Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Maintenance
Options
Comments
-
In theory I think you're right, however this is not enforced. Indeed, the Irish constitution even speaks of a woman's (not man's oddly) right to stay at home.Kildrought wrote: »Both parents are obliged to support their children; not just the father.
Of course, this makes no difference to the vast majority of cases, but if the father is a high income earner, then he becomes subject to paying much higher levels of maintenance (via the higher courts). While this money is in theory meant for the child, this is not policed, and so effectively becomes a form of 'alimony lite'.
In fairness, it is utterly unfair to paint all single mothers in the same light. However, the present system does allow some to abuse it.0 -
It's not a theory - it's the law!
In just the same way that if the parents were still married the child would benefit from the higher income.if the father is a high income earner, then he becomes subject to paying much higher levels of maintenance
We don't tell people in this country how to spend their money, regardless of its source; that some budget well and others don't is something that we have to accept.meant for the child, this is not policed
Based on the last census the majority of lone parents are widowed, separated or divorced; non-married lone parents are the smallest category.single mothers0 -
Even law is only theory if it is not enforced. For example, up until the early nineties, homosexuality was still illegal, in theory, but in practice it was not.Kildrought wrote: »It's not a theory - it's the law!
Except if the parents were still married (assuming they ever were married or even in a relationship) the decision on how to spend that money for the child is shared and thus there is accountability for how that money is spent.In just the same way that if the parents were still married the child would benefit from the higher income.
It's not their money. It's the child's.We don't tell people in this country how to spend their money, regardless of its source; that some budget well and others don't is something that we have to accept.
What's your point?Based on the last census the majority of lone parents are widowed, separated or divorced; non-married lone parents are the smallest category.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »
It's not their money. It's the child's.
Assuming the child is fed, has a roof over its head and has clothes, toys etc, the money is being spent on the upkeep of the child. What the parent then decides to do in their social life is their business, unless of course they are neglecting their child.
Paying nothing towards the welfare of your child is in itself neglect.
Unless there are extenuating circumstances, whereby you can not afford to pay anything.0 -
Of course, as long as they do so with their money, not money meant for the child. If money meant for the welfare of the child is redirected towards the social life of the custodial parent, then it is effectively stealing from the child who could otherwise get a better level of care and welfare.Assuming the child is fed, has a roof over its head and has clothes, toys etc, the money is being spent on the upkeep of the child. What the parent then decides to do in their social life is their business, unless of course they are neglecting their child.0 -
Advertisement
-
@corinthian - the point being the the majority of lone parents were not single; it's not accurate to refer to 'single mothers' as a catch all term for those who are parenting alone. Unless of course, you are actually only referring to 'single mothers' and ignoring every other lone parent.
Any form of income to any parent, be that SW payments, Child benefit, the Early Childhood supplement scheme etc., etc., it is up to the parent to budget the family income as best they can. Some may do it well, some may not.If money meant for the welfare of the child is redirected towards the social life of the custodial parent, then it is effectively stealing from the child who could otherwise get a better level of care and welfare.
For the majority of married parents that I know of (and certainly in my own case); general day-to-day expenditure is not discussed/pre-approved in great detail. If shoes/school books/ballet lessons have to be paid for, one or other parent takes it upon themselves to do so. Big ticket items/ birthday/ Christmas might come up for discussion, but in essence each parent trusts the other to make decisions.the decision on how to spend that money for the child is shared and thus there is accountability for how that money is spent
Once parents are separated, granted with all the other emotions that wash around the place, that trust tends to be eroded. But you can't replace that trust with legislation/rules etc, it won't work.
As regards the enforcement of maintenance - as you know Corinthian - the system of maintenance enforcement requires that it is sought (usually) by the resident parent from the non-resident parent. It is (to my mind) a very poor system, but there you are. It is done day-in, day-out in our courts - there is no theory here.0 -
A single mother/father/parent would be a parent who is not in a monogamous relationship. If the term is not politically correct enough, please let me know what term I should be using.Kildrought wrote: »@corinthian - the point being the the majority of lone parents were not single; it's not accurate to refer to 'single mothers' as a catch all term for those who are parenting alone. Unless of course, you are actually only referring to 'single mothers' and ignoring every other lone parent.
Please do not confuse incompetent with fraudulent. Spending money meant for the child badly, but at least on the child, is one thing, but spending money meant for the child not on the child is fraudulent.Any form of income to any parent, be that SW payments, Child benefit, the Early Childhood supplement scheme etc., etc., it is up to the parent to budget the family income as best they can. Some may do it well, some may not.
The reasoning behind child maintenance being linked to the non-custodial parent's income is that a child should benefit from the greater wealth of its non-custodial parent. This means that, for example, instead of getting a pair of runners from Dunnes, the child can get more expensive runners, from Nike. If instead the custodial parent buys runners from Dunnes and spends the rest on wine, then that is a clear abuse of what the money is for.
The money is for the child - both for the child's needs and expenses. That is why it is called child maintenance. It is not spousal maintenance, which - where applicable - is given in addition to child maintenance.
Why not? We've replaced every other aspect with legislation and the rules with regard to what child maintenance should be for are actually pretty clear - it's just that they're not enforced.But you can't replace that trust with legislation/rules etc, it won't work.
Of course it is only theory. The law can say what it likes, but if it does not enforce it, then it's just talk. Theory.As regards the enforcement of maintenance - as you know Corinthian - the system of maintenance enforcement requires that it is sought (usually) by the resident parent from the non-resident parent. It is (to my mind) a very poor system, but there you are. It is done day-in, day-out in our courts - there is no theory here.
And the enforcement that maintenance goes where it is supposed to is one area that is just talk as far as the law is concerned.0 -
In courts expense claims do have to be backed up by receipts,bills,bank statements etc,so it is more than theory and it is enforced.
A child who gets 130 a week will benefit far more than a child who gets 40. S/he can eat organic foods,get music or art classes or swimming lessons,get toys etc whereas the child who gets 40 cannot unless the custodial parent is heavily subsidizing the non custodial parent and if so then it is unlikely s/he can afford a baby sitter to have anykind of a life. And if the child is getting 40,50 lower amounts of maintenance from the non cust parent,then it is more than likely s/he is footing the bulk of the bill enabling the other parent to have a life, and by subsidizing the pawltry contribution,is indirectly paying the ex.0 -
There is no way the courts will agree for greater maintance because the custodial parent want the child to only eat organic food, that is proping up a lifestyle choice.0
-
There is no way the courts will agree for greater maintance because the custodial parent want the child to only eat organic food, that is proping up a lifestyle choice.
They would if the child were allergic to pesticides. But anything can come under lifestyle choice,from piano lessons to central heating to living in Dublin where rents are higher,to grinds,to having the child in the first place.0 -
Advertisement
-
Yes people will often try and justify all manner of things to the courts just to drag the other parent up into court to see them and force them to interact with them to get some sort of a reaction to them. I am very thankful that I do have a good functioning co parenting relationship with the father of my children and that neither of us are drama addicts.
But back to the topic of the thread, there are no set ammounts there is an average but there are so many varibles that really if parents can not agree then there is the court system as flawed as it is.0 -
Yes people will often try and justify all manner of things to the courts just to drag the other parent up into court to see them and force them to interact with them to get some sort of a reaction to them. I am very thankful that I do have a good functioning co parenting relationship with the father of my children and that neither of us are drama addicts.
But back to the topic of the thread, there are no set ammounts there is an average but there are so many varibles that really if parents can not agree then there is the court system as flawed as it is.
I dont know anyone who has gone to court for the reasons you say. It happens because of no,insufficient, or erratic maintenance or to establish paternity or because social welfare make them or for a combination of reasons.
Its great you have a good relationship with your coparent.He sounds very cooperative. Does he hold you accountable for the maintenance?How do you prove to him what your spending the money on? Im assuming here,maybe wrongly that he contributes.0 -
metrovelvet wrote: »I dont know anyone who has gone to court for the reasons you say. It happens because of no,insufficient, or erratic maintenance or to establish paternity or because social welfare make them or for a combination of reasons.
I do and in some cases they will try and convince themselves that their reasons are purer then what they are when honestly part of the motivation is unresolved issues due to the break up of the couple and nothing to do with the rearing or well being of the child/children.metrovelvet wrote: »Its great you have a good relationship with your coparent.He sounds very cooperative. Does he hold you accountable for the maintenance?How do you prove to him what your spending the money on? Im assuming here,maybe wrongly that he contributes.
We still co habit in the family home and run the house hold together with out being a couple.0 -
I do and in some cases they will try and convince themselves that their reasons are purer then what they are when honestly part of the motivation is unresolved issues due to the break up of the couple and nothing to do with the rearing or well being of the child/children.
We still co habit in the family home and run the house hold together with out being a couple.
thats pretty amazing.you must have a big house. I am most curious,especially about whos paying for it.lol.no wonder you have an amicable relationship and never went to court.0 -
I am not inclinded to discuss my family's fiances on a public forum and I never siad we had never been to court. Yes thankfully it is a big house and we all have our own rooms, but this is far from the standard or the 'norm' when it comes to parenting arrangements in this country and it took a lot of work to work out.0
-
Thats great that your kids arent divided by two households both alike in dignity. Unconventional but if it works all the more power to you.
Back to maintenance. I was not suggesting that wanting to buy organic food is a reason for court action but that it could be justified if the child has food allergies or is hyperactive. Unlike you, I wouldnt call a custodial parent a drama addict for making such a claim. Nor would I label and namecall them for any of the other reasons I listed. To presume to understand the motivations better than they do themselves is a little on the arrogant side, a little like saying "i know you better than you know yourself." There may be an emotional colour to it that you disapprove of, but behind it is entitlement.
For example. I know a woman who had a baby by a guard. She found out too late that he had given her a false name and told her he was a widower. It turned out his wife was alive raising his two kids. Of course he didnt want the baby or to pay maintenance. She took him to court officially for maintenance but unofficially it was to expose his fraudulance. Now you may disapprove of the motivation and call her a drama addict, but ultimately she excersized what little power she had to get maintenance and get her voice heard.0 -
I currently pay my ex maintenance for our 10 year old son (This is a proper court arranged agreement), I know that this ceases when he is 18 or could be up until he is 23 if he goes for third level education.
My question is, if he came to live with me when he turned 18 and went to college etc., I presume I would no longer have to pay my ex?
Further still, if he wanted to come and live with me earlier than this, would this have to involve courts if she refused, or could he move out when 16 or 17 say, and would I be allowed to cease payments to her then?0 -
If your son came to live with you before maintenance payments stop, then in theory your ex would have to pay you maintenance. Nonetheless, you would need to seek a motion of variance (actually I think it has a different name) on this as until then the original order would still stand.I currently pay my ex maintenance for our 10 year old son (This is a proper court arranged agreement), I know that this ceases when he is 18 or could be up until he is 23 if he goes for third level education.
My question is, if he came to live with me when he turned 18 and went to college etc., I presume I would no longer have to pay my ex?
Further still, if he wanted to come and live with me earlier than this, would this have to involve courts if she refused, or could he move out when 16 or 17 say, and would I be allowed to cease payments to her then?
Just bare in mind that if your son came to live with you, your ex would not only lose your maintenance payments and potentially be required to pay you, but if she is on LPA and associated benefits, she'll lose those. As such, there could well be resistance to the idea.0 -
So just to go back to a point you made earlier Corinthian, where you said that child maintenance was not policied and should be spent directly ON the child, and if it's not, then it's fraudelent.
In my own case, I recieve court-ordered maintenance which goes directly into a bank account which pays the mortgage & household bills.
Are you saying that this is fraud and that the 75 pw I receive, should be spent directly on my child?0 -
Child maintenance is meant to go towards both the expenses and benefit of the child. The custodial parent is also financially responsible for the child, so this maintenance should cover only half the amount.In my own case, I recieve court-ordered maintenance which goes directly into a bank account which pays the mortgage & household bills.
Are you saying that this is fraud and that the 75 pw I receive, should be spent directly on my child?
While you're putting your child's maintenance into a bank account which pays the mortgage & household bills, you're still covering other costs, so ultimately it should balance out or even not cover half the costs, I'd imagine.
Where the problem arises is where either the costs are low (because the custodial parent is not paying rent/bills/etc) and the maintenance is high. When this happens there is a surplus on the costs, which in theory should be spent on better clothes, education, etc. for the child.
However, other than being very difficult to prove there is such a surplus in other than the most extreme of cases, even if proven its correct use is not enforced. As such, in a minority of cases, money that should go towards better clothes, education, etc. for the child ends up benefiting the custodial parent, because they see it as their money.
However, even if it is in a minority of cases, it still should be enforced.0 -
Advertisement
-
The Corinthian wrote: »Where the problem arises is where either the costs are low (because the custodial parent is not paying rent/bills/etc) and the maintenance is high. When this happens there is a surplus on the costs, which in theory should be spent on better clothes, education, etc. for the child.
However, other than being very difficult to prove there is such a surplus in other than the most extreme of cases, even if proven its correct use is not enforced. As such, in a minority of cases, money that should go towards better clothes, education, etc. for the child ends up benefiting the custodial parent, because they see it as their money.
However, even if it is in a minority of cases, it still should be enforced.
I've had this discussion with a friend of mine recently, and she is exactly who you describe above. She lives at home with her parents, pays a small amount of rent weekly to them, is on LPA and in receipt of €110pw maintenance. Regularly, she spends the €110 on herself on a nite out or perhaps new clothes. Now don't get me wrong, her child is taken well care of, in creche p/t and dressed immaculately, all of which she pays for herself. She maintains that if she didn't get out once a week/fortnight, she'd go insane and she IS benefitting her child by being a better parent BECAUSE she gets a break.
Is she wrong?0 -
Yes, she is wrong.Is she wrong?
The whole logic behind maintenance being linked to the wealth of the non-custodial parent is that the child benefits from it. The non-custodial parent has a financial obligation to the child, not to the custodial parent. End of.
Using the logic that the child benefits because otherwise "the mother would go insane" is the worst kind of self-justification.
Raising a child is not a career move. You are not owed a living when you do so, quite the opposite - it is a responsibility who's only reward is the child. From your description of your friend, she actually does not support her child financially at all. Her parents, the state and the father support the child - and her.
I knew a woman like her a good few years ago. She mused one day that with her daughter already ten years of age, she would only get maintenance and LPA for another eight or so years and so perhaps she should have another child.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »Yes, she is wrong.
The whole logic behind maintenance being linked to the wealth of the non-custodial parent is that the child benefits from it. The non-custodial parent has a financial obligation to the child, not to the custodial parent. End of.
Using the logic that the child benefits because otherwise "the mother would go insane" is the worst kind of self-justification.
Raising a child is not a career move. You are not owed a living when you do so, quite the opposite - it is a responsibility who's only reward is the child. From your description of your friend, she actually does not support her child financially at all. Her parents, the state and the father support the child - and her.
I knew a woman like her a good few years ago. She mused one day that with her daughter already ten years of age, she would only get maintenance and LPA for another eight or so years and so perhaps she should have another child.
having read your post's in this topic i have to make the point,
if a mother receiving €100 maintenance from the baby's father earns €400 per week she pays out the rent does the shopping (may i point out here my mum was lone parent with 3 kids and 90% of her shopping bill was spent on food for us 5% on cosmetics for us e.g. shampoos/baby lotions/nappies .etc)she buys clothes shoes toys and pays creche/school fee's on a weekly basis as needed, that on a night out where she spends maybe €50 on a baby sitter and then €50 on a night out with friends,would you say she is A: blowing his maintenance or b: blowing 1/4th of her wages?
yes we know women out there who have baby's for benefits and who abuse the system, but some men are just as bad too!
My dad never paid a penny in maintenance, the court themselves threatened him with jail time if he didnt pay up and he still refused to pay (nothing ever came of it) they ordered him when i was 16 to back pay €3000 in maintenance which works out at about €4 a week, im 22 now and we still havent received it, and it wasnt that he doesnt have it, he owns his own house no morgage to pay inherited more than 10 times that amount,from his parents and still wouldnt give me €20 if i asked him.
As it stands me and my partner are expecting our first we are not married, we both agree on the fact it is OUR responsibility to raise this baby, finacially and emotionally, i have made it clear to him i will sign that form in front of a solicitor which gives him equal rights to the baby, as he wants his rights. maybe because of my background or because we are in a relationship im more open to the 50-50 thing but i think any non-custody parent who refuses to pay regardless of reason e.g.redundency...etc should be ashamed, if the parent with custody did the same they would be locked up for child neglect. unfortunitly because mothers get automatic gaurdianship they are automatically roped into paying for the child (thus automatic rights=automatic responsibility), fathers without custody should be made pay the same with the same rights as the mother if they do pay ...0 -
If what she is spending on her children is double (or more) what she gets in maintenance then the maintenance is certainly being spent on her children.candlelover wrote: »if a mother receiving €100 maintenance from the baby's father earns €400 per week she pays out the rent does the shopping (may i point out here my mum was lone parent with 3 kids and 90% of her shopping bill was spent on food for us 5% on cosmetics for us e.g. shampoos/baby lotions/nappies .etc)she buys clothes shoes toys and pays creche/school fee's on a weekly basis as needed, that on a night out where she spends maybe €50 on a baby sitter and then €50 on a night out with friends,would you say she is A: blowing his maintenance or b: blowing 1/4th of her wages?
It is only when she spends less than double of the maintenance on her children that she is possibly abusing the system. Of course, one could argue that she cannot afford to match the same level of maintenance as the father, but that does not mean that she is not also financially responsible. It's not a job; raising a child does not mean that you can pass all the financial responsibility to the non-custodial parent, let alone mean that you deserve a wage.
Never said there wasn't and I even said I believe that there is only a minority of custodial parents who do this, but even so it does not condone those who do.yes we know women out there who have baby's for benefits and who abuse the system, but some men are just as bad too!
I'm not actually discussing this though. I'm actually discussing fathers who do pay but some of it never gets to their children. The rest of your post touches on about fifteen different topics, TBH.My dad never paid a penny in maintenance0
Advertisement