Avoiding paying your child maintenance? You are about to be targeted more so!

jayo11

Biggins wrote: »

Again, for the record and actual accuracy:

Once in a while Supu-value and Dunnes, etc do specials in the large boxes.
The sizes 3, 3+,4,4+ are available in SINGLE boxes that contain 108 nappies (broken down internally within 3 inner wrappings) within the box.
(There is one currently in my living room in a corner)

The size 5 and 5+ boxes of nappies in the boxes come in the quantity of 96 nappies in the box.
The retail cost of these single boxes ranges (when available!) varies between €16 and €18.
(An average child/toddler will go through at least 3/4 nappies a day. When they start teething, it gets worse by the way. As the teeth emerge, funny enough, the other end is effected too as any hands-on parent will know)

In ALL my years of taking care of my 4 kids - I have NEVER come across double boxes of Pampers (or any other brand) for €20 which contain 140 nappies internally.
Where is this store your seeing these rare, must be HUGE double boxes in???

As each 96/108 box alone is very large and cumbersome (to say the least), most can't go for them while trying to carry other shopping, push a buggy, mind/chase and catch any other accompanying kids, etc at the same time.
So most therefore have to go for the standard packages normally available that cost around €10/€14 that contain less nappies, which also actually fit and is able to slide into the under carriage basket on a buggy.

I think you need to go back and seriously reassess EXACTLY what everything costs and what quantities they are daily available in!

so you have to buy the most expensive pack of pampers coz you have to wheel a buggy and you cant control your kids,poor thing reminds me of someone i know.My ex sent me a text yesterday looking for more money for hols and money for next terms uniform and books and my child not even finished this school term.When i politely refused i was told i wudnt see my son again.money hungry c*w

Biggins

jayo11 wrote: »

so you have to buy the most expensive pack of pampers coz you have to wheel a buggy and you cant control your kids,poor thing reminds me of someone i know.My ex sent me a text yesterday looking for more money for hols and money for next terms uniform and books and my child not even finished this school term.When i politely refused i was told i wudnt see my son again.money hungry c*w

Sorry to hear that your been taken advantage of. As I have previously mentioned:

I know a good few blokes (including my bother in law), who is being taken advantage of and abused to the hilt by their ex's.
The ex's use the child as a form of blackmail to get more dosh! Its just not right - and the laws in Ireland on it are a damn modern day disgrace!

...anyway, I know some schools ask for deposits for next years term before the current one is up.
I have had to pay such deposits (€50 in my case) last week for one daughter alone. Its part of the school schemes which try to keep parental costs down.

jayo11

No she didnt want a deposit for the school as i said she asked for money to buy a uniform and books.I dont mind paying for my child but thats just taking the piss.The point im trying to make is that women have all the rights and the men have no say so therefore some women just think they can do what they like eg she doesnt give me the child and no one cares i dont give her maintenance and i get solicitor letter telling me i will be brought back to court and so on,but i suppose it is what it is and i just have to put up with it

Biggins

jayo11 wrote: »

No she didnt want a deposit for the school as i said she asked for money to buy a uniform and books.I dont mind paying for my child but thats just taking the piss.The point im trying to make is that women have all the rights and the men have no say so therefore some women just think they can do what they like eg she doesnt give me the child and no one cares i dont give her maintenance and i get solicitor letter telling me i will be brought back to court and so on,but i suppose it is what it is and i just have to put up with it

No argument from me.
The rights of fathers in this country are an internationally recognised disgrace.
A single report that was given to a previous government over 15 years ago telling it that changes were then far over due - has yet to be STILL acted upon.

They can rush "head-shop" legislative laws in - but address fathers rights? FCUK NO!!!
As far as FF are concerned, fathers can go fcuk themselves!

Fcukin' Fianna Fail yet again for you.
O' yes, ye fools - elect them back in! (PLEASE DON'T!!!)

The deposit I had to give WAS for books for the next school term just to be clear. Parents can either buy their own themselves or pay now (partly) thru the school who get them cheaper and/or re-cycle others too on the book list.
I'm not trying to justify your childs particular mother case but as a point to note: as soon as the book lists become available, its a rush to get them before stocks diminish and its then harder to get them closer to the new school term.

Wibbs

Biggins wrote: »

No argument from me.
The rights of fathers in this country are an internationally recognised disgrace.

*After wading through this thread, ties tubes off in hideous home operation involving dettol, a stanley knife and google*

A single report that was given to a previous government over 15 years ago telling it that changes were then far over due - has yet to be STILL acted upon.

Fcukin' Fianna Fail yet again for you.
O' yes, ye fools - elect them back in! (PLEASE DON'T!!!)

And you think the others will make much diff? Seriously? That's the problem with this country. Only if fathers make noise, lots of noise then nada will happen. Politically it would be a suicide run to appear like youre even slightly going after mothers. The mother in Irish culture is just a little too big a target. Most mothers and most fathers are not twats, but there are enough of each to worry about. In the majority of cases the deadbeat dads are the targets of social ire and now legislation. Deadbeat mothers rarely are, but I'm quite sure most of us male and female on this thread know at least one.

pickarooney

seamus wrote: »

No access rights == no money.

It should be the default position that the non-custodial parent can claim up to 50% access to the child unless it can be shown in court that the parent is incapable of adequately caring for the child in their home or otherwise presents a danger to the child.

If the parent isn't paying maintenance, they don't get access. Likewise, if access is being denied, they can withhold maintenance payments without penalty.

Unfortunately it's far too easy for a mother to get a barring order against the child's father for no reason and thereby deny him access while claiming maintenance.

I've an 11 month old daughter and I doubt she costs me more than €20 a week. It costs approximately 0 euros to feed her and her clothes are mostly hand-me-downs and gifts. Nappies and various creams and soaps are the only real expense. Actually I'd say a tenner would cover it most weeks. I might start counting and see if I'm not shocked by how naive I'm being.

Biggins

Wibbs wrote: »

...That's the problem with this country. Only if fathers make noise, lots of noise then nada will happen. Politically it would be a suicide run to appear like youre even slightly going after mothers. The mother in Irish culture is just a little too big a target. Most mothers and most fathers are not twats, but there are enough of each to worry about. In the majority of cases the deadbeat dads are the targets of social ire and now legislation. Deadbeat mothers rarely are, but I'm quite sure most of us male and female on this thread know at least one.

Again, you won't find me differing from you much.

I too agree with the current new changes in the law. Its about time they at least FINALLY started to address some (all be it just one) areas of parent laws in this country (and not just the fathers in the case of the proposed current legislation).
Now if they could just bother their lazy asses to do the prior much needed legal changes too in regards to fathers actual rights, be it court equality, visitation or shared parental time/access - it would be about frigin' time.

...but noooo (there is no money in that for them!), lets go with the rushed newspaper sensationalist head-shop (for simple example) legislation instead.
The next time one hears about head-shop laws - ask the minister direct - where is the new laws addressing the much bigger parental problems!
- Then watch him squirm some miserable excuse and slither away...

Nevyn

watna wrote: »

Out of interest, when a parent is ordered to pay maintenance does it come out of their wages directly or do they pay it themselves separately? Is there a child support agency that collects the month and passes it on? I've no idea how it works in Ireland.

No it is seen as a private payment and is not garnished from wages or benefit.
Which means it can be defaulted on, delayed or only half paid which causes more stress for the parent who has custody who has to chase after it.

Yawns

It costs approximately 0 euros to feed her

Is she dead?

Nevyn

jayo11 wrote: »

so you have to buy the most expensive pack of pampers coz you have to wheel a buggy and you cant control your kids,poor thing reminds me of someone i know.My ex sent me a text yesterday looking for more money for hols and money for next terms uniform and books and my child not even finished this school term.When i politely refused i was told i wudnt see my son again.money hungry c*w

Primary schools all over the country want the money for the school books by the end of June so that they can bulk buy the books over the summer so that every child is ready to go when they go back to school.

That is not the doing of your co parent or them trying to pull a fast one on you, why not ring the school as ask about the books, the cost and when the money is due to be paid.

Nevyn

pickarooney wrote: »

Unfortunately it's far too easy for a mother to get a barring order against the child's father for no reason and thereby deny him access while claiming maintenance.

That should not stop him from seeing the children, if he hasn't been living with her for the last 6 months she can't get a barring order anyway only a safety order which doesn't stop him being in the same room.

Even if the parent's can't stand the sight of each other and there is a barring order in place he can pick the kids up at the garden gate, or after school or from a family members house or there should be drop off and pick up supervised places to facilitate this.

pickarooney

Yawns wrote: »

Is she dead?

Is there anything they can't do?

Plus a few courgettes, carrots, oignons, biscuits... two euros would easily cover it, especially considering we'd have all the vegetables for ourselves anyway.

That should not stop him from seeing the children, if he hasn't been living with her for the last 6 months she can't get a barring order anyway only a safety order which doesn't stop him being in the same room.

Even if the parent's can't stand the sight of each other and there is a barring order in place he can pick the kids up at the garden gate, or after school or from a family members house or there should be drop off and pick up supervised places to facilitate this.

I don't really understand why it does, but (anecdotal evidence, sue me) the mother can simply refuse to let the father come near the house or the child and there's nothing he can do.

Yawns

Will the child be breastfed for the next 10 years?

Melion

I would have no problem paying €25-€30 a week now, i think that would be more than enough(coupled with what the mother would pay). When she is older and needs more clothes, different food etc then of course, you'd have to pay more.
It all depends on the age of the child

Melion

Biggins wrote: »

Again, for the record and actual accuracy:

Once in a while Supu-value and Dunnes, etc do specials in the large boxes.
The sizes 3, 3+,4,4+ are available in SINGLE boxes that contain 108 nappies (broken down internally within 3 inner wrappings) within the box.
(There is one currently in my living room in a corner)

The size 5 and 5+ boxes of nappies in the boxes come in the quantity of 96 nappies in the box.
The retail cost of these single boxes ranges (when available!) varies between €16 and €18.
(An average child/toddler will go through at least 3/4 nappies a day. When they start teething, it gets worse by the way. As the teeth emerge, funny enough, the other end is effected too as any hands-on parent will know)

In ALL my years of taking care of my 4 kids - I have NEVER come across double boxes of Pampers (or any other brand) for €20 which contain 140 nappies internally.
Where is this store your seeing these rare, must be HUGE double boxes in???

As each 96/108 box alone is very large and cumbersome (to say the least), most can't go for them while trying to carry other shopping, push a buggy, mind/chase and catch any other accompanying kids, etc at the same time.
So most therefore have to go for the standard packages normally available that cost around €10/€14 that contain less nappies, which also actually fit and is able to slide into the under carriage basket on a buggy.

I think you need to go back and seriously reassess EXACTLY what everything costs and what quantities they are daily available in!

Apologies, it is 108 in a box, dont know why i thought it was only 75. Dunnes had a deal on last week, 2 boxes for €20. Thats 216 nappies for €20, that would last well over a month, or should anyway barring sickness or teething.

And i dont buy the last 2 paragraphs at all. Cant pick them up during a weekly shop? Put the shopping into the car and go back in for them. An extra 2 minutes to save yourself a lot of money.

pickarooney

Yawns wrote: »

Will the child be breastfed for the next 10 years?

That's irrelevant. Melion was making the point that he was paying far more in maintenance than it costs to 'maintain' his child. It's idiotic to assume that the cost for a newborn and the cost for a teenager are identical and moronic to have a fixed maintenance payment regardless of the child's age or real costs involved.

Melion

Just to clarify, im not paying any maintenance. Me and my partner only broke up last week so nothing has been sorted out yet.

I stand by what ive said in this thread, its ridiculous to expect a father to pay €65 to an ex for the upkeep of a child my daughters age. As ive said, i will have no problem paying that amount and more when she is older and needs school uniforms, books, clothes, shoes etc.

K-9

watna wrote: »

Out of interest, when a parent is ordered to pay maintenance does it come out of their wages directly or do they pay it themselves separately? Is there a child support agency that collects the month and passes it on? I've no idea how it works in Ireland.

In NZ the IRD (inland revenue) collects child support payments and deducts directly from the person's wages and I'm presuming benefits (it does say benefits are taken in to account) http://www.ird.govt.nz/childsupport/background/

It seems like a good way to do it.

If it is court ordered, it is initially paid through the District Court Clerk office, though I assume most opt to pay it directly to the mothers bank account.

If there is a record of non payment, the judge may order an attachment of earnings, basically instructing the employer to deduct it directly. I don't think this covers self employment or Social Welfare cases though, not sure if the bill addresses that.

Thaedydal wrote: »

Primary schools all over the country want the money for the school books by the end of June so that they can bulk buy the books over the summer so that every child is ready to go when they go back to school.

That is not the doing of your co parent or them trying to pull a fast one on you, why not ring the school as ask about the books, the cost and when the money is due to be paid.

Stuff like that happens eg. the mother claiming the Back to School Allowance and still looking for money from the father. Very annoying.

Thaedydal wrote: »

That should not stop him from seeing the children, if he hasn't been living with her for the last 6 months she can't get a barring order anyway only a safety order which doesn't stop him being in the same room.

Even if the parent's can't stand the sight of each other and there is a barring order in place he can pick the kids up at the garden gate, or after school or from a family members house or there should be drop off and pick up supervised places to facilitate this.

She can just refuse to bring the child out or leave them at the drop of point. In extreme cases, kids are continuously kept from school on the day the other parent is to collect them, things can get that bad. The only outlet you have is the Guards, if you have a court order for access and as a Guard told me, "I can only warn her and give her a slap on the wrist". Unless you want them to forceably remove the child and naturally they don't want to do that!

Cue months of waiting for a court hearing to get the access reinstated and a judge slapping her on the wrist.

Biggins

Melion wrote: »

Apologies, it is 108 in a box, dont know why i thought it was only 75. Dunnes had a deal on last week, 2 boxes for €20. Thats 216 nappies for €20, that would last well over a month, or should anyway barring sickness or teething.

And i dont buy the last 2 paragraphs at all. Cant pick them up during a weekly shop? Put the shopping into the car and go back in for them. An extra 2 minutes to save yourself a lot of money.

Will take your word for it - even if its a first time.
Like I've said, I've never come across a double boxes being sold for 20.
I've come across specials on with single boxes of 108 nappies for €16/€18.

As for getting the boxes home, how many has actually tried to balance one of those huge and heavy boxes on a buggy while pushing it with a child in it, and possibly trying to maintain control over any additional walking child(s)?
Not everyone is blessed with a car (do all solo parents raising babies have one?) so walking home for a lot of people, sometimes up and down steep roads/hills is precarious to say the least.

Until you've actually tried to do these things - and I have - one can have no idea of the daily un-thought of problems associated with rearing, etc with a child in O' so many ways.

K-9

Melion wrote: »

Just to clarify, im not paying any maintenance. Me and my partner only broke up last week so nothing has been sorted out yet.

I stand by what ive said in this thread, its ridiculous to expect a father to pay €65 to an ex for the upkeep of a child my daughters age. As ive said, i will have no problem paying that amount and more when she is older and needs school uniforms, books, clothes, shoes etc.

Do you not have childcare costs? That is probably the single biggest expense involved.

Nevyn

Maintance is not just half the weekly costs of the child it is meant to be half the year cost paid weekly/monthly, some months kids cost feck all other's there is a lot of money needed for drs clothes books ect.

www.solo.ie has a spread sheet to help you work that out you will find it in the money matters section.

Biggins

K-9 wrote: »

Do you not have childcare costs? That is probably the single biggest expense involved.

Day care/Morning care, cresh costs?
I have to pay for two of mine and its quite considerable per week alone.

Nevyn

K-9 wrote: »

If it is court ordered, it is initially paid through the District Court Clerk office, though I assume most opt to pay it directly to the mothers bank account.

If there is a record of non payment, the judge may order an attachment of earnings, basically instructing the employer to deduct it directly. I don't think this covers self employment or Social Welfare cases though, not sure if the bill addresses that.

It is very rare for that to happen and I know men who went back getting a cheque or cash paypackets or changed jobs to be paid in cash so that the ex could ot get an attachment order.

K-9 wrote: »

Stuff like that happens eg. the mother claiming the Back to School Allowance and still looking for money from the father. Very annoying.

If the mother has a full medical card then the school book rental scheme can be used but there is still a deposit of 25 + a cost of 50 so the Dad should pay a share of that.

If the back the school allowance is being claimed for the uniform the Dad should consider buying a couple of bails of copies and a heap of penicls, there are way to contribute which help out with out them feeling they have been robbed.

K-9 wrote: »

She can just refuse to bring the child out or leave them at the drop of point. In extreme cases, kids are continuously kept from school on the day the other parent is to collect them, things can get that bad. The only outlet you have is the Guards, if you have a court order for access and as a Guard told me, "I can only warn her and give her a slap on the wrist". Unless you want them to forceably remove the child and naturally they don't want to do that!

Cue months of waiting for a court hearing to get the access reinstated and a judge slapping her on the wrist.

There has to be a better way to do this even a warning system that the custodial parent could loose custody if she persist for no good reason but on the flipside the parent who has access and visitation if they abuse it they should have penalties as well.

Melion

K-9 wrote: »

Do you not have childcare costs? That is probably the single biggest expense involved.

Ive been coming in to mind her when needed as my ex hasnt told her parents about us yet. Her mother is the babysitter and refuses to take money to mind her.

So no childcare expenses at the moment.

Biggins

Melion wrote: »

Ive been coming in to mind her when needed as my ex hasnt told her parents about us yet. Her mother is the babysitter and refuses to take money to mind her.

So no childcare expenses at the moment.

So far your lucky. Sadly it won't last.
...and I mean that sincerely. Sooner or later I suspect you might be hit with those costs too.

Melion

Oh i know just how lucky i am. And i will have no problem paying those costs for her.

Although my ex only works 3 days a week so ideally id like my job to tie in with those days and make sure that her needing a babysitter is kept to a minimum.

Biggins

Melion wrote: »

Oh i know just how lucky i am. And i will have no problem paying those costs for her.

Although my ex only works 3 days a week so ideally id like my job to tie in with those days and make sure that her needing a babysitter is kept to a minimum.

If at all possible, I would suggest ways of keep a record of all cash given.

Set up payments by bank transfer if weekly payments arise.
Keep a weekly list of all cash given or pay by cheque (its a recorded payment) and what's its claimed to be for.

It all adds up in evidence for a court to show that your trying to do your best within your limited means - just in case another half tries to say you are not paying up (and I've come across some who have tried this stunt), even though you have.

K-9

Thaedydal wrote: »

It is very rare for that to happen and I know men who went back getting a cheque or cash paypackets or changed jobs to be paid in cash so that the ex could ot get an attachment order.

Hopefully the bill will address that.

Thaedydal wrote:

If the mother has a full medical card then the school book rental scheme can be used but there is still a deposit of 25 + a cost of 50 so the Dad should pay a share of that.

Not all schools have a book rental scheme though, which is a shame. Great idea.

Thaedydal wrote:

If the back the school allowance is being claimed for the uniform the Dad should consider buying a couple of bails of copies and a heap of penicls, there are way to contribute which help out with out them feeling they have been robbed.

Yep, a school bag and a few other things. Doesn't really address the real problem often in cases like that, the mothers ire!

Thaedydal wrote:

There has to be a better way to do this even a warning system that the custodial parent could loose custody if she persist for no good reason but on the flipside the parent who has access and visitation if they abuse it they should have penalties as well.

True, but do you really want to force a father to see a child who isn't that bothered? Maybe the threat of jail may wake them up though. I just think if somebody would go to that length not to see a child, well.............

Melion wrote: »

Ive been coming in to mind her when needed as my ex hasnt told her parents about us yet. Her mother is the babysitter and refuses to take money to mind her.

So no childcare expenses at the moment.

You see, that is where the €65 average per week is coming from. If both parents are working, it should be a shared cost.

Melion

K-9 wrote: »

You see, that is where the €65 average per week is coming from. If both parents are working, it should be a shared cost.

Thats fair enough, i hadnt thought of that because its nothing something ive had to worry about so far.

K-9

Melion wrote: »

Oh i know just how lucky i am. And i will have no problem paying those costs for her.

Although my ex only works 3 days a week so ideally id like my job to tie in with those days and make sure that her needing a babysitter is kept to a minimum.

Housing costs would be another cost. If you or her move out, it is an extra expense in that it is isn't being shared. It can be hard to agree on but if it's a 2 bedroom apartment say and the rent is €800 and the rent for a one bed is €600, the extra €200 is a child related cost.

Add childcare costs and the essentials and you can start seeing why the average is €65, with many paying more.

amiable

seamus wrote: »

No access rights == no money.

It should be the default position that the non-custodial parent can claim up to 50% access to the child unless it can be shown in court that the parent is incapable of adequately caring for the child in their home or otherwise presents a danger to the child.

If the parent isn't paying maintenance, they don't get access. Likewise, if access is being denied, they can withhold maintenance payments without penalty.

Yeah cos a child being splitting its time 50/50 between parents is a great idea and won't confuse the child. Maybe good parents could sit down and work out good times and adequate times to see a child that would benefit everyone especially the child. I won't be holding my breath though. I can genuinely see both sides but i don't think its wise for a child to split its time equally.

ntlbell

amiable wrote: »

Yeah cos a child being splitting its time 50/50 between parents is a great idea and won't confuse the child. Maybe good parents could sit down and work out good times and adequate times to see a child that would benefit everyone especially the child. I won't be holding my breath though. I can genuinely see both sides but i don't think its wise for a child to split its time equally.

and having a weekend parent doesn't confuse?

amiable

ntlbell wrote: »

and having a weekend parent doesn't confuse?

Not nearly as much as 50/50

K-9

amiable wrote: »

Not nearly as much as 50/50

Funny thing is, it often is 50/50 of actual time with the child, or close to it, when you take time spent in childcare and school out of it.

If you are working full time you are only getting a couple of hours in the evening whereas the other parent is sometimes getting better "quality time"* with the child.

*Hate that phrase.

Many parents have 50/50, they just don't view it as such.

ntlbell

amiable wrote: »

Not nearly as much as 50/50

any links/references to back that up?

with what authority do you say this?

amiable

ntlbell wrote: »

any links/references to back that up?

with what authority do you say this?

Don't need any. With my authority

ntlbell

amiable wrote: »

Don't need any. With my authority

Oh right, so you have no idea, you're just making assumptions.

Ok.

amiable

ntlbell wrote: »

Oh right, so you have no idea, you're just making assumptions.

Ok.

You are assuming i am

ntlbell

amiable wrote: »

You are assuming i am

Well if you don't have evidence to prove otherwise?

amiable

ntlbell wrote: »

Well if you don't have evidence to prove otherwise?

Do you have evidence to prove i'm wrong?
Do you need evidence when something is as plain as the nose on your face?
You are assuming things

ntlbell

amiable wrote: »

Do you have evidence to prove i'm wrong?
Do you need evidence when something is as plain as the nose on your face?
You are assuming things

I don't need to prove your wrong, you made a claim, You're been asked what your basing it on, it's to establish if you just pulled it out of your backside or not.

Since you don't have any, I'll "assume" that's where it came from and disregard it as nonsense.

Thanks for your contrubution

amiable

ntlbell wrote: »

I don't need to prove your wrong, you made a claim, You're been asked what your basing it on, it's to establish if you just pulled it out of your backside or not.

Since you don't have any, I'll "assume" that's where it came from and disregard it as nonsense.

Thanks for your contrubution

As you wish

Butch Cassidy

Ok, bickering aside there....

Em, what defense can be tabled against paying maintainence?
"I didn't want a child, offered to pay for an abortion"
"Mother doesn't let me see the child"
"I've no say in how the money's spent"
"I've no money/can't afford it" ?

amiable

Butch Cassidy wrote: »

Ok, bickering aside there....

Em, what defense can be tabled against paying maintainence?
"I didn't want a child, offered to pay for an abortion"
"Mother doesn't let me see the child"
"I've no say in how the money's spent"
"I've no money/can't afford it" ?

Well all good fathers should be allowed see their child
Thats surely a given and i doubt anyone would disagree

goat2

about 15 yrs ago
i met this person who had a son, she had the father of the son staying with her, they were still together, she said that when the person from socail welfare asked the name of the father, she gave them a false name and address, yet her partner was drawing dole, she was getting all the freebies and the house paid for the lot of them on the taxpayer

i am thrilled that this is happening, young lads will think about the consequences, that they would have to pay up, also for the irish taxpayer this is good news

amiable

goat2 wrote: »

about 15 yrs ago
i met this person who had a son, she had the father of the son staying with her, they were still together, she said that when the person from socail welfare asked the name of the father, she gave them a false name and address, yet her partner was drawing dole, she was getting all the freebies and the house paid for the lot of them on the taxpayer

i am thrilled that this is happening, young lads will think about the consequences, that they would have to pay up, also for the irish taxpayer this is good news

I'd say there's no shortage of people around the country playing the system like or similar to what you've mentioned.
But i'm sure there will be clever people out there who will be able to manipulate the new system to suit themselves again

Butch Cassidy

goat2 wrote: »

i am thrilled that this is happening, young lads will think about the consequences, that they would have to pay up, also for the irish taxpayer this is good news

No they won't. This won't be taught in sex education in schools. Primarily because the teachers either don't wanna do sex ed or the kids already have kids.

goat2

Butch Cassidy wrote: »

No they won't. This won't be taught in sex education in schools. Primarily because the teachers either don't wanna do sex ed or the kids already have kids.

i do not see why school systems should have to take responsibility,
they have parents who can give them a good warning, and see to it that they are protected, after all some dont care where their little ones are nor what time they return home, once they are out from under their feet, so at least they can have a chat with them before they start out,

Butch Cassidy

goat2 wrote: »

i do not see why school systems should have to take responsibility,
they have parents who can give them a good warning, and see to it that they are protected, after all some dont care where their little ones are nor what time they return home, once they are out from under their feet, so at least they can have a chat with them before they start out,

Yeah and that approach has worked sooooo well to date....

ntlbell

Butch Cassidy wrote: »

Yeah and that approach has worked sooooo well to date....

So the answer is pawn yet another part of parenting on to teachers work load.