turn over of staff is like in a creche?

can i pull out an old classic of "do you even have kids?"

Nevyn

Ah parents who have main custody can't win.
They stay at home or go to work they get bitched at for expecting someone else to pay for thier lifestyle choice.
Well done on the subtle trolling Ntlbell.

We should have joint shared custody and everything including childcare should be split 50:50.

ntlbell

Thaedydal wrote: »

Ah parents who have main custody can't win.
They stay at home or go to work they get bitched at for expecting someone else to pay for thier lifestyle choice.
Well done on the subtle trolling Ntlbell.

We should have joint shared custody and everything including childcare should be split 50:50.

They can't win?

I didn't think being a parent was a game...

Kildrought

my concern is the child not her mother's career

One benefits the other; you need to take a more holistic approach.

"do you even have kids?"

My signature should give you a clue....