Maintenance

Lolaa

Im wondering if anyone can point me in the right direction?

My partner has a child for his ex and is currently paying 130 euro a week maintenance under a court order. We have talked about getting married in the near future and i was just wondering that when we marry - and if his ex takes him back to court for more money - will my earnings be taking into account when being means tested - or will my earnings not even come into the equation.

Any help at all would be great

LadyE

No your earnings wont be taken into account.

CDfm

No your earnings wont be taken into account.

In fact one thing that has been happening recently are people going back in looking for reductions because of the economic slowdown,

Lolaa

Thanks so much for both your replies - thats one weight lifted off my shoulders. I think my partner is too afraid to go back to court and ask for reduced repayments in case the judge hits him with a higher bill to pay - its hard enough as it is paying the 130 a week.

CDfm

Lolaa wrote: »

Thanks so much for both your replies - thats one weight lifted off my shoulders. I think my partner is too afraid to go back to court and ask for reduced repayments in case the judge hits him with a higher bill to pay - its hard enough as it is paying the 130 a week.

Get him to contact USFI the seperated dads group - here is the link and they could put him in touch with people who tackled the issue

http://www.usfi.ie/

Lolaa

Will definately check that out - thanks so much - more information the better, really need to look into all angles of this.

Queen-Mise

in england your wages would be taken into account.
I think its very strange that a new partner is expected to contribute for an old one or a child not her own.

Lolaa

Yeah and thats my biggest issue - the child is not my own so surely i shouldnt have my wages taken into account while his repayments are being calculated.

CDfm

130 is up near the upper end of the scale and there should be no reason for her to come back - i think the max is 150 in the district court

if she did apply it would be reasonable to make a cross application to the judge saying you believed the application to be vexatious because of remarriage and you could also apply for a reduction in maintenance and increaser in access at the same time

a common misconception is that you need a solictor for the family courts but you dont if you know what you are doing

www.amen.ie is another source of information and they have a full time staff of volunteers etc ¬(mostly women) at their offices in navan and are on 046 9024318. Im sure you could make an appointment with them if you are trying to put info together.

Lolaa

Yeah 150 is the max in a district court - but we have been told that she could take it to a higher court, which is what we are afraid of.

I didnt realise that you could cover more then 1 issue in the same court, i.e. cross application & reduce maintenance - i thought we'd have to keep going back for difference issues.

And i didnt realise that we didnt need a solicitor, which was actually probably one of the biggest reasons that we have ended up paying the 130 a week, the solicitor hadnt got a clue what he was doing, never told us the case date and just went ahead himself without my partner being present at the court.

Thanks so much for the replies - its really a great help, the more info the better

The Corinthian

CDfm wrote: »

No your earnings wont be taken into account.

Indirectly they will, in that his expenditure will be lower cohabitation than if he lived alone. In the same way, were he to have a child with the OP, and thus his expenditure (by way of a new dependant) increased, it is likely that he could seek a motion of variance to decrease his payments for the first child.

This has more to do with cohabitation and dependants than marriage though and I'll admit that I'm being pedantic. The only way I can see marriage making a difference is that he'll get more tax back and thus his income will increase.

Lolaa

Could he seek to decrease the repayments on the grounds of another child coming along?

The Corinthian

Lolaa wrote: »

Could he seek to decrease the repayments on the grounds of another child coming along?

Of course he could (it is a significant change in financial circumstances), but only once the child is born and there's no guarantee it would result in any reduction.

memo_to_all

My sis in law is baiscally screwing her ex to the wall. He was paying 120 p/w which was supposed to contribute to childcare...but my sis in law was actually getting her mother to mind the child and used the money he was handing over to go out every weekend.

anyway..he has since lost his job and has reduced maintenence from 120 to 30 and is now not paying at all.

sis-in law made a total fool of him in court pleading poverty and rubbed his nose in the fact she was posting all her nights out on beebo and joined an expensieve gym.

Lolaa

What happened when they went to court? Did the ex partner tell the judge what he thought his money was spent on?

The Corinthian

Lolaa wrote: »

What happened when they went to court? Did the ex partner tell the judge what he thought his money was spent on?

Wouldn't make a difference. Irish law on child maintenance argues that the wealthier the father, the more he has to pay. Conversely, however, a judge needs only be satisfied that the child is adequately being cared for, not that it gets the full benefit of the father's higher contribution.

beth-lou

memo_to_all wrote: »

My sis in law is baiscally screwing her ex to the wall. He was paying 120 p/w which was supposed to contribute to childcare...but my sis in law was actually getting her mother to mind the child and used the money he was handing over to go out every weekend.

anyway..he has since lost his job and has reduced maintenence from 120 to 30 and is now not paying at all.

The money paid in maintenance for a child covers food, rent, clothes and other expenses. Your sister in law is entitled to a life as I'm sure your brother is. It's his child too, so she should not be covering all expenses for the child if he is in a position to contribute.

He is now paying nothing, for his child. That's just shameful.

The Corinthian

beth-lou wrote: »

The money paid in maintenance for a child covers food, rent, clothes and other expenses. Your sister in law is entitled to a life as I'm sure your brother is. It's his child too, so she should not be covering all expenses for the child if he is in a position to contribute.

I think you misread what she wrote - the father of her sister-in-laws child is covering expenses that do not exist.

And of course she is entitled to a life, but not that someone else pays for it, she is only entitled to money towards the child's expenses, not her own personal ones. It's not alimony or a salary - otherwise all a woman needs to to become financially secure is get knocked up by someone wealthy or well off.

beth-lou

The Corinthian wrote: »

I think you misread what she wrote - the father of her sister-in-laws child is covering expenses that do not exist.

And of course she is entitled to a life, but not that someone else pays for it, she is only entitled to money towards the child's expenses, not her own personal ones. It's not alimony or a salary - otherwise all a woman needs to to become financially secure is get knocked up by someone wealthy or well off.

No, I read it correctly. He pays nothing for his child. Nothing.

What she does in her free time is her business. Same as what he does in his free time is his business. Maybe the child benefit is covering her nights out, or her wage, and the €120 is going towards feeding the child, putting a roof over it's head, clothing it and all the other expenses that come with having a child. Maintenance is not specifically there to cover child care. It is there to cover the care of the child, which is a whole lot more than €120 when you factor in rent, heating etc.

To pay nothing for your child and to use the fact that the mother has a social life as an excuse is pretty pathetic. It's his child, his responsibily and he should be paying towards it's care. Even if he can't afford the €120, he should be paying something towards the childs up keep. I just can't understand how someone wouldn't want to do that for their child. I really can't. It's wrong on so many levels.

The Corinthian

beth-lou wrote: »

No, I read it correctly. He pays nothing for his child. Nothing.

Fair point, I should have said "the father of her sister-in-laws child was covering expenses that do not exist."

Maintenance is not specifically there to cover child care. It is there to cover the care of the child, which is a whole lot more than €120 when you factor in rent, heating etc.

Maintenance is there to cover half of the upkeep of a child, not the mother.

To pay nothing for your child and to use the fact that the mother has a social life as an excuse is pretty pathetic.

Actually, we don't know why he is not paying anything at present other than he has lost his job. You can hardly deny, however, that when he was paying that her using that money for boozing was pretty disgusting too.

I just can't understand how someone wouldn't want to do that for their child. I really can't. It's wrong on so many levels.

I'm sure you feel the same way about those who abdicate their parental responsibilities through abortion or adoption.

beth-lou

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually, we don't know why he is not paying anything at present other than he has lost his job. You can hardly deny, however, that when he was paying that her using that money for boozing was pretty disgusting too.

I'm sure you feel the same way about those who abdicate their parental responsibilities through abortion or adoption.

We don't know that she was using that money specifically for boozing. As I'm sure you are are well aware, as am I, many things get twisted and used as weapons in maintenance cases. A woman is allowed to have a social life and does not have to be a pauper scrimping and saving to be deserving of maintenance for their child. Of course it should be what is affordable for the father too, I fully agree with that. But what if he is having a grand old social life and he is only paying €30 to wards his child, is that fair either? It needs to be worked out in as fair a manner as possible.

As far as the comment on abortion or adoption goes, it has absolutely no relevance in this circumstance and they are seperate issues.

This man was married to this woman, so I'm guessing that the baby was not a big surprise forced on to him, if that is what you are implying.

Either way, there should be some sort of maintenance or payment for your child. It's your child. It's your responsibility. I would have the same feeling if the father had custody and the mother was earning. Whichever way it goes, it's your child and your responsibility.

elli21

memo_to_all wrote: »

My sis in law is baiscally screwing her ex to the wall. He was paying 120 p/w which was supposed to contribute to childcare...but my sis in law was actually getting her mother to mind the child and used the money he was handing over to go out every weekend.

anyway..he has since lost his job and has reduced maintenence from 120 to 30 and is now not paying at all.

sis-in law made a total fool of him in court pleading poverty and rubbed his nose in the fact she was posting all her nights out on beebo and joined an expensieve gym.

I have to be honest and say that if at the moment the only one finacially supporting this child is the mother then its the child that is being screwed here.

Yes I understand that the farther has lost his job and hope for all concerned that this situation changes ASAP.


What I am not understanding from your post is how it has being determined that it is the maintenance debtors money that is being used to pay for the mothers socialising.

If this is indeed the case ,and lets be honest if she is "boozing" every weekend,there would be nothing left for the child from 130 a week....How then does she manage to pay for food,clothes,rent/mortgage,heating,GPs visits,medicine,school clothes,school books,school fees,and still manage to join an expensive gym.

I am presuming the child is well cared for as you do not mention in your post that your sis-in laws ex is concerned for the child's well being nor has he made an application for guardianship

The Corinthian

beth-lou wrote: »

We don't know that she was using that money specifically for boozing. As I'm sure you are are well aware, as am I, many things get twisted and used as weapons in maintenance cases.

Give me a break; you are willing to condemn this guy for not paying (or paying less), but are making excuses for the part of the story where she is abusing the payments and then you use the argument that things get twisted in these cases - pot. kettle black.

A woman is allowed to have a social life and does not have to be a pauper scrimping and saving to be deserving of maintenance for their child.

Of course she is allowed to have a social life. It is another thing, if what was said was true, that she would knowingly deceive the court to increase maintenance so that she could have a social life.

Of course it should be what is affordable for the father too, I fully agree with that. But what if he is having a grand old social life and he is only paying €30 to wards his child, is that fair either? It needs to be worked out in as fair a manner as possible.

Really depends on his financial situation - blood from a stone, and all that jazz. We really don't know what the story is there.

As far as the comment on abortion or adoption goes, it has absolutely no relevance in this circumstance and they are seperate issues.

No they're not separate issues. They are separate issues only in so far as they raise uncomfortable questions about a woman's right to choose and so you'd prefer if they were not linked in any way.

This man was married to this woman, so I'm guessing that the baby was not a big surprise forced on to him, if that is what you are implying.

Where does it say that they were married?

Either way, there should be some sort of maintenance or payment for your child. It's your child. It's your responsibility. I would have the same feeling if the father had custody and the mother was earning. Whichever way it goes, it's your child and your responsibility.

Unless you're a woman, in which case you can shirk that responsibility and people have to treat you with sympathy.

beth-lou

The Corinthian wrote: »

Give me a break; you are willing to condemn this guy for not paying (or paying less), but are making excuses for the part of the story where she is abusing the payments and then you use the argument that things get twisted in these cases - pot. kettle black.

Of course she is allowed to have a social life. It is another thing, if what was said was true, that she would knowingly deceive the court to increase maintenance so that she could have a social life.

Really depends on his financial situation - blood from a stone, and all that jazz. We really don't know what the story is there.

No they're not separate issues. They are separate issues only in so far as they raise uncomfortable questions about a woman's right to choose and so you'd prefer if they were not linked in any way.

Where does it say that they were married?

Unless you're a woman, in which case you can shirk that responsibility and people have to treat you with sympathy.

He is not paying anything for his child. For that there is no excuse regardless of what his ex gets up to. He should be paying something, half of all costs as you said. So would that be half the rent ( a child needs a home), half the bills and half the food bill?

Again the abortion / adoption debate has nothing to do with this and I really don't see the relevance so I'm not going there.

She was refered to as the sister in law, usually meaning a marraige has taken place. Otherwise, she would be refered to as the ex girlfriend etc.

Your child, your responsibility, regardless of gender.
As it stands the mother is now covering all costs for their child.
That is shameful. Even if he is getting the dole, he could contribute something.

The Corinthian

beth-lou wrote: »

He is not paying anything for his child. For that there is no excuse regardless of what his ex gets up to.

We don't know his current financial situation, so we can't really judge.

He should be paying something, half of all costs as you said. So would that be half the rent ( a child needs a home), half the bills and half the food bill?

Not half of all costs, only half of the costs incurred by the child. So this would not be "half the rent", but half the difference in rent to were she living alone. This means that if her rent is, say, €1,200 p.m. for a two bedroom apartment and otherwise she'd be paying €900 p.m. for a one bedroom apartment, then the added cost due to the child is €300 p.m., of which half is €150. Otherwise you would be expecting him to pay for half her expenses too.

Again the abortion / adoption debate has nothing to do with this and I really don't see the relevance so I'm not going there.

It must be very convenient how uncomfortable parallels are so easily brushed under the carpet.

She was refered to as the sister in law, usually meaning a marraige has taken place. Otherwise, she would be refered to as the ex girlfriend etc.

Unless it is the poster's husband's sister.

Your child, your responsibility, regardless of gender.

The problem I have with this is that mothers are often very happy to share responsibility equally, but when it comes to rights it becomes a different story. As things stand they have an absolute monopoly on the choice to keep a child or not and a virtual monopoly on its custody and upbringing.

So while I'd agree that both parents have a responsibility, a mother can't really expect to have all the choices, all the rights and then claim that they should only have half the responsibility.

As it stands the mother is now covering all costs for their child.

Actually we don't know if she is covering any, although given she claimed child care costs it would be reasonable that she is covering at least a certain portion through work.

However, if her only income is through social welfare, then it is the tax payer who is covering all costs for their child, not her.

Grahamb23

Can anyone please help? how much should i be paying maintenance for my 21 month old little girl? is my wife entitled to get anything for herself? please someone answer what is the average maintenance ?????????
thanks

The Corinthian

Grahamb23 wrote: »

Can anyone please help? how much should i be paying maintenance for my 21 month old little girl? is my wife entitled to get anything for herself? please someone answer what is the average maintenance ?????????
thanks

Anecdotally I have heard that €80 p.w. is the average for child maintenance in Ireland, but it really depends entirely upon your income and expenditure and your wife's so you should not take this figure too seriously. Additionally, you as you are married you may have to pay spousal maintenance as you have a duty to support your spouse also.

Lolaa

If you and your wife ended amicably you can sort out a figure between yourselves. If it ended badly the best thing to do is go to court and the judge will set a figure for you.

I’m nearly sure that if you where married you will have to pay alimony to your ex wife as well as child maintenance for the child.

For a child in the district court the max. is 150 euro a week - buy obviously there are a lot of factors taken into account before the judge arrives at a figure, i.e. job, unemployed, outgoings etc.

Ginla

I am currently seperated,i agreed in court to give my wife with 2 kids €250 per week, i have now been told i am being made redundunt, when this happens i won't be able to afford that money as social welfare won't even cover it, what are my options,someone told me that for seperated fathers who are on social can claim an extra €130 per week for maintenance payments ????????

tatabubbly

LOL My dad owes my mum thousands (literally thousands) in back-money for maintainence. When he left, he left my mum with no savings, no car, my mum didn't have a job....

Now she had to ask the judge to take it out of his pay packet because even though he's been gone for 6 years, he thinks his children have like disappeared into thin air!

Good on her partner who bothers to pay it. Shows that not all men are completely useless!

Kildrought

the wealthier the father, the more he has to pay

Both parents are obliged to support their children; not just the father.

If parents were still married to each other, the children of that marriage would benefit from the family income and from any increases in that income over time.

Few married /co-habiting parents decide on a minimum support level for their children and spend the rest of the family income on themselves.

Whilst additional expenses have to taken into account (you can't maintain two households for the same cost as one); why should the underlying ethos in regards to child support, be any different where the parents have separated? The children are entitled to the benefit of the family income.