highly1111 wrote: » If its fair then I presume she would be reasonable???
The Corinthian wrote: » 70-100 a week seems quite high for someone who's unemployed, but for someone who's unemployed and has the child 5 out of 14 days, it does seem OTT and unsustainable in the long run. Talk to the mother about this and if necessary consider going to court for a motion of variance. I would not presume that.
Eircom_Sucks wrote: » have them 7 days out of 14 at min , thats cause im out of work at min , when i do get a job id gave them every tue/wed and every second weekend , now i take them to indoor adventure play areas when its raining out and buy them their food and treat them aswell etc
i love my kids so much , but she said today we are co-parenting but im the one handing over cash
The Corinthian wrote: » So you're not exactly unemployed? That changes this as it makes your position a lot more sustainable financially. TBH, without knowing all the details and probably both sides, it's not only impossible to advise but also irresponsible to do so, as all too often people come on fora like this not looking for advice but validation for their own agendas. I'm not saying this is the case, but your story has just changed and that causes me to pause. Again, I can't comment; as I said in my last post, we can't presume she'll be reasonable, but at the same time we can't presume she won't. There are some mothers who are happy to use the father as an ATM to fund their own lifestyles out there, but there are also those who really are just looking for half of the genuine expenses associated with the child(ren). But if you are co-parenting, as she claims, then I'd speak with her. From what you've said you appear to be at best doing some casual part-time or short-term work, wile she's working full-time, and if so, it would make more sense that you and your ex reverse roles, with her taking the children five days a fortnight and paying you maintenance - after all, does it makes sense that she pays for child care while she's working and you're not? If she is reasonable and you co-parenting isn't just something she's said for the sake of it, you'll likely come to some temporary arrangement until you find full-time employment again. If not, and money and not co-parenting turns out to be her priority, that will come out too. At that stage you might consider mediation or the courts as the next step.
Eircom_Sucks wrote: » read what i wrote again im out of work , when i do get a job .......
cbyrd wrote: » Just be sure to keep a record of what you pay. Put it through a bank account rather than handing it to her, that way she can't ever say she's not getting maintenance. It's better for both of you if it ever comes up in a legal way. It's a big chunk of money when you are not working, I get €500 per month for 4 children, he has a good job, I'm home with the kids. I don't get anything else from him, the kids have often asked for money when they're with him but he refuses saying that I have been given the money for them. I can't wait until he has them for 2 weeks in July. He'll discover just how expensive they are!
zeffabelli wrote: That is lousy money for four kids.
The Corinthian wrote: » Well perhaps, but given he's unemployed his income is probably capped at €188 p.w. JSA/JSB. So unless you feel he should be reduced to eating grass, I'm not sure he can realistically pay more. Maybe he could sell a kidney, if you think it might help? He's also got custody for a third of the time, and covering those expenses - were it half, he realistically not have to pay anything. Also it shouldn't be the only money. Unless one believes that being a custodial parent entitles one to a free financial ride, both parents have a legal and moral obligation to support their children financially.
The Corinthian wrote: » TBH, I mistakenly thought you were responding to the OP when I responded, so I can't say my own response applies. The moment you posted how lousy the amount was, you actually put yourself forward as a moral arbiter, so you're hardly in a position to complain unless you feel you have a monopoly on that role.
zeffabelli wrote: » No I didn't. I said it was lousy. I didn't start moralising and pontificating to parents about what their responsibilities are.
Easy divorce and breeding out of wedlock has pretty much brought about polygamy in effect, and polygamy is expensive. A la carte costs.
The Corinthian wrote: Well perhaps, but given he's unemployed his income is probably capped at €188 p.w. JSA/JSB. So unless you feel he should be reduced to eating grass, I'm not sure he can realistically pay more. Maybe he could sell a kidney, if you think it might help?
The Corinthian wrote: » That's actually a legal obligation. Yes, you're not playing the part of moral arbiter or pontificating at all...
cbyrd wrote: » My ex is in full employment with a very good salary
zeffabelli wrote: » No I am not.
amie lee wrote: U should only be paying maintenance if U not living or only having kids for few hours or a day or night every week. Maintenance is 100 euros per child through family court per week.
Pawwed Rig wrote: » Just buy things and pay for your children as they arise thereby cutting out the ex. She does not declare money she does not receive and there is nothing underhand or illegal going on.
