Another Maintenace Question

OUTOFSYNC

If the father has the kids 3 days a week - essentially it is shared custody - which is great for the kids - but he is being screwed financially - without knowing the ins and outs of his families finances - 100 seems too much (unless it is for something like half of creche costs which benefits everybody).

daltonmd

maintenancequery wrote: »

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.

If the mother has an income of 500 euro then she is not entitled to the OPFP, please see here:
http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Schemes/BirthChildrenAndFamilies/OneParentFamilies/Pages/opfp.aspx

"Have earnings of €425 or less per week"

As an aside, I really that personal insults are unnecessary. My ex adequately supports his children, he is a decent Dad. So I am not scorned, what I am is worn out by certain girlfriends who appear on the scene and when they find out what support he pays for his children go into overdrive and start querying it.


They cannot separate the payment to support his children from the mother.

@Aquaman, I really don't see how you found this patronising.

"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."

@maintenancequery
"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."

I can afford to go out because I work. I don't claim anything off the taxpayer, I don't have to because my ex adequately provides for his children, as is right. But I would ask the mother whether or not she is declaring the 100 euro pw.

LegacyUser

daltonmd wrote: »

If the mother has an income of 500 euro then she is not entitled to the OPFP, please see here:
http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Schemes/BirthChildrenAndFamilies/OneParentFamilies/Pages/opfp.aspx

"Have earnings of €425 or less per week"

The mother earns 400. I've said that already.

daltonmd wrote: »

As an aside, I really that personal insults are unnecessary. My ex adequately supports his children, he is a decent Dad. So I am not scorned, what I am is worn out by certain girlfriends who appear on the scene and when they find out what support he pays for his children go into overdrive and start querying it.

I am not querying it. I am querying why SW were sending him letters asking him for more.

daltonmd wrote: »

@Aquaman, I really don't see how you found this patronising.

"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."

As I've said already, the ex said she doesn't need the extra 100 they are asking him to pay.

daltonmd wrote: »

@maintenancequery
"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."

I can afford to go out because I work. I don't claim anything off the taxpayer, I don't have to because my ex adequately provides for his children, as is right.

No rent allowance?

My boyfriend works as well but with his income he can't afford to go out. If he was to pay more money to the SW he wouldn't be able to afford rent or food or bills.

Sleepy

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?

I agree. My problem here is the system: however much we need to ensure we have a social security net (something I entirely agree with), it should never act as a disincentive to work / incentive to scam that system. Two simple changes would improve this dramatically imho: allow unmarried couples to claim each others tax credits and slash rent allowance (which would decimate rent levels in the private residential market and allow our property prices to fully correct themselves - something the government don't see themselves in a position to do because of our exposure to property values with NAMA).

I'd disagree with you RE maintenance though: where the parents share custody, it's the non-primary care-giver's responsibility to cover half the costs of the difference in days they have the children for rather than provide maintenance for the full week. Anything beyond that is commendable if that parent can afford to subsidise the other parent's ability to provide for their children but that's what it is: subsidising the other parent.

daltonmd

Sleepy wrote: »

I agree. My problem here is the system: however much we need to ensure we have a social security net (something I entirely agree with), it should never act as a disincentive to work / incentive to scam that system. Two simple changes would improve this dramatically imho: allow unmarried couples to claim each others tax credits and slash rent allowance (which would decimate rent levels in the private residential market and allow our property prices to fully correct themselves - something the government don't see themselves in a position to do because of our exposure to property values with NAMA).

Absolutely, I agree with you. But it still doesn't excuse those who take advantage and work the system to their advantage. These people cost the taxpayer money and the result is that the benefits of those who really need them have to be cut. Because there is a way to break the law doesn't mean that you have to break it.

I mean both you and I would probably be better off if we screwed the system but we don't because we see the advantages of working. What are these people teaching their children?
I know single mothers who abuse the system, they sit at home all day, claim benefits and the daddy throws the a few bob here and there and they are better off than me. But I wouldn't have that life for all the tea in China. My kids understand that to get what you want in life you have to work and I am proud of that. As I am sure you are.

Sleepy

daltonmd wrote: »

Absolutely, I agree with you. But it still doesn't excuse those who take advantage and work the system to their advantage. These people cost the taxpayer money and the result is that the benefits of those who really need them have to be cut. Because there is a way to break the law doesn't mean that you have to break it.

I mean both you and I would probably be better off if we screwed the system but we don't because we see the advantages of working. What are these people teaching their children?
I know single mothers who abuse the system, they sit at home all day, claim benefits and the daddy throws the a few bob here and there and they are better off than me. But I wouldn't have that life for all the tea in China. My kids understand that to get what you want in life you have to work and I am proud of that. As I am sure you are.

I wouldn't do it myself but I can see why it could be seen as "the only option" were one to have high debts or an inability to budget properly with low earning potential (e.g. due to having left education early to pursue a job in the construction industry). To many, they'd see working for less than they can get in benefits as depriving their children of the nice things they could have if the extra income was there and mammy / daddy wasn't "too proud" to take the benefits.

daltonmd

Sleepy wrote: »

I wouldn't do it myself but I can see why it could be seen as "the only option" were one to have high debts or an inability to budget properly with low earning potential (e.g. due to having left education early to pursue a job in the construction industry). To many, they'd see working for less than they can get in benefits as depriving their children of the nice things they could have if the extra income was there and mammy / daddy wasn't "too proud" to take the benefits.

But if there is the offer of a job, then it is not the only option. It is the chosen option. personally if it was me I'd retrain, upgrade my skills. I know it's not easy for a lot of people, but if we all took that attitude then none of us would work. We can't continue to condone this behaviour, condoning it makes it ok and it's not ok.

wolfpawnat

maintenancequery wrote: »

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?

Yes it can be done through solicitors and is cheaper than court, but it needs to be sorted through some legal channel so your partner has some safety net, otherwise the Dept of SW could claim he is paying her any amount and you have no proof otherwise! This is to cover him more than anyone.

rambutman

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Yes it can be done through solicitors and is cheaper than court, but it needs to be sorted through some legal channel so your partner has some safety net, otherwise the Dept of SW could claim he is paying her any amount and you have no proof otherwise! This is to cover him more than anyone.

Court is/can be actually the cheaper (free) option here as this can be done in the family court without a solicitor. The mother needs to go to the family court and apply for a maintenance order. Both mother and father can then appear in court, say that they have come to an agreement on the maintenance and the judge will process a maintenance order for that amount. This maintenance order can then be presented to the people in SW. Once both parents are in agreement it is a fairly simple process and can be done quite quickly.

aquaman

daltonmd wrote: »

@Aquaman, I really don't see how you found this patronising.

"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."

But the above is not really what you originally said.. What you said was if he CHOOSES to buy them stuff good for him but this does not feed or clothe them..
or in your exact words: "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"

It is therefore patronising to imply that he was doing these things by choice rather than because it is his obligations as a good father to look after his kids on the days that he has them.
It was also quite patronising to tell me that you "know my intensions are good" implying that I mean well but don't really have a clue.

LB6

I seriously need to go back to court - been on 25/wk per child started in 2003 - 2 children now under 18. That was supposed to be raised incrementally, it's now about €33 each/wk. I can't work for health reasons. He's married again and both of them are working. I have the children, he gets to see them. I pay for everything school wise/books/uniform/tours/bus/computers etc and everything else that they need at home. He pays 232 towards all that once off per yr. Looks like he took me for a mug when he said that that's all I'd get and accept it or he'd make me sell the house from under us.:mad:

wolfpawnat

LB6 wrote: »

I seriously need to go back to court - been on 25/wk per child started in 2003 - 2 children now under 18. That was supposed to be raised incrementally, it's now about €33 each/wk. I can't work for health reasons. He's married again and both of them are working. I have the children, he gets to see them. I pay for everything school wise/books/uniform/tours/bus/computers etc and everything else that they need at home. He pays 232 towards all that once off per yr. Looks like he took me for a mug when he said that that's all I'd get and accept it or he'd make me sell the house from under us.:mad:

go to court, provide a full statement of means including his 232 a year, receipts for anything you can.

The judge will give you what he won't

Sleepy

LB6 wrote: »

I seriously need to go back to court - been on 25/wk per child started in 2003 - 2 children now under 18. That was supposed to be raised incrementally, it's now about €33 each/wk. I can't work for health reasons. He's married again and both of them are working. I have the children, he gets to see them. I pay for everything school wise/books/uniform/tours/bus/computers etc and everything else that they need at home. He pays 232 towards all that once off per yr. Looks like he took me for a mug when he said that that's all I'd get and accept it or he'd make me sell the house from under us.:mad:

Tread carefully here if the house is still in his name.

If you've no rent or mortgage to pay on the house and he signed it over to your name, he'd have a fairly compelling case for paying low maintenance since he's already provided a home for his children (and you) to live in.

rambutman

Sleepy wrote: »

Tread carefully here if the house is still in his name.

If you've no rent or mortgage to pay on the house and he signed it over to your name, he'd have a fairly compelling case for paying low maintenance since he's already provided a home for his children (and you) to live in.

Got to agree with this. You post stated you got 132 per child per month.

Plus you appear to get rent/mortgage paid, or home provided.

You also get 232 (per child?) per year. You are also entitled to back to school allowance on top of this.

Sounds (to me) like you are doing OK (providing you're getting benefit on top)............BUT that would depend on his means too.

Morag

Plus you appear to get rent/mortgage paid, or home provided.

That may not be the case, he could be saying that if she pushes for more he will try and get the family home sold.

rambutman

Sharrow wrote: »

That may not be the case, he could be saying that if she pushes for more he will try and get the family home sold.

Yep for sure that may not be the case - more info required I reckon before people start jumping on the drag-the-ex-through-the-courts-for-more-cash bandwagon.

Based on what the poster has said it is quite possible that she is getting

rent/mortgage paid, one parent family payment, childrens allowance, plus the 264 euros a month which isn't bad really

OR

just the 264 euros a month plus some/part-of-none of the above in which case it wouldn't be great.

Its easy to come on here, give part of a story, get a few approving replies and in turn feel justified about things. But i'm defo not for a minute saying the poster is doing this...........but it is always a possibility

Big Bag of Chips

maintenancequery wrote: »

@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.

This would not be unusual. Very often something might come up that would mean a parent might ask for the kids to stay with them for an extra day/weekend. Parties, family occasions for example. My husband and his ex would often arrange between them for the access to change because of something or other that was happening. I wouldn't see this as a reason for a request for joint access to be shot down. Sure it's almost what's in place as it is.

As for her telling him she doesn't need the extra 100 a week, why is she applying for it from SW then?! They are only chasing him for it, because she has asked them for it!

carfiosaoorl

OP- I am a single of mother of 3 children. My ex pays me 100e a week maintenance and he recently got a letter ordering him to pay 180e per week extra to the social welfare dept. He wrote to them and told them that he couldnt afford to pay that and they lowered it to 150e. He earns around 400e per week not sure exactly. Im dont know where they pull their figures from

LB6

My apologies.

When the separation was going through and the money for the kids was being discussed - I was solely paying the mtg, even when his name was still on the house. He said that I'd not get any more money and that he's make me sell the house. He hasn't contributed towards that since he left. Have now changed the house to my name only so he's got no say in any future of the home. I'm still paying the mortgage alone and schooling (bar that 232) and get lone parent allowance and child allow. Not much left over after bills, orthodontics, etc etc etc..... OK I've stopped whining now..... was having a poor me moment last night - sorry.

LegacyUser

Big Bag of Chips wrote: »

This would not be unusual. Very often something might come up that would mean a parent might ask for the kids to stay with them for an extra day/weekend. Parties, family occasions for example. My husband and his ex would often arrange between them for the access to change because of something or other that was happening. I wouldn't see this as a reason for a request for joint access to be shot down. Sure it's almost what's in place as it is.

As for her telling him she doesn't need the extra 100 a week, why is she applying for it from SW then?! They are only chasing him for it, because she has asked them for it!

Oh yeh I get that. But how it is with them is if he asked for another day it would be shot down straight away but if she wants them for more time he has to agree. Actually she doesn't even ask, she just says 'you can only have them for one day this week'.

In relation to the SW. I've said it numerous times that if she doesn't *need* it she shouldn't be applying for it.

But, I think it comes down to her having rent supplement as well. If she's not on SW I don't think she gets that...but not 100% sure on that.

rambutman

LB6 wrote: »

My apologies.

When the separation was going through and the money for the kids was being discussed - I was solely paying the mtg, even when his name was still on the house. He said that I'd not get any more money and that he's make me sell the house. He hasn't contributed towards that since he left. Have now changed the house to my name only so he's got no say in any future of the home. I'm still paying the mortgage alone and schooling (bar that 232) and get lone parent allowance and child allow. Not much left over after bills, orthodontics, etc etc etc..... OK I've stopped whining now..... was having a poor me moment last night - sorry.

That sounds like tough enough going. At least you got the house in your name. Would be a total sickener if you were being stretched to make ends meet and he had a claim on the house.

Personally i don't see how some men can go and leave their wife/partner childrens mother in the sh1t - don't they have any conscience?

And then on the other hand there can be women out there who really have it quite good but think they're hard done by.

Big Bag of Chips

maintenancequery wrote: »

Oh yeh I get that. But how it is with them is if he asked for another day it would be shot down straight away but if she wants them for more time he has to agree. Actually she doesn't even ask, she just says 'you can only have them for one day this week'.

Well then maybe now is the time to try make things "official", rather than his access depending on her say so...?

It would save him a lot of hassle, missed time with the kids, and maintenance in the long run.

sophia25

Sharrow wrote: »

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 is not true. The legislation does allow SW to enforce an order against a liable relative.

http://www.welfare.ie/EN/OperationalGuidelines/Pages/swi_liabmainfam.aspx#p1

1. Legislation
Liability to Maintain Family
Sections 344 to 359, contained in Part 12 of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 2005 contains provisions relating to Liable Relatives under which people are required to contribute towards certain social welfare payments made to their families.

Section 345 imposes a legal liability on each of a couple to maintain the other and any dependent children for the purposes of Deserted Wife's Benefit, Deserted Wife's Allowance, Lone Parent's Allowance and Supplementary Welfare Allowance.

Section 346, Sub-section (1) of the Act, states that

"Where an allowance* is paid to any recipient, every person who is liable to maintain that recipient or to maintain any child in respect of whom an increase in that allowance is granted, shall be liable to contribute to the competent authority* the amount that may be determined to be appropriate towards that allowance".

5. Enforcement, Court Orders, Attachment of Earnings, Earnings Condition
Enforcement

The Department has powers under the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 2005, to take an action in the District Courts to seek enforced payment of contributions due, by way of Court Instalment Orders, or Attachment of Earnings Orders. Such actions would normally only be taken where the liable relative had failed to comply with the determination on contributions due. The liable relative would of course be made aware by the Department in advance that it intended to take court action against him/her, and he/she would have the normal right to be present and to have his/her case represented (at his/her own expense) at the District Court hearing.

This is one of the easiest ways for Dept. of Welfare to reduce costs as effectively it was taking up the slack for parents who were not fully supporting their children. Supporting a family is not easy and when the financial burden is huge, some parents have opted out by leaving the family home and letting the state take over their role. If people have an obligation to fully support their family regardless of whether they have left the family home or not, there may be no financial incentive for some people to run.

At the end of the day, the state has a duty to protect our revenue and if someone is effectively not supporting their children to the best of their ability, they are essentially robbing the communal coffers. These letters are becoming more common and it has nothing to do with the recipient of OPFA getting more money, but the state recouping the money it pays them.

aquaman

sophia25 wrote: »

This is not true. The legislation does allow SW to enforce an order against a liable relative.

http://www.welfare.ie/EN/OperationalGuidelines/Pages/swi_liabmainfam.aspx#p1


This is one of the easiest ways for Dept. of Welfare to reduce costs as effectively it was taking up the slack for parents who were not fully supporting their children. Supporting a family is not easy and when the financial burden is huge, some parents have opted out by leaving the family home and letting the state take over their role. If people have an obligation to fully support their family regardless of whether they have left the family home or not, there may be no financial incentive for some people to run.

At the end of the day, the state has a duty to protect our revenue and if someone is effectively not supporting their children to the best of their ability, they are essentially robbing the communal coffers. These letters are becoming more common and it has nothing to do with the recipient of OPFA getting more money, but the state recouping the money it pays them.

@Sophia

Do you know how this fits if there is already a court ordered maintenance payment in place? Is the department effictively overrulling a judges decission on what is a fair maintenance ammount?
I wonder what the legal precedance is on this..

sophia25

aquaman wrote: »

@Sophia

Do you know how this fits if there is already a court ordered maintenance payment in place? Is the department effictively overrulling a judges decission on what is a fair maintenance ammount?
I wonder what the legal precedance is on this..

It is still applicable when a court order is in place. The payment is to the Dept. of SW not to child or spouse so the court order still remains. Basically the MRU (Maintenance Recovery Unit) seek to recover any OPFA payable from the liable relative. There are only 2 conditions. They can not get more than they pay the recipient and the liable relative must be left with basic welfare allowance, plus reasonable work travelling expenses plus €25 per week. They have started to analyse each case where OPFA is paid and I'd say will get around to everyone. It will effectively stop fraud where couple claim to be living apart to get extra payment but I think will cause a lot of stress where couples have resolved things and now the liable relative is being asked to contribute more. They naturally assume it is the other person looking for more and I'd say will upset a lot of broken families where things have settled down.

aquaman

sophia25 wrote: »

It is still applicable when a court order is in place. The payment is to the Dept. of SW not to child or spouse so the court order still remains. Basically the MRU (Maintenance Recovery Unit) seek to recover any OPFA payable from the liable relative. There are only 2 conditions. They can not get more than they pay the recipient and the liable relative must be left with basic welfare allowance, plus reasonable work travelling expenses plus €25 per week. They have started to analyse each case where OPFA is paid and I'd say will get around to everyone. It will effectively stop fraud where couple claim to be living apart to get extra payment but I think will cause a lot of stress where couples have resolved things and now the liable relative is being asked to contribute more. They naturally assume it is the other person looking for more and I'd say will upset a lot of broken families where things have settled down.

I see. Because generally when the court awards maintenance payments the award is partly based on how much the payee has the ability to pay. It would seem that now the Dept. is saying they know better than the district court Judge.

The reason that this is of particular interest is that I have a friend, separated for a number of years from the mother of his child.
At the time of the break up there was a maintenance order awarded by the courts which he has payed since and adjusted upward to match inflation.
He also pays for his childs VHI and halves on all xmas, birthday, school and sporting expenses.

In the mean time his ex had a kid with a new partner who she since split from also.

Now here's the kicker: She reconed that she is better off recieving the OPFA plus maintenance from two EX's than working so decided to leave her job and be a full time mother (which in itself is a noble thing to want to be)
OPFA is not dependant on being a job seeker so no risk of being cut off as with the dole.

Now the Maintenance recovery Unit are sending him the letters requesting that he pay them an additional sum of money each week so that they can continue to pay her for what is effectively a lifestyle choice and not really his responsibility by rights.

He has a very large mortgage, reduced wages and hours etc so is struggling to meet his repayments, is currently in negotiations with the lender about it and told me he has been throwing these letters in the bin and is adament that he will go to Jail rather than subsidise his ex's lifestyle choice of not working. (bear in mind that he has never missed a maintenance payment and his child does not want for anything)

Would you think
1. He potentially could go to jail because of this?

2. Morally that he is in the right?

Morag

sophia25 wrote: »

It is still applicable when a court order is in place. The payment is to the Dept. of SW not to child or spouse so the court order still remains. Basically the MRU (Maintenance Recovery Unit) seek to recover any OPFA payable from the liable relative. There are only 2 conditions. They can not get more than they pay the recipient and the liable relative must be left with basic welfare allowance, plus reasonable work travelling expenses plus €25 per week. They have started to analyse each case where OPFA is paid and I'd say will get around to everyone. It will effectively stop fraud where couple claim to be living apart to get extra payment but I think will cause a lot of stress where couples have resolved things and now the liable relative is being asked to contribute more. They naturally assume it is the other person looking for more and I'd say will upset a lot of broken families where things have settled down.

When did this start?

Klingon Hamlet

sophia25 wrote: »

It is still applicable when a court order is in place. The payment is to the Dept. of SW not to child or spouse so the court order still remains. Basically the MRU (Maintenance Recovery Unit) seek to recover any OPFA payable from the liable relative. There are only 2 conditions. They can not get more than they pay the recipient and the liable relative must be left with basic welfare allowance, plus reasonable work travelling expenses plus €25 per week. They have started to analyse each case where OPFA is paid and I'd say will get around to everyone. It will effectively stop fraud where couple claim to be living apart to get extra payment but I think will cause a lot of stress where couples have resolved things and now the liable relative is being asked to contribute more. They naturally assume it is the other person looking for more and I'd say will upset a lot of broken families where things have settled down.

Maintenance is means tested. Therefore the amount paid for the care for a child is based on the parent's net income after expenses. If SW ever come looking for money from me, I'll have no choice but to request a variation of my maintenance payments downwards to accommodate this change.

tishandy

aquaman wrote: »

I see. Because generally when the court awards maintenance payments the award is partly based on how much the payee has the ability to pay. It would seem that now the Dept. is saying they know better than the district court Judge.

The reason that this is of particular interest is that I have a friend, separated for a number of years from the mother of his child.
At the time of the break up there was a maintenance order awarded by the courts which he has payed since and adjusted upward to match inflation.
He also pays for his childs VHI and halves on all xmas, birthday, school and sporting expenses.

In the mean time his ex had a kid with a new partner who she since split from also.


Now here's the kicker: She reconed that she is better off recieving the OPFA plus maintenance from two EX's than working so decided to leave her job and be a full time mother (which in itself is a noble thing to want to be)
OPFA is not dependant on being a job seeker so no risk of being cut off as with the dole.

Now the Maintenance recovery Unit are sending him the letters requesting that he pay them an additional sum of money each week so that they can continue to pay her for what is effectively a lifestyle choice and not really his responsibility by rights.

He has a very large mortgage, reduced wages and hours etc so is struggling to meet his repayments, is currently in negotiations with the lender about it and told me he has been throwing these letters in the bin and is adament that he will go to Jail rather than subsidise his ex's lifestyle choice of not working. (bear in mind that he has never missed a maintenance payment and his child does not want for anything)

Would you think
1. He potentially could go to jail because of this?

2. Morally that he is in the right?

Maybe she cannot work because she has two children to look after alone.
Its difficult enough to find a job that will work around a mother with children. Employers want people who are flexible in their work hours. How could she afford to work and put two children into childcare of up to 150 each per week?

Stench Blossoms

The mother gave up her job in favour of the OPFA. So she can work, she just chooses not to.