Another Maintenace Question

rambutman

tishandy wrote: »

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?

Note the wording "She reckoned 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"

She "reckoned" and she "decided".............no mention there of being unable.

Who says she's looking after them alone? Perhaps the father(s) have access agreements and take the kids at the weekends/etc?

daltonmd

maintenancequery wrote: »

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

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

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

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.

Sorry, the mother has 500 income, 400 that she earns and 100 maintenance. That is 500.

If the SW is supporting your partners ex then it is not up to her to decide whether or not she "needs" it.

And I am not sure if you asked whether or not I was on rent allowance? I am not as it happens.

daltonmd

aquaman wrote: »

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.

Let me clarify this for you as you seem a little confused.


Here is what I said: And as you are not the Girlfriend (the OP) it is patently obvious that it was not directed at you.I actually thought you were the OP as you directly responded to my post.

"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."

I absolutely stand by this statement. The SW are paying a OPFP to the mother of these children. This payment is for when a parent is NOT adequately supporting his/her children. Instead of this man paying the support to the mother he *chooses" to save 50 euro per month and he ^chooses* to buy things for the children. He does NOT have the right to say that this is maintenance. It's that simple. Why should the taxpayer pay money that helps to house and feed his children?

CIARAN_BOYLE

daltonmd wrote: »

I absolutely stand by this statement. The SW are paying a OPFP to the mother of these children. This payment is for when a parent is NOT adequately supporting his/her children. Instead of this man paying the support to the mother he *chooses" to save 50 euro per month and he ^chooses* to buy things for the children. He does NOT have the right to say that this is maintenance. It's that simple. Why should the taxpayer pay money that helps to house and feed his children?

I know one separated family where the kids went hungry because father would not pay mantainence but instead gave his kids playstations and x-boxes and associated games

Big Bag of Chips

daltonmd wrote: »

Why should the taxpayer pay money that helps to house and feed his children?

Especially when the mother has said she doesn't need it...

maintenancequery wrote: »

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.

LegacyUser

daltonmd wrote: »

Let me clarify this for you as you seem a little confused.


Here is what I said: And as you are not the Girlfriend (the OP) it is patently obvious that it was not directed at you.I actually thought you were the OP as you directly responded to my post.

"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."

I absolutely stand by this statement. The SW are paying a OPFP to the mother of these children. This payment is for when a parent is NOT adequately supporting his/her children. Instead of this man paying the support to the mother he *chooses" to save 50 euro per month and he ^chooses* to buy things for the children. He does NOT have the right to say that this is maintenance. It's that simple. Why should the taxpayer pay money that helps to house and feed his children?

If my boyfriend didn't 'choose' to 'save' 50e a week then the kids would a) go hungry b) have only the clothes they arrived in and c) have no toys.

daltonmd

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?

Every case is individual. Some of the questions that should be asked are:

Does his ex have a mortgage or is she paying rent?
Does he support her as well as the child/ren?
Does his court order specify that on top of maintenance that he should pay VHI and all the above assorted payments?

OPFP is a payment for single parents who are not being adequately supported by the other parent of the children.
if this man is adequately supporting his children then his ex should not be claiming this payment.

If this woman is being supported by 2 men and receiving OPFP then she is not declaring something.
To be eligable for this payment then she has to earn less than 425 per week. Maintenance is classed as income but rent/mortgage is offset, so this is why I am asking that question.

daltonmd

Big Bag of Chips wrote: »

Especially when the mother has said she doesn't need it...

Well according to the new G/F she doesn't. She doesn't "need it" because the Social Welfare are paying instead of the father. She won't get 100 Euro MORE. She will get the same money except form the person who is obligated both morally and legally to look after his own children, not the taxpayer.

"I know one separated family where the kids went hungry because father would not pay mantainence but instead gave his kids playstations and x-boxes and associated games"

That's my point Ciaran. Men have an issue paying support for their children because they cannot separate the mother from the children.

And then the new G/F comes on the scene..... Been there done that!!

rambutman

daltonmd wrote: »

That's my point Ciaran. Men have an issue paying support for their children because they cannot separate the mother from the children.

Please don't generalise. Some men have no problem paying maintenance and support at all.

I've also seem the situation where the man gives the woman ample support, the woman spends the majority of it on new clothers and shoes and then complains to the man because her fridge is empty.

I get continuous grief from my ex over cash - "don't have enough, don't have enough"...............despite the fact after her rent is paid she has 400 euros a week, doesn't work, the kids school is 5 mins away, and I look after the kids Friday evening to Sunday night every weekend. She's continously posting photos on facebook of herself and her mates in Krystal supping champagne. If someone was to listen to her side without looking objectively at the situation they'd be going around saying "the poor woman, she's skint and he doesn't give her enough".

There's always two sides to a story.

daltonmd

rambutman wrote: »

Please don't generalise. Some men have no problem paying maintenance and support at all.

I've also seem the situation where the man gives the woman ample support, the woman spends the majority of it on new clothers and shoes and then complains to the man because her fridge is empty.

I get continuous grief from my ex over cash - "don't have enough, don't have enough"...............despite the fact after her rent is paid she has 400 euros a week, doesn't work, the kids school is 5 mins away, and I look after the kids Friday evening to Sunday night every weekend. She's continuously posting photos on facebook of herself and her mates in Krystal supping champagne. If someone was to listen to her side without looking objectively at the situation they'd be going around saying "the poor woman, she's skint and he doesn't give her enough".

There's always two sides to a story.

You just proved my point. That's resentment right there. If she's continuosly posting then aren't you continuosly looking at her Facebook page?

Edit.

Do you pay her rent?
Do you give her 400 per week?

rambutman

daltonmd wrote: »

You just proved my point. That's resentment right there. If she's continuosly posting then aren't you continuosly looking at her Facebook page?

Really!! I have described a set of facts......not said how I feel about them, so how you've figured out that I am harbouring resentment I'm not sure.

Regarding your point. Nope - i am not on her facebook friends list nor she on mine. A third party keeps saying it to me - to which i respond "she's entitled to spend her free time as she wishes". I have no problem what she does in her spare time and am glad it provides an excuse/reason for me to have more time with my children.

Regarding ur maintenance questions

I pay her 400 euros per week. She gets 200 p/w from SW and 275 per month from childrens allowance.

Total per month > 2675 euros

I take care of the kids - Friday (evening) to Sunday night. Feed them, wash their clothes and pay for sports, entertainment and activities.......plus regularly buy clothes, contribute to school books (250 per year total) and uniforms (400 per year total)

She has her weekends off and the kids are at school every day. I take them for mid-term and Xmas

daltonmd

rambutman wrote: »

Really!! I have described a set of facts......not said how I feel about them, so how you've figured out that I am harbouring resentment I'm not sure.

Regarding your point. Nope - i am not on her facebook friends list nor she on mine. A third party keeps saying it to me - to which i respond "she's entitled to spend her free time as she wishes". I have no problem what she does in her space time and am glad it provides an excuse/reason for me to have more time with my children.

Regarding ur maintenance questions

I pay her 400 euros per week. She gets 200 p/w from SW and 275 per month from childrens allowance.

Total per month > 2675 euros

I take care of the kids - Friday (evening) to Sunday night. Feed them, wash their clothes and pay for sports, entertainment and activities.......plus regularly buy clothes, contribute to school books (250 per year total) and uniforms (400 per year total)

You sound resentful in fairness.

Anyway: Please see below.

"All income from maintenance is assessed as means. This includes maintenance for you and maintenance to you for any of your children. If you are getting maintenance from more than one person it will be added together and the total will be assessed as means. However, your rent or mortgage repayment up to a maximum of €95.23 per week can be offset against maintenance payments. Half the balance is then assessed as means and your social welfare payment will be reduced by that amount. You must provide proof of rent or mortgage payments. You can get more information on how maintenance is assessed as means."


If you give her 400 per week and her rent is offset (up to 95.43) then her income is still 305 per week. Half of that is assessed as means meaning that her OPFP should be 40.80 plus 29.80 for each child,not 200 per week.

If you are directed by a court to pay her support and she is able to work then I would return to court. If you are directed by a court to buy them clothes, contribute for school books etc then I would also question this.
A common mistake that people make is that they think that all mothers like me are bitter and want to screw the fathers. This is untrue.
I don't think many people would be in a position to pay the amount of support that you do, but I personally resent this "I feed them and clothe them" as if it is deserving of a medal.

Mothers make up the majority of one parent families and have been doing this as a matter of course for years, yet when a rare Dad does it it should be applauded in some way, sorry but giving you kids a meal when you have them is kind of required, as is washing their clothes...

rambutman

daltonmd wrote: »

You sound resentful in fairness.

You sound scorned, but I wouldn't want to go making that judgement call without knowing you, least of all actually posting it.

My original statement - "please don't generalise"..........not all men are how you describe..........i think that's reasonable to say and stand by it.

Is it possible that your own experience has clouded your judgement and you have joined the "all men are b@stards" brigade?

daltonmd

rambutman wrote: »

You sound scorned, but I wouldn't want to go making that judgement call without knowing you, least of all actually posting it.

My original statement - "please don't generalise"..........not all men are how you describe..........i think that's reasonable to say and stand by it.

Is it possible that your own experience has clouded your judgement and you have joined the "all men are b@stards" brigade?

My own experience has been positive. I am not scorned and it's a cheap shot from anyone who doesn't like to be reminded that the large majority of men resent paying money to their ex's.

You asked me not to generalise but then put yourself in that group because of your comments about how much you pay and what your ex does with her free time.
I have posted you some facts about SW entitlements, which you decided ot ignore, instead you called me scorned.. Go figure....

rambutman

daltonmd wrote: »

My own experience has been positive. I am not scorned and it's a cheap shot from anyone who doesn't like to be reminded that the large majority of men resent paying money to their ex's.

You asked me not to generalise but then put yourself in that group because of your comments about how much you pay and what your ex does with her free time.
I have posted you some facts about SW entitlements, which you decided ot ignore, instead you called me scorned.. Go figure....

I described a set of facts and you came to the conclusion i was resentful which is why I posted as I did.

You have no idea whether I am resentful or not so you are making assumptions

Regarding your facts.

1) I went to court with my ex to organise maintenance and access. In the court the judge ruled that 1000 euros per month was a reasonable amount of maintenace.
2) I was awarded every Saturday with my children. My ex has decided that if i want to spend all weekend with the children I have to give her more money so I basically pay for access, hence the extra cash. So I pay her 150 euro per week extra to pick them up a day earlier and drop them back a day later.

Court ordered maintenance: 1000 euros pm, paying to see my children (above and beyond access arrangments) 150 euros per week.

And I am not directed by court to do any of the other stuff: clothes, books etc. Regarding my appearing to want a medal for feeding and clothing them.............once again i presented the facts of the situation and you came to that conclusion.

daltonmd

maintenancequery wrote: »

If my boyfriend didn't 'choose' to 'save' 50e a week then the kids would a) go hungry b) have only the clothes they arrived in and c) have no toys.

How do you figure that out?

If he is saving the money then he is not:

A) Buying food
Buying clothes
C) Buying toys

He is saving the money.

daltonmd

rambutman wrote: »

I described a set of facts and you came to the conclusion i was resentful which is why I posted as I did.

You have no idea whether I am resentful or not so you are making assumptions

Regarding your facts.

1) I went to court with my ex to organise maintenance and access. In the court the judge ruled that 1000 euros per month was a reasonable amount of maintenace.
2) I was awarded every Saturday with my children. My ex has decided that if i want to spend all weekend with the children I have to give her more money so I basically pay for access, hence the extra cash. So I pay her 150 euro per week extra to pick them up a day earlier and drop them back a day later.

Court ordered maintenance: 1000 euros pm, paying to see my children (above and beyond access arrangments) 150 euros per week.

And I am not directed by court to do any of the other stuff: clothes, books etc. Regarding my appearing to want a medal for feeding and clothing them.............once again i presented the facts of the situation and you came to that conclusion.

Oh so it's ok for you to assume I am bitter is it? Fine so.

What is it you resent then? Your ex quaffing champagne? Her social life? If not then why bring it up, it's pretty clear here to me that you resent the lifestyle you perceive your ex to have.

You claim she gets "Total per month > 2675 euros". I'm telling you that she doesn't and i have already set the facts out for you. if she is then paying for your kids is the last thing you should be doing....

By the way: Access and maintenance are two different things, one is not dependant on the other.

Instead of paying to see your children, why not go back to the courts and fight for joint custody?


Never in my life have I heard of any person actually paying to see their kids. Sorry, but I just don't buy it.

rambutman

daltonmd wrote: »

Oh so it's ok for you to assume I am bitter is it? Fine so.

What is it you resent then? Your ex quaffing champagne? Her social life? If not then why bring it up, it's pretty clear here to me that you resent the lifestyle you perceive your ex to have.

You claim she gets "Total per month > 2675 euros". I'm telling you that she doesn't and i have already set the facts out for you. if she is then paying for your kids is the last thing you should be doing....

By the way: Access and maintenance are two different things, one is not dependant on the other.

Instead of paying to see your children, why not go back to the courts and fight for joint custody?

Never in my life have I heard of any person actually paying to see their kids. Sorry, but I just don't buy it.

Fine so!!

The most suitable word i can find here to reply with is

WHATEVER!!

There's no point argueing with you..............when i cite a set of facts you haven't heard of or goes against your beliefs - you accuse me of lying. I present a set of figures 1000 + (150 * 4) + 275 + (200 * 4) as making up 2675 a month or more (more than 4 weeks in a month), and you say its not true.....................i merely presented a scenario in response to a generalisation you made saying "Men have an issue paying support for their children "...........saying that its not always the case and giving ONLY my situation as an example, and you say I am resentful.

The rest can be read by going back through the thread.

I throw the towel in as far as debating with you goes.....................good day

LegacyUser

daltonmd wrote: »

How do you figure that out?

If he is saving the money then he is not:

A) Buying food
Buying clothes
C) Buying toys

He is saving the money.

Savings was obviously the wrong word to use.

He puts this 50e aside to buy the kids food, clothes and toys.

I thought I had explained that.

The answer has been giving already so please stop detrailing the thread with your bitterness.

Mod's can this be closed please?

Thanks

January

My pleasure! Thread closed.