Mother wants more maintenance

K-9

CDfm wrote: »

read the links on the thread then

The ones I provided myself?

They aren't D of SW.

Please read again. Read the exact link, not what you want it to mean.

Splendour

CDfm wrote: »

A father who is an active father will want to be an equal carer and will want either sole or joint custody. He will want his own home to do that in.He will not want to pay childcare costs to do what he is capable of doing.

Which is why (and quite right too), that most family homes are now sold and the proceeds divided between husband and wife so that each get a chance to buy their own home. Though it is very rare for a man to want equal care of the children. Most will either not be bothered or will assume they can't as they have to work. For some strange reason, women do this all the time.

If a father has his children on a fulltime basis, then I can't see why he isn't entitled to a house the same way a mother would be...

And what's this about money for cars and taxi plates from the SW?!!

K-9

Splendour wrote: »

CDfm wrote: »

A father who is an active father will want to be an equal carer and will want either sole or joint custody. He will want his own home to do that in.He will not want to pay childcare costs to do what he is capable of doing.


QUOTE]

Which is why (and quite right too), that most family homes are now sold and the proceeds divided between husband and wife so that each get a chance to buy their own home. Though it is very rare for a man to want equal care of the children. Most will either not be bothered or will assume they can't as they have to work. For some strange reason, women do this all the time.

If a father has his children on a fulltime basis, then I can't see why he isn't entitled to a house the same way a mother would be...

And what's this about money for cars and taxi plates from the SW?!!

And interestingly when we want primary care the mother usually blocks us. The mother and childminder is better than a Dad anyday is the attitude you come up with. Courts back it up, rightly or wrongly, so Dads face obstacles Mums don't.

There are far too many mother primary carers out there who shouldn't be let near children, unless supervised, and they get away with it.

Splendour

K-9 wrote: »

Splendour wrote: »

And interestingly when we want primary care the mother usually blocks us. The mother and childminder is better than a Dad anyday is the attitude you come up with. Courts back it up, rightly or wrongly, so Dads face obstacles Mums don't.

Dont know how you assumed that from my post-but however...

And courts don't always favour the rights of mothers. IMO they should never be biased either way but put the care of the child/children first.

K-9

Splendour wrote: »

and courts don't always favour the rights of mothers.

I should hope not.

splendour wrote:

IMO they should never be biased either way but put the care of the child/children first.

Would be great to see it.

CDfm

K-9 wrote: »

The ones I provided myself?

They aren't D of SW.

Please read again. Read the exact link, not what you want it to mean.

i read the letter off the link with fifty something euro per week accomadation allowance

renting a 3 bed semi in Dublin is 1100 -1200 a month.

add a car etc

very nifty math by D of SW

K-9

CDfm wrote: »

i read the letter off the link with fifty something euro per week accomadation allowance

renting a 3 bed semi in Dublin is 1100 -1200 a month.

add a car etc

very nifty math by D of SW

What link,

Where?

CDfm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Looks like you're right: http://www.solo.ie/law/5026.htm

The joys of gender-based indentured servitude...

K-9 wrote: »

What link,

Where?

as rents are the same even then you can see that the allowance was for a Dad renting a hostel or living in a homeless shelter.

i wonder if the site owner has ever pursued a spouse for maintenence

K-9

CDfm wrote: »

as rents are the same even then you can see that the allowance was for a Dad renting a hostel or living in a homeless shelter.

i wonder if the site owner has ever pursued a spouse for maintenence

It's an old link, 2003 I think. http://www.solo.ie/info/3151.htm

It does say at the bottom, up to €96 per week is allowed, which while low, is the same amount a LPA claimant is allowed. Same rules.

I'd say the Personal Allowance was based on the LPA too, would have been €138 + the child allowance then, over €200 now.

So, the rules seem to be the exact same rules that apply to the other parent who would be claiming LPA.

CDfm

K-9 wrote: »

It's an old link, 2003 I think. http://www.solo.ie/info/3151.htm

It does say at the bottom, up to €96 per week is allowed, which while low, is the same amount a LPA claimant is allowed. Same rules.

I'd say the Personal Allowance was based on the LPA too, would have been €138 + the child allowance then, over €200 now.

So, the rules seem to be the exact same rules that apply to the other parent who would be claiming LPA.

the difference is that parents on lone parents allowance are treated differently.its still unmarried mothers allowance.

If a man applies for housing he is treated as a single man without dependents irresspective of his parenthood status.the whole benefit package is very different.

so really you would need to pay both parents childrens allowance and give both equivalent housing

all dads are treated as dead beat dads irrrespective of how they parent with secret assessments and in camera secret courts so the policy and means tests are conducted in secret.

How dare the D of SW treat people like this and trample on their efforts to be parents.IMHO you will be back to the system 20 years ago when men were actively discouraged from working as they could not earn enough.

The Corinthian

CDfm wrote: »

How dare the D of SW treat people like this and trample on their efforts to be parents.IMHO you will be back to the system 20 years ago when men were actively discouraged from working as they could not earn enough.

Works both ways. Largely due to lack of affordable child care mothers are also discouraged to work and thus left in a situation whereby they need to be supported by the state and the father (of which the former is presently trying to pass the buck to the latter).

Unfortunately the system in Ireland does encourage a substance existence; the more either parent earns the more they lose out.

However this problem is not limited to the issue of child support, but most social welfare payments. Going from receiving payments and other benefits to working for a living, there is a substantial opportunity cost - fifteen years ago, many university graduates were doing well if they got IEP 12k when they went out on the marketplace. Meanwhile, between the Dole, rent allowance and other benefits, they were earning the equivalent of IEP 10k, leaving them in a situation where a 35 - 40 hour week would earn them 2k a year more. And this was for people with degrees.

The increase in the standard of living and salaries in general has done a lot to narrow this opportunity cost, but it's still there. What's the point of getting a job when after child care and loss of benefits you're breaking even or even worse than before? What's the point of getting a job when it'll simply result in getting hit for more maintenance (often not in line with your increase in income)?

All of which is a pensions time bomb - something that even the parents who remain unemployed, let alone the government, don't consider until it's too late.

K-9

CDfm wrote: »

the difference is that parents on lone parents allowance are treated differently.its still unmarried mothers allowance.

If a man applies for housing he is treated as a single man without dependents irresspective of his parenthood status.the whole benefit package is very different.

so really you would need to pay both parents childrens allowance and give both equivalent housing

I completely agree, however realistically, they can't afford it.

K-9

The Corinthian wrote: »

Works both ways. Largely due to lack of affordable child care mothers are also discouraged to work and thus left in a situation whereby they need to be supported by the state and the father (of which the former is presently trying to pass the buck to the latter).

Unfortunately the system in Ireland does encourage a substance existence; the more either parent earns the more they lose out.

However this problem is not limited to the issue of child support, but most social welfare payments. Going from receiving payments and other benefits to working for a living, there is a substantial opportunity cost - fifteen years ago, many university graduates were doing well if they got IEP 12k when they went out on the marketplace. Meanwhile, between the Dole, rent allowance and other benefits, they were earning the equivalent of IEP 10k, leaving them in a situation where a 35 - 40 hour week would earn them 2k a year more. And this was for people with degrees.

The increase in the standard of living and salaries in general has done a lot to narrow this opportunity cost, but it's still there. What's the point of getting a job when after child care and loss of benefits you're breaking even or even worse than before? What's the point of getting a job when it'll simply result in getting hit for more maintenance (often not in line with your increase in income)?

All of which is a pensions time bomb - something that even the parents who remain unemployed, let alone the government, don't consider until it's too late.

Indeed. A single parent really needs to be getting a career to justify working. Working minimum wage or so jobs does not justify giving up Rent Allowance and LPA.

CDfm

K-9 wrote: »

I completely agree, however realistically, they can't afford it.

but it works as a disincentive to work in the exact same way taxes do.

do you know that men were told to get second jobs for D of SW demands before and send to live in homeless hostels.

Heavy stuff but not talked about. Convicts on early release are treated better.

CDfm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Works both ways. Largely due to lack of affordable child care mothers are also discouraged to work and thus left in a situation whereby they need to be supported by the state and the father (of which the former is presently trying to pass the buck to the latter).

Unfortunately the system in Ireland does encourage a substance existence; the more either parent earns the more they lose out.

What's the point of getting a job when after child care and loss of benefits you're breaking even or even worse than before? What's the point of getting a job when it'll simply result in getting hit for more maintenance (often not in line with your increase in income)?

All of which is a pensions time bomb - something that even the parents who remain unemployed, let alone the government, don't consider until it's too late.

Fathers wont want to work if they get to keep a pittance and live in a hostel.

So the logic is that a father should go to work because child care costs are too high.

lconmara

She is lying to you. THe SW don't determine maintenance. Get her to bring you to court, you'll definatley pay less, I get 43 euro a week from my ex.

The only thing I would say to you before you do, is be sure you are doing it for the right reasons.

Its your childs welfare that you are providing for, and the Lone parents is not enough to raise a child comfortably. Single parents get 24 euro more per child than a single person with no children on the dole.

24 euro does not stretch very far, and you have to remember you aren't just talking food, its clothes, games, telephone, heating, petrol and everything else a woman needs to raise a child.

Make sure its not out of bitterness that you don't want to give the money.

You are a good father for providing so well for your child.

lconmara

Also whether she works or not is irrelevant to maintenance. You still have to pay.

LINDA08

lconmara wrote: »

She is lying to you. THe SW don't determine maintenance. Get her to bring you to court, you'll definatley pay less, I get 43 euro a week from my ex.

You actually do not know if she is lying or not and I would say the opposite to you in that from my communication with the Maintenance Recovery Section they do 'believe' that it's in their power to increase the maintenance paid by the father/ mother.


To quote a paragraph from a letter I received from the Social Welfare when they were looking for details on the father of my child:

"The Department will keep your efforts to get maintenance under review and may contact the other parent if s/he does not co-operate in paying maintenance or if s/he is not paying enough maintenance taking into account his/her current financial situation.

Please note that if you do not make reasonable efforts to look for maintenance your One-Parent Family Payment may be stopped."

The Corinthian

CDfm wrote: »

So the logic is that a father should go to work because child care costs are too high.

It's a bit of a foobared system unfortunately, largely because this is how it has built up over the years. The state is faced with two problems; balancing the books and looking after the welfare of the child. Obviously getting the parents to earn a living is the solution, however it cannot force a mother to work because to penalize the mother would in turn penalize the child. It can force the father to work, however, and courts do sometimes award unrealistically high levels of maintenance against unemployed fathers as a means to force them to get a job.

Personally I find that the disincentive to work is quite sad for the child in the end. After all, when they hit (at the latest) 23, and possibly as early as 18, LPA and maintenance comes to an end and all too often it is left to the child to help the mother financially.

lconmara wrote: »

Also whether she works or not is irrelevant to maintenance. You still have to pay.

Unfortunately the principle is that the needs of the child are paramount mean that while the financial burden of the child should be split 50-50 in theory, if one parent is not working the other has to make up the difference. This makes whether the custodial parent is working far more relevant because if he or she is not then they will be awarded a higher maintenance than if they are working.

CDfm

LINDA08 wrote: »

You actually do not know if she is lying or not and I would say the opposite to you in that from my communication with the Maintenance Recovery Section they do 'believe' that it's in their power to increase the maintenance paid by the father/ mother.


To quote a paragraph from a letter I received from the Social Welfare when they were looking for details on the father of my child:

"The Department will keep your efforts to get maintenance under review and may contact the other parent if s/he does not co-operate in paying maintenance or if s/he is not paying enough maintenance taking into account his/her current financial situation.

Please note that if you do not make reasonable efforts to look for maintenance your One-Parent Family Payment may be stopped."

I agree that its not helpful to make the assumption that she is lying.

They could be investigating her claims and you have your access hearing to deal with.

THe correct thing may be when that arises is to make an agreement hopefully for what your paying made into a court order.That would mean being very prepared.It would also satisfy their criteria.

THat means explaining it to the judge that the D of SW are putting on pressure and causing arguements and if it then arose the judge would deal with the D of SW. In practice if they were making an application you could ask for it to be heard on the calender of the judge familar with the case and they would back off.

That works.

CDfm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Unfortunately the principle is that the needs of the child are paramount mean that while the financial burden of the child should be split 50-50 in theory, if one parent is not working the other has to make up the difference. This makes whether the custodial parent is working far more relevant because if he or she is not then they will be awarded a higher maintenance than if they are working.

In fact the non custodial parent in 99% of cases is the Father.

The treatment of fathers is penal and draconian and its only fair that both parents enjoy an equal standard of living.

If that means the also mother works to do that to provide the extra whatever so the father has access then thats how it should be.

No one is saying being a parent is easy but the resp[onsibility to provide financially should be equal. It is not.

K-9

CDfm wrote: »

No one is saying being a parent is easy but the resp[onsibility to provide financially should be equal. It is not.

Indeed it is not. Many fathers pay nothing or very little.

CDfm

K-9 wrote: »

Indeed it is not. Many fathers pay nothing or very little.

Then why should the SW treat the OP as a deadbeat Dad.

This is the 21st century & Dads are doing all kinds of things as Dads that in the 20th century they would have been laughed at for doing. Fathers are activein their childrens lives in all kinds of ways and loving it.

Dads are the new Mums.

The Corinthian

CDfm wrote: »

No one is saying being a parent is easy but the resp[onsibility to provide financially should be equal. It is not.

Well it's a complex issue, TBH. As discussed child care (which would facilitate the custodial parent) is expensive in Ireland. So on one side one can argue that this cost should be split between the parents, which would quickly bring the level of maintenance to one exceeding the limits of the circuit court.

Of course, the mother working also benefits her personally - her career and her future - so TBH, this also would realistically have to be taken into account where it comes to the sharing of such costs. The father is supposed to pay towards the child's well being, not the mother's.

K-9 wrote: »

Indeed it is not. Many fathers pay nothing or very little.

An observation: If a father is ordered to pay €150 p.w. and would be willing or able to pay €80 p.w., then paying just €80 p.w. will not do him any favours, and he's as well off to pay nothing. He's in breach of the order either way.

CDfm wrote: »

Then why should the SW treat the OP as a deadbeat Dad.

Because they need to balance the books and it is politically more acceptable to go after the father.

K-9

The Corinthian wrote: »

An observation: If a father is ordered to pay €150 p.w. and would be willing or able to pay €80 p.w., then paying just €80 p.w. will not do him any favours, and he's as well off to pay nothing. He's in breach of the order either way.

He needs to appeal the order ASAP and explain why he can't afford it.

He may feel he can't afford it, but often these things are best left to third parties to decide. Of course, that doesn't mean they always get it right.

K-9

CDfm wrote: »

Then why should the SW treat the OP as a deadbeat Dad.

This is the 21st century & Dads are doing all kinds of things as Dads that in the 20th century they would have been laughed at for doing. Fathers are activein their childrens lives in all kinds of ways and loving it.

Dads are the new Mums.

Deadbeat is a bit extreme. If they feel he should contribute more financially that is up to them. It is up to him to appeal and justify why not.

Obviously if a Dad is say, 50/50 involved, that should be reflected in maintenance payments. Clothing, food, education etc. expenses should be shared.

The Corinthian

K-9 wrote: »

He needs to appeal the order ASAP and explain why he can't afford it.

Certainly, I was making more of an observation on the nature of the system than anything else.

K-9 wrote: »

Obviously if a Dad is say, 50/50 involved, that should be reflected in maintenance payments. Clothing, food, education etc. expenses should be shared.

Unfortunately, I've noticed that, on certain single parenting sites when the topic of shared parenting or even overnights comes up, all too often the first question is "how much maintenance will I lose?"

K-9

The Corinthian wrote: »

Certainly, I was making more of an observation on the nature of the system than anything else.

Unfortunately, I've noticed that, on certain single parenting sites when the topic of shared parenting or even overnights comes up, all too often the first question is "how much maintenance will I lose?"

That does happen. I've also seen many single Dads think 50/50 means they can reduce maintenance, even though they may not be contributing 50/50 financially.

The Corinthian

K-9 wrote: »

That does happen. I've also seen many single Dads think 50/50 means they can reduce maintenance, even though they may not be contributing 50/50 financially.

Again this depends. Some fathers have to travel from one end of the country to the other to see their children - do you think the petrol / train fare is considered as a child related cost? Direct purchases such as gifts, school fees, or medical fees are also not counted as maintenance legally, and many mothers don't seem to register them either.

CDfm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Well it's a complex issue, TBH. As discussed child care (which would facilitate the custodial parent) is expensive in Ireland. So on one side one can argue that this cost should be split between the parents, which would quickly bring the level of maintenance to one exceeding the limits of the circuit court.

Of course, the mother working also benefits her personally - her career and her future - so TBH, this also would realistically have to be taken into account where it comes to the sharing of such costs. The father is supposed to pay towards the child's well being, not the mother's.

An observation: If a father is ordered to pay €150 p.w. and would be willing or able to pay €80 p.w., then paying just €80 p.w. will not do him any favours, and he's as well off to pay nothing. He's in breach of the order either way.

Because they need to balance the books and it is politically more acceptable to go after the father.

Those of us who like being Dads are penalised. My kids have grown out of it.

Joint custody should be automatic not the exception.

If that means a mother should find a saturday job to contribute to the costs well that should be it. After all its for the childs benefit and she should want to.