Another Maintenace Question

LegacyUser

So my boyfriend has twins from another relationship. They are 2.

He pays the mother 100e a week.

He has been getting letters from social welfare saying that he needs to contribute 100e more a week for the 'one parent allowance'. (They are aware he is paying 100e already)

The mother works part time, has a relatively good job and said herself she doesn't need the extra 100 they are asking him for.

I was under the impression that he only had to pay for maintenance.

Can anyone explain this to me?

StillWaters

This doesn't make sense. There is no such thing as 'one parent allowance'.

Certainly if the children's mother is seeking the One Parent Childcare Payment (OPCP), SW may have written to him regarding maintenance. Depending on his earnings, I would thing €50 per week per child is not much.

wolfpawnat

StillWaters wrote: »

This doesn't make sense. There is no such thing as 'one parent allowance'.

Certainly if the children's mother is seeking the One Parent Childcare Payment (OPCP), SW may have written to him regarding maintenance. Depending on his earnings, I would thing €50 per week per child is not much.

Depends on his income really. 100 a week may seem like little, but if he is on min wage/SW that is a lot!

OP - The Dept of SW do not want her to get any SW and are trying to get the father to fork out so they don't have to. He is paying 100 and as long as that is declared it is deducted from her payment from the SW.

The Dept of Social Welfare CANNOT set maintenance, only the courts can do that but it is means tested(or the parents through an amicable agreement). It is just the SW trying to get out of paying, they should be grateful the father is saving them 100e a week!

daltonmd

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Depends on his income really. 100 a week may seem like little, but if he is on min wage/SW that is a lot!

OP - The Dept of SW do not want her to get any SW and are trying to get the father to fork out so they don't have to. He is paying 100 and as long as that is declared it is deducted from her payment from the SW.

The Dept of Social Welfare CANNOT set maintenance, only the courts can do that but it is means tested(or the parents through an amicable agreement). It is just the SW trying to get out of paying, they should be grateful the father is saving them 100e a week!

Eh, it is not the responsibility of the state (taxpayer) to provide for these children.

The children are HIS responsibility.

The SW have no need to be "grateful" that a father is providing for his children.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/social_welfare_payments_to_families_and_children/one_parent_family_payment.html



It would appear that his ex is earning less than 425e per week thus making her eligible for the one parent family payment. She must make every attempt to secure adequate provision from the other parent.

100e per week for twins is shockingly low. The mother has to provide roof/food/clothes/childcare out of this, which is impossible so the state is taking up the slack, his slack.

wolfpawnat

daltonmd wrote: »

Eh, it is not the responsibility of the state (taxpayer) to provide for these children.

The children are HIS responsibility.

The SW have no need to be "grateful" that a father is providing for his children.

Considering the amount of men that are paying nothing at all to their children, yes, they should!

I am basing this on the information giving, that the man is not earning too much to say what he is giving is 100e. If he is in a high paying job of course there should not be need for the SW to fork out anything for the children and he should pay more, but many men are on the SW themselves due to the downturn and many more are on very low wages. The OP does not state the income of the man so we can only presume by the amount being paid to the ex that it is low enough!

daltonmd

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Considering the amount of men that are paying nothing at all to their children, yes, they should!

I am basing this on the information giving, that the man is not earning too much to say what he is giving is 100e. If he is in a high paying job of course there should not be need for the SW to fork out anything for the children and he should pay more, but many men are on the SW themselves due to the downturn and many more are on very low wages. The OP does not state the income of the man so we can only presume by the amount being paid to the ex that it is low enough!

Exactly, his income was never mentioned. And if he's not earning a lot then he should better himself or get another job to support his children.

Let me also tell you that if he was on SW then his ex wouldn't be getting 100e from him.

On both sides there doesn't appear to be money worries, but it begs the question why is the state paying any money to the ex when there is a father, who seems to be working, in the picture?

wolfpawnat

daltonmd wrote: »

Exactly, his income was never mentioned. And if he's not earning a lot then he should better himself or get another job to support his children.

We are in a recession, it is hard for people to get new jobs and all incomes are being decreased by taxes, price rises, etc. He may not have a qualification. Many men don't. He, like everyone else is probably just trying to get by on the best he can!

daltonmd wrote: »

Let me also tell you that if he was on SW then his ex wouldn't be getting 100e from him.

Believe me when I say I know the system inside out, my parents were in the courts with maintenance issues since I was 4! (I am now in my mid 20's) The maximum the court will force a person to pay if they are on the SW is €50 a child. Usually it is around the €30 mark.

daltonmd wrote: »

On both sides there doesn't appear to be money worries, but it begs the question why is the state paying any money to the ex when there is a father, who seems to be working, in the picture?

He has his own bills to pay too, if he is earning over €650 a week then it is nigh on a sin for him to not pay €200 (approx equal to OPFP), but as stated by both of us, without the info from the OP, we cannot make proper assumptions.

daltonmd

wolfpawnat wrote: »

We are in a recession, it is hard for people to get new jobs and all incomes are being decreased by taxes, price rises, etc. He may not have a qualification. Many men don't. He, like everyone else is probably just trying to get by on the best he can!



Believe me when I say I know the system inside out, my parents were in the courts with maintenance issues since I was 4! (I am now in my mid 20's) The maximum the court will force a person to pay if they are on the SW is €50 a child. Usually it is around the €30 mark.



He has his own bills to pay too, if he is earning over €650 a week then it is nigh on a sin for him to not pay €200 (approx equal to OPFP), but as stated by both of us, without the info from the OP, we cannot make proper assumptions.

Again, there is no suggestion that money is an issue here. Recession or no recession, kids have to eat. He's the father so it's his responsibility to provide for the children that he brought into the world. This is something that people seem to forget.
As to his own bills, who cares? His children and their needs come first.

This welfare state is bankrupt, in years to come there will be no OPFP to take up the slack of men (and women) who go around making babies and not "adequately" providing for them. If he was adequately providing for them then his ex would not be in receipt of SW.

This is my buck and your buck and people need to wake up to the fact that our future will bear little or no resemblance to what we have been used to for so long.

You may think you know the system, but I'm not talking about the system I am talking about parental responsibility. You make the baby you pay for the baby not the taxpayer.

wolfpawnat

daltonmd wrote: »

Again, there is no suggestion that money is an issue here. Recession or no recession, kids have to eat. He's the father so it's his responsibility to provide for the children that he brought into the world. This is something that people seem to forget.
As to his own bills, who cares? His children and their needs come first.

This welfare state is bankrupt, in years to come there will be no OPFP to take up the slack of men (and women) who go around making babies and not "adequately" providing for them. If he was adequately providing for them then his ex would not be in receipt of SW.

This is my buck and your buck and people need to wake up to the fact that our future will bear little or no resemblance to what we have been used to for so long.

You may think you know the system, but I'm not talking about the system I am talking about parental responsibility. You make the baby you pay for the baby not the taxpayer.

You will not hear me disagreeing with you with regards parental responsibility. I am currently on another thread discussing fathers and their duties with regards their children. But if they cannot afford to keep a roof over their heads, they cannot make money to pay for the kids. If they are going on 3 holidays a year and have a new car outside the door of course they should fork out more.

As for the welfare state, that payment is crucial for parents left raising a child/children alone, but it has made the One Parent Family a viable lifestyle choice for many people and has ruined the ideal family unit. I see it as a scourge tbh! But I cannot deny that a man contributing something is better than the many who contribute nothing!

daltonmd

wolfpawnat wrote: »

You will not hear me disagreeing with you with regards parental responsibility. I am currently on another thread discussing fathers and their duties with regards their children. But if they cannot afford to keep a roof over their heads, they cannot make money to pay for the kids. If they are going on 3 holidays a year and have a new car outside the door of course they should fork out more.

As for the welfare state, that payment is crucial for parents left raising a child/children alone, but it has made the One Parent Family a viable lifestyle choice for many people and has ruined the ideal family unit. I see it as a scourge tbh! But I cannot deny that a man contributing something is better than the many who contribute nothing!

I was just looking at that thread!

The payment should only be crucial if there is no father (or mother) there to support the children. This man is present and he is not paying enough, that's my point.
Men and women who abdicate their financial responsibilities will no longer be tolerated because the SW system is at meltdown point.
I don't think it's fair to say that a man contributing "anything" is better than him contributing nothing, it's not an option for the parent left with physical custody to commit 50% or part parent or part feed the kids. The rights of the child have to come first and if that makes his new life a bit difficult well so be it. It's not that I have no sympathy for men in that position but the facts are that we have accepted the SW as a stand in for those fathers who couldn't be bothered.

wolfpawnat

daltonmd wrote: »

I was just looking at that thread!

The payment should only be crucial if there is no father (or mother) there to support the children. This man is present and he is not paying enough, that's my point.
Men and women who abdicate their financial responsibilities will no longer be tolerated because the SW system is at meltdown point.
I don't think it's fair to say that a man contributing "anything" is better than him contributing nothing, it's not an option for the parent left with physical custody to commit 50% or part parent or part feed the kids. The rights of the child have to come first and if that makes his new life a bit difficult well so be it. It's not that I have no sympathy for men in that position but the facts are that we have accepted the SW as a stand in for those fathers who couldn't be bothered.

I think a man should be hunted down and if he has only 20e to his name a min of 5 should be taken by the courts to pay his children. My father paid nothing for years, but due to the fact he was being ordered to by the courts, the Dept of SW would not give my mother a cent to look after myself and my sister. He went to prison rather than pay it, the men like that should be sterilized! But there are a few men who just cannot pay anymore than they can because of reasons beyond their control and that is not fair either. Hence the court system is often the fairest way for all parties. Means testing everyone to see what is fair.

And twins are more expensive to look after than single births, as it is double everything. So yes, there is a need for them to have a little more. Although many men pay very little cash each week, many often do half back to school, half this and that and that is fair too. It all depends on the system worked out between the parents. I have heard of 2 cases where the man would give her maintenance every week but both would say nothing and she would get full OPFP and he would pay less than he should, but thankfully they were caught. The most of the new fraud cases have been with regards to false OPFP claims (thank goodness)

daltonmd

wolfpawnat wrote: »

I think a man should be hunted down and if he has only 20e to his name a min of 5 should be taken by the courts to pay his children. My father paid nothing for years, but due to the fact he was being ordered to by the courts, the Dept of SW would not give my mother a cent to look after myself and my sister. He went to prison rather than pay it, the men like that should be sterilized! But there are a few men who just cannot pay anymore than they can because of reasons beyond their control and that is not fair either. Hence the court system is often the fairest way for all parties. Means testing everyone to see what is fair.

And twins are more expensive to look after than single births, as it is double everything. So yes, there is a need for them to have a little more. Although many men pay very little cash each week, many often do half back to school, half this and that and that is fair too. It all depends on the system worked out between the parents. I have heard of 2 cases where the man would give her maintenance every week but both would say nothing and she would get full OPFP and he would pay less than he should, but thankfully they were caught. The most of the new fraud cases have been with regards to false OPFP claims (thank goodness)

I was going to say a lot of that, fair play to your mum though. I had the same trouble myself with my ex (hence the scorn lol), 9 years of none payment, although I always worked full time to provide for my kids, I cringe when I count up the childcare costs.
I eventually took him to court (he lives overseas) and he now has his paycheck garnished.
In 2006 there were over 90,000 families in receipt of this payment, 94% of them women. In 2006 we had very little unemployment, so this excuse doesn't wash with me.
Also, I know of men who gave up their jobs (choosing instead to do cash in hand and get the dole) rather than provide for their children.
If a 25 year old is scratching his hole on the dole when he has two kids then he should be forced to work, he should want to and if he has to leave the country to do it then that's what he should do.

Fittle

StillWaters wrote: »

This doesn't make sense. There is no such thing as 'one parent allowance'.

Certainly if the children's mother is seeking the One Parent Childcare Payment (OPCP), .

Did you just make that up - and then make up the acronym to go with it

There is no such thing as OPCP either!!!!!

OP, could you tell us what the letters from SW say? I'm surprised they are 'asking for more' from him - I've never heard that happen before. Yes, I'm aware that they contact the fathers of children when the mother is claiming a social welfare payment, but if she is already declaring this payment from SW, I'm surprised they would ask for more.

daltonmd

Fittle wrote: »

Did you just make that up - and then make up the acronym to go with it

There is no such thing as OPCP either!!!!!

OP, could you tell us what the letters from SW say? I'm surprised they are 'asking for more' from him - I've never heard that happen before. Yes, I'm aware that they contact the fathers of children when the mother is claiming a social welfare payment, but if she is already declaring this payment from SW, I'm surprised they would ask for more.

But he's not paying enough so the state are picking up the slack. This is quite common and when they are looking for savings, now and in the future, it will be even more common.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en...y_payment.html

LegacyUser

Thanks for all the replies.

@Fittle. The letter says 'In relation to your children (Names) you are required to pay an additional 100e to the 100e you are already paying for contribution to the One-Parent Family Payment. You can pay this into the following bank account ..... or alternatively you can pay this directly to (Mother names). Please be aware written confirmation of this much be received to us by (mothers name)'.

So this is what he earns a week:

Total: 450
-100 rent
-100 children
-100 bills (Insurance, petrol, heating etc)
-100 food

So he has another 50 to spend which he usually spends on clothes etc for the kids or spends on the kids when he has them.

The father has no option to change jobs

The mother: Gets 400 wages, 100 maintance, another 100 from SW, childrens allowance. She has housing provided to her which she contributes maybe 30 a week.

I should point out as well that he has the kids for 3 nights a week. He buys the clothes and feeds them.

Sleepy

wolfpawnat wrote: »

The most of the new fraud cases have been with regards to false OPFP claims (thank goodness)

Of course they were: the state encourages this by barring co-habiting couples from sharing tax credits, refusing unemployment benefit for those co-habiting and paying relatively generous welfare rates.

In order to break even with what I'd be "entitled" to in rent allowance and unemployment benefit (forgetting medical card, back to school and ancilliary benefits, costs of working etc.) as a single-income, unmarried family of 4 I need to earn a net figure of €30,012.80 or roughly €39,500 per year.

Were my partner and I to "separate", the rent on our home would be paid and she'd get about €12,896 in OPFP, a total of €23,544 extra a year in our pocket. Ok, you'd have to deduct something to cover a room rental in a shared (or mate's) house/apartment as my new "residence" but you'd still be looking at roughly 20k extra a year. It's not hard to see why people do it tbh.

LegacyUser

My last post didn't work.

He gets 450 a week.

100 rent
100 children
100 food
100 bills
50 savings (This money goes towards stuff for the kids such a birthdays, christmas, new beds)

He also has the kids 3 days a week. He buys them their clothes as well.

The mother earns 400 working, gets 100 maintenance, 100 SW, has little or no rent, child benefit etc.

daltonmd

Sleepy wrote: »

Of course they were: the state encourages this by barring co-habiting couples from sharing tax credits, refusing unemployment benefit for those co-habiting and paying relatively generous welfare rates.

In order to break even with what I'd be "entitled" to in rent allowance and unemployment benefit (forgetting medical card, back to school and ancilliary benefits, costs of working etc.) as a single-income, unmarried family of 4 I need to earn a net figure of €30,012.80 or roughly €39,500 per year.

Were my partner and I to "separate", the rent on our home would be paid and she'd get about €12,896 in OPFP, a total of €23,544 extra a year in our pocket. Ok, you'd have to deduct something to cover a room rental in a shared (or mate's) house/apartment as my new "residence" but you'd still be looking at roughly 20k extra a year. It's not hard to see why people do it tbh.

Well it's hard for me to see why anyone would see a life of benefits over working.


To "choose" this over working is never the right option, I do agree that there could be changes, but I do not agree that people are "forced" to take this route. It's always a choice.


If I "choose" not to do it and you seemingly "choose" not to do it, then what makes us different?

wolfpawnat

daltonmd wrote: »

Well it's hard for me to see why anyone would see a life of benefits over working.


To "choose" this over working is never the right option, I do agree that there could be changes, but I do not agree that people are "forced" to take this route. It's always a choice.


If I "choose" not to do it and you seemingly "choose" not to do it, then what makes us different?

You are not forced to, but you can see why people choose to. I get toss all for looking after my child even though I have been caught like many others by the recession and must get by on 218 a week. But were I to claim OPFP I would get more financial aid, but at the cost my child having both his parents in the house or scamming the state and pretend his father isn't living with us! On the days where I have to count the coppers so I can get milk (usually the day before SW is paid) I do think it would be so much nicer to have a bit more, but I won't do it. But many others would/do.

Orion

maintenancequery wrote: »

My last post didn't work.

It did - it just hadn't been approved yet. We try to get to anonymous posts as soon as possible but sometimes there's a delay. 2 of us are working and the other has a new baby so it isn't always possible to get to them instantly.

daltonmd

wolfpawnat wrote: »

You are not forced to, but you can see why people choose to. I get toss all for looking after my child even though I have been caught like many others by the recession and must get by on 218 a week. But were I to claim OPFP I would get more financial aid, but at the cost my child having both his parents in the house or scamming the state and pretend his father isn't living with us! On the days where I have to count the coppers so I can get milk (usually the day before SW is paid) I do think it would be so much nicer to have a bit more, but I won't do it. But many others would/do.

I never said anything about being forced to, sleepy implied in his post that people were doing this out of choice and I said that I could not do that.

I can not see why people choose to do this. I work and also get toss all for looking after my child. I've had to pay for childcare for years, not so much now though because he's a little older.
But you are not claiming OPFP in order to get financial aid and "pretending" to be something other than you are not, so I can't understand why you condone others who choose to do this thereby robbing us all and putting pressure on our services.
It is tough for people, no doubt about it. But I would never choose a life of benefits over a job of any description. I just wouldn't.

LegacyUser

Orion wrote: »

It did - it just hadn't been approved yet. We try to get to anonymous posts as soon as possible but sometimes there's a delay. 2 of us are working and the other has a new baby so it isn't always possible to get to them instantly.

Sorry about that.

I added in anyway that he saves 50 a week for them. I had forgotten about it.

daltonmd

maintenancequery wrote: »

Sorry about that.

I added in anyway that he saves 50 a week for them. I had forgotten about it.

Which is very good of him, but that's not maintenance and wouldn't be classed as such. he may be better off in the short term offering to pay this and his x's SW would then be reduced accordingly.

aquaman

daltonmd wrote: »

Which is very good of him, but that's not maintenance and wouldn't be classed as such. he may be better off in the short term offering to pay this and his x's SW would then be reduced accordingly.

If he has the kids almost half of the time: Clothes and feeds them, pays rent to have a roof over their heads while they stay with him. The kids mum has a nett income significantly higher than his how can you consider it right that he should pay even more money to her/ the SW?

daltonmd

aquaman wrote: »

If he has the kids almost half of the time: Clothes and feeds them, pays rent to have a roof over their heads while they stay with him. The kids mum has a nett income significantly higher than his how can you consider it right that he should pay even more money to her/ the SW?

Her income has nothing to do with him. He is not supporting her he is supporting his children. Even if she earned ten times what he earned, he is still responsible for those children and 400 euro per month is not adequate support.
The fact that she has to depend on SW to supplement her income is proof of that.


He has to provide a roof over HIS head, not theirs because their mother is already doing that.

I get 100 euro for each of my children per week from my ex. My childcare when they were younger was almost a grand a month alone. Then add a mortgage/rent, food, heat, TV, babysitter if I wanted to go out.

As they got older the expenses racked up. It cost me a grand to send them back to school and 2 months into the term I had to buy two new pair of school shoes. Add games, internet and the like and seriously you have no idea.

I know your intentions are good, but it's only when you are on the other side that you realise that 400 per month for 2 kids doesn't come close to cutting it.

If your bf is taking them and buying them clothes then good for him, but what he chooses to buy them doesn't feed them, it doesn't pay their rent, it doesn't cover what they need and it is not up to him to decide that he should do that.

The maintenance issue between couples is always a thorny one, he is not giving money to HER, he is supporting HIS children.

aquaman

daltonmd wrote: »

Her income has nothing to do with him. He is not supporting her he is supporting his children. Even if she earned ten times what he earned, he is still responsible for those children and 400 euro per month is not adequate support.
The fact that she has to depend on SW to supplement her income is proof of that.


He has to provide a roof over HIS head, not theirs because their mother is already doing that.

I get 100 euro for each of my children per week from my ex. My childcare when they were younger was almost a grand a month alone. Then add a mortgage/rent, food, heat, TV, babysitter if I wanted to go out.

As they got older the expenses racked up. It cost me a grand to send them back to school and 2 months into the term I had to buy two new pair of school shoes. Add games, internet and the like and seriously you have no idea.

I know your intentions are good, but it's only when you are on the other side that you realise that 400 per month for 2 kids doesn't come close to cutting it.

If your bf is taking them and buying them clothes then good for him, but what he chooses to buy them doesn't feed them, it doesn't pay their rent, it doesn't cover what they need and it is not up to him to decide that he should do that.

The maintenance issue between couples is always a thorny one, he is not giving money to HER, he is supporting HIS children.

Why do you assume I have no Idea of the cost of raising kids? As it happens I have a very good idea of the costs involved..

anyway, You're missing the point here.

He has them almost half of the time (3/7ths of the week she has them 4/7ths of the week). He does have to provide a roof over their heads for those nights every bit as much as the mother does for her 4 nights.
Really the maintenance he pays for them to her should be 1/7th of the cost of looking after the kids. Why do you feel it should be more when he is already doing almost half of the looking after them?

Frankly it is a patronising attitude to say "good for him" because he takes them, feeds them, buys them clothes, internet, tv, heat, school lunches, and whatever else they need on the nights he has them. He is fulfilling his obligation to them as a father not doing something nice as a favour to their mum or good deed for his conscience.

There is a LOT more to being a father than handing over a set ammount of money each week!

Finally how much the mother earns is every bit as relevant as how much the father earns.
Several posters in this thread have pointed out that the ammount the father can pay is dictated by the ammount he earns. ie. on SW of €160pw €50 is realistically all he could probably afford. By the same token the mothers income should determine how much is her "fair share".

Lola92

The whole idea of maintenance is for parents who are no longer together to contribute equally to the upkeep of their child/children is it not?

If the OP's partner has their children 3 days a week out of seven. That is almost half. As stated he provides all their clothes, meals, entertainment etc. during this time.

The mother has the children 4 days a week, just over half. There for she is only contributing a little more to the clothes, meals, entertainment etc.

Presuming school and activity related costs are shared then why should the father be paying 100 euro per week for what is essentially half a day that they are not in his care?

They both have similar income from work and mother is also getting Child Benefit and OPF...this should not just be dismissed...!

Big Bag of Chips

Would he possibly be able to take the kids half a day more, or 3 days one week 4 days the next? That way they would have 50/50 parenting, and it would cut out the need for maintenance altogether?

Morag

The dept of social welfare can't take a parent to court for maintenance payments, those sort of letters have no legal weight. They started sending them to parents about a year ago demanding 100 euro per child per week in maintenance hoping to make it happen so that they can then reduce payments to the other parents. They only tend to do this if there is not court maintenance order in force.

This tactic has back fired on parents being paid maintenance as it as been assumed that the parent who has custody of the kid has sicced the dept on the other parent to get more money out of them.



If your partner doesn't have a court order for that level of maintenance I suggest that he look into getting one.

wolfpawnat

Sharrow wrote: »

This tactic has back fired on parents being paid maintenance as it as been assumed that the parent who has custody of the kid has sicced the dept on the other parent to get more money out of them

Yes, one thing people do not realise is if an ex who has the children applies for the OPFP, then the Dept of SW will attempt to get some of the money off the other parent in maintenance so to lower their costs, it has nothing to do with the other parent and they are often none the wiser to it!

OP was that payment set by the court? I find it odd that a judge would get a man to pay €100 a week for what really is joint custody for his children.

LegacyUser

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Yes, one thing people do not realise is if an ex who has the children applies for the OPFP, then the Dept of SW will attempt to get some of the money off the other parent in maintenance so to lower their costs, it has nothing to do with the other parent and they are often none the wiser to it!

OP was that payment set by the court? I find it odd that a judge would get a man to pay €100 a week for what really is joint custody for his children.

Thanks for this. It clears it up a lot. The mother had said loads of time that she doesn't need another 100e off him so I was very curious as to why they were asking for more.

No the payment wasn't set by the court. It was an agreement they came to themselves.

Does this actually have to go to court for the payment to be set or can it be done in a solicitors like guardianship?

@Big Bag of Chips No he wouldn't be able to take them another day. Every so often the mother will say that she wants them for more time so if he asked for another day I reckon it would be shot down immediatley.

@daltonmd You seem to be like someone who has been scorned.

My boyfriend looks after his kids very well. As he has them for 3 days he does put a roof over THEIR head not just his own. He pays heating and TV just like the mother does.

She would never have to pay for a babysitter because the father minds them at the weekends.... and tbf if you can afford to go out (which he can't and she can) you are far better off than he is.