Mainteance & Creche fees.

d2b

Hi.

I know there were other threads about this in the personal issues finnance section but it's closed so here goes...

My 10 month-old Son is heading toward creche this September. Ex is looking for me to split the costs down the middle which seems fair to me on the face of it, however, if I add that to current (voluntarily agreed) maintenance and other groceries I tend to buy for him I arrive at a grand monthly total of 800 notes.

Dunno what the usual is but that sounds like a feckin mortage to me!

I realise he won't be getting any cheaper but it sounds heavy. Or is it? Any thoughts would be appreciated!

SarahMc

€800 above the average, but difficult to say if it is fair unless we know details such as salries/housing costs etc.

d2b

we were never married and hardly knew each other. she has her own house which she rents. i have mine. no idea what she earns. i earned about 25k last year but am paying a mortgage on my own.

I mean the max a court can order paid is 150 p/w. there is obviously some reason for that i.e. it is what the minister and dept for kids think is an appropriate sum of money to raise a child, no? Don't get me wrong here, I have no prob putting my hand in my pocket or anything but it seems a lora lora.

shrapnel222

creche on its own is worth around 900 (and that's ballpark as you'll see some people are paying 800 others 1100), so if you're paying half of that already it's 450 and that means you're paying 350 in maintenance, etc... i'd say you might be paying a little over what you'd expect but not a lot

Kildrought

we were never married

Not relevant to child maintenance

hardly knew each other

Not relevant to child maintenance

...the max a court can order paid is 150 p/w..

.This is the maximum that can be ordered by the District Court per child per week; higher amounts can be ordered by the Circuit Court.

there is obviously some reason for that

Yes, a figure was required to ensure that claimants of One Parent Family Allowance were made to seek child maintenance through the District Court; it used to be €75 per child per week and was then doubled about two (I think) years ago.

i.e. it is what the minister and dept for kids think is an appropriate sum of money to raise a child, no?

No. See para above.

For a good spreadsheet on calculating maintenance check out www.solo.ie

LolaDub

I think if you look around at how much a kid costs this days you'd know 150 a week doesn't get you very far, and that is the max the district court can give. Its pretty unfortunate thats how its done. However you made the maintenance agreement before creche costs came into the equation, if you ended up going back to court to re-adjust the maintenance then creche costs would be included. To be honest if you're earning 25k 800 euro a month does sound like a lot, but you have a child and have to be responsible to that child. I think you're better off researching costs of childcare and discussing the financial strain you are under with your ex. There might be some agreement you could come to like part time childcare and using both you resources to find babysitters to cover the rest of the time? Good Luck

K-9

Child Maintenance is based on both your and her income and expenses.

Ideally, all things being equal it should be 50/50.

Assuming she will/is working full time plus the fact that she has a rental income which may cover the mortgage, she would appear to be in at least 50/50 situation.

On that basis, €800 * 2 = €1,600 a month child expenses. Say €900 childcare & 700 other. That would be €170 roughly a week other expenses.

It's quite steep and as you say, you have a mortgage to pay as well.

If it is going to make things tight, try and bargain with her. I take it you have the baby regularly, there is no point being absolutely skint when you do!

Sometimes solicitors and courts are the best place to agree these things as it's an area that both parties don't tend to agree on.

Make sure you claim the single parent tax credit. Also on that income, bear in mind you may qualify for FIS.

http://www.welfare.ie/schemes/families/fis.html

d2b

I take it you have the baby regularly

Don't even go there!

Ok folks, thanks for the wisdom once again.

twenty8

Not having any experience at all in this area I would think that 800 is fair enough. In addition to all of the costs that one has to incurr with a baby (and believe me - it is bloody massive!!) I am sure that her work / career may also suffer from minding the baby. I would think that an allocation could also be made in this area if it went to court.

It is not a cheap overhead - but fair play for working with her through it.

MojoMaker

Tell us more about these massive costs Twenty8 - interested to hear what you think amounts to massive?

Newborns cost relatively little, all told, and breastfed newborns even less. In most cases virtually all the equipment and clothing you need for the first 12 months arrive via presents from wellwishers.

€800 is quite significant when you read another thread from earlier today detailing how a court-ordered maintenance payment schedule of €600 per month - for 2 children.

You're getting taken for a ride, especially if the Mum is working and on maternity leave. See a solicitor and get that pared back to a reasonable level.

bored and tired

d2b, as shrapnell said a ball park for creche is 900, so if you pay 450 towards that a month you are paying 350 a month towards childs upkeep.

you can work out yourself, how much nappies, wipes, lotions, shampoo, baby wash, and food cost, thats the essentials on a weekly basis
then you have to budget for expences like unknown gp bills and perscriptions,
then you have the constant use of washing machine and dryer, so you have detergent, conditioner, esb,
then you have constant buying of clothes, vests, socks, shoes, hats, winter coats, shoes alone can cost €45 every 6-10weeks once they start walking.
then you have the increased cost of travelling to work via the creche to drop your son off,
you have the cost of heating the house over the winter so baby isnt cold as they cant regulate there own temperature,
you have the cost of sun tan lotions during the summer,
you have educational toys, play mats, walkers, high chairs, rattles, teething rings, tooth brushes, teething gel,
invariably the first buggy you bought is too big and bulky and may not even fit in your boot so you end up buying another lighter less bulkier one, and the car seat you got with the buggy needs to be replaced after 3 months,

the list is endless of what it costs to raise a child. your averging 90 a week, having raised a baby myself that doesnt sound unreasonable,

ntlbell

Just to keep it in perspective.

The guy is not entitled to pay for the creche fee's.

The maintenance is for the upkeep of the child, if the mother chooses to work then she has to weight it up and see if she can afford to do so.

It's up to you to get pen paper out make phone calls and see if it's worth your while to go back to work.

K-9

MojoMaker wrote: »

Tell us more about these massive costs Twenty8 - interested to hear what you think amounts to massive?

Newborns cost relatively little, all told, and breastfed newborns even less. In most cases virtually all the equipment and clothing you need for the first 12 months arrive via presents from wellwishers.

€800 is quite significant when you read another thread from earlier today detailing how a court-ordered maintenance payment schedule of €600 per month - for 2 children.

You're getting taken for a ride, especially if the Mum is working and on maternity leave. See a solicitor and get that pared back to a reasonable level.

Maintenance should be based on the costs for the year, not temporary situations for 6 months like maternity leave. If the mother was working previous to the birth, it should be assumed that will be the situation again, unless it's going to change.

ntlbell wrote: »

Just to keep it in perspective.

The guy is not entitled to pay for the creche fee's.

The maintenance is for the upkeep of the child, if the mother chooses to work then she has to weight it up and see if she can afford to do so.

It's up to you to get pen paper out make phone calls and see if it's worth your while to go back to work.

Again I'd say if she worked previously, creche fees would be a reasonable child expense, especially if both parents work.

ntlbell

Seanies32 wrote: »

Again I'd say if she worked previously, creche fees would be a reasonable child expense, especially if both parents work.

It's a personal lifestyle choice she/he deiced's on and the other is not responsible for the payments off it.

K-9

ntlbell wrote: »

It's a personal lifestyle choice she/he deiced's on and the other is not responsible for the payments off it.

AFAIK, It is included in the expenses for submission to the court.

Obviously if there is no childcare it's not an expense, if there is it's included. Might be interesting to argue it with the Judge though.

ntlbell

Seanies32 wrote: »

AFAIK, It is included in the expenses for submission to the court.

Obviously if there is no childcare it's not an expense, if there is it's included. Might be interesting to argue it with the Judge though.

childcare while one partner works is not the other partners exspense.

feeding/clothing/schooling/etc is

it's not rocket science.

K-9

ntlbell wrote: »

childcare while one partner works is not the other partners exspense.

feeding/clothing/schooling/etc is

it's not rocket science.

Source?

As I said it's included on the statement of means, which suggests otherwise.

Obviously if there's no childcare, there is less expenses to meet!

Maintenance is based on income of both parents and expenses of both, so it is taken into account if it applies!

ntlbell

Seanies32 wrote: »

Source?

As I said it's included on the statement of means, which suggests otherwise.

Obviously if there's no childcare, there is less expenses to meet!

Maintenance is based on income of both parents and expenses of both, so it is taken into account if it applies!

The source is me.

The mortgage of the partner paying the maitence goes into _their_ exspenses for example that doesn't mean the other parent has to pay part of it.

both parties have to put in their expsenses if what your saying is all one would have to do is go out and buy a new bmw get financed up to the hilt put it down as outgoing and pay less maitence.

i don't think your understanding the expsense part the exspense is the partners exspense if they choose to put the child into child care of they CHOOSE to work so it's THEIR exspense it's not the "childs"

K-9

ntlbell wrote: »

The source is me.

Oh right then, indisputable then!;)

ntlbell wrote:

The mortgage of the partner paying the maitence goes into _their_ exspenses for example that doesn't mean the other parent has to pay part of it.

What, why would somebody getting maintenance pay the payers mortgage? This is child maintenance we are chatting about, nobody has to pay a parents rent/mortgage.

The payers rent/mortgage costs are taken account of. Indeed, if the payer was struggling after rent/mortgage they may only have to pay a small or nominal amount.

From http://www.welfare.ie/foi/swi_liabmainfam.html


Income is taken to mean

• Income in the form of salary, wages, pension, or any other annuity.
• Income from a business, or self employment or other gainful occupation.
• Income from dividends and interest arising from stocks, shares, deposits and other investments.
• Rents from property. In the case of property or assets producing no income, the net yearly value of the assets are to be assessed on the same basis as if the Liable Relative were a claimant for Jobseeker's Allowance.
• Benefits, allowances, or pensions payable under the SW Acts, Health Acts, or Redundancy Payments Acts.

Allowing the following deductions

• Income tax
• PRSI Contributions
• Superannuation payments.
• A personal allowance, equivalent to the personal rate being paid to the Lone Parent / Deserted Wife, increased by the appropriate qualified rate in respect of any qualified child. The term qualified child in this context means, any child(ren) living with the Liable Relative whether children of the LP/ DW or from any other relationship.
• An allowance (not exceeding €95.23 p.w.) towards accommodation costs. Where a liable relative's new partner is employed and earning in excess of €76.18 p.w. gross only 50% of the accommodation costs are allowed.
• Any verified mortgage payments by liable relative on former family home.

ntlbell wrote:

both parties have to put in their expsenses if what your saying is all one would have to do is go out and buy a new bmw get financed up to the hilt put it down as outgoing and pay less maitence.

Existing car payments would be allowed as an expense, within reason. I have heard of credit card payments being disallowed where the judge asked what the credit card was used to pay for. You would be allowed reaonable expenses.

ntlbell wrote:

i don't think your understanding the expsense part the exspense is the partners exspense if they choose to put the child into child care of they CHOOSE to work so it's THEIR exspense it's not the "childs"

And I don't think you are understanding that if the parent worked previously it is only right to assume that they will continue to after maternity leave. That will involve childcare which obviously is a child expense. No child, no childcare!

It shouldn't be assumed that they will not work after.

If the parent didn't work previously and decided to work after, you have a point.

Anyway, is there not a seperate thread for this question?

Edit: Indeed you already have a thread started by your good self.

ntlbell

if i'm correct the maximum awareded per child is 150e (i could be wrong)

which is 600e a month

the average creche fee's a month are roughly 1200/1400e a month

the maximum allowed wouldn't even cover most creche's this is before food school etc etc etc etc

anyway we're going round in circles

K-9

ntlbell wrote: »

if i'm correct the maximum awareded per child is 150e (i could be wrong)

which is 600e a month

the average creche fee's a month are roughly 1200/1400e a month

the maximum allowed wouldn't even cover most creche's this is before food school etc etc etc etc

anyway we're going round in circles

Edited the previously reply.

It's a common misconception that 150 is the limit. It isn't, the Circuit limit is higher!

Until you can provide a link saying it's not counted, I'll take it is counted as an expense.

ntlbell

Seanies32 wrote: »

Edited the previously reply.

It's a common misconception that 150 is the limit. It isn't, the Circuit limit is higher!

Until you can provide a link saying it's not counted, I'll take it is counted as an expense.

when a case is involving mr and miss average on the average wage in there average house paying avaerage mortgages you won't see many heading off to a circuit court. which i think based on averages is most of the country.

K-9

ntlbell wrote: »

when a case is involving mr and miss average on the average wage in there average house paying avaerage mortgages you won't see many heading off to a circuit court. which i think based on averages is most of the country.

Indeed, though if you had free legal aid you could do so. Your problem seems to be with the cost of living and mortgages/rents, not the court limits. The fact still remains that the €150 limit can be increased.

Your previous post was misleading to suit your argument.

I'm trying to dig out a link for the free legal aid means test.

ntlbell

Seanies32 wrote: »

Indeed, though if you had free legal aid you could do so. Your problem seems to be with the cost of living and mortgages/rents, not the court limits. The fact still remains that the €150 limit can be increased.

Your previous post was misleading to suit your argument.

I'm trying to dig out a link for the free legal aid means test.

it wouldn't be a case of not being able to aford to go to the circuit court it would be a case of how much more can a person on avaerage wages car/mortage/rent etc afford to pay a month? have a think about it

K-9

There is a PDF File at http://www.flac.ie/publications/index/119018645315774.html

The maximum amount the District Court can
order each parent to pay is 150 per week
per child and 500 per week for a spouse.
There is no such limit in the Circuit Court or
High Court. Having regard to these ceilings,
the spouse or parent can decide to apply for
the order in the District or Circuit Court
depending on the level of family income.

The option to go to the Circuit or indeed High court is there with no limits.

Here is an article on the new means tests for FLAC
http://www.flac.ie/news/2006/09/01/new-regulations-for-civil-legal-aid-means-test-changed/

Interestingly it says According to FLAC's Director General Noeline Blackwell "It is good to see an increase in the allowances for child care to €6,000 a child, which is far more realistic than previous limits.

Seems FLAC doesn't see working as a lifestyle choice!

So you are allowed 6,000 childcare and 8,000 accomodation which added to a disposable income of 18,000 means 32,000 is the income limit. I'm not sure if other expenses are counted.

ntlbell

ntlbell wrote: »

it wouldn't be a case of not being able to aford to go to the circuit court it would be a case of how much more can a person on avaerage wages car/mortage/rent etc afford to pay a month? have a think about it

....

K-9

ntlbell wrote: »

it wouldn't be a case of not being able to aford to go to the circuit court it would be a case of how much more can a person on avaerage wages car/mortage/rent etc afford to pay a month? have a think about it

That has nothing to do with your working is a lifestyle argument.

ntlbell

Seanies32 wrote: »

That has nothing to do with your working is a lifestyle argument.

How can deciding to be a working parent be anything BUT a lifestyle choice? to call it anything else is bizzare

K-9

ntlbell wrote: »

....

Sorry, FLAC count childcare as a legitimate expense. Maybe try and find a source that says it isn't!

Also I'm not replying to you here anymore.

Use your own thread that you set up for this purpose!

ntlbell

Seanies32 wrote: »

Sorry, FLAC count childcare as a legitimate expense. Maybe try and find a source that says it isn't!

Also I'm not replying to you here anymore.

Use your own thread that you set up for this purpose!

every single thing that goes out for both parties is asked for..EVERYTHING an over all desicion is made on EVERYTHING and in the famliy courts up to 150e which wouldn't even cover 50% of child care fee's

round and round we go

K-9

ntlbell wrote: »

every single thing that goes out for both parties is asked for..EVERYTHING an over all desicion is made on EVERYTHING and in the famliy courts up to 150e which wouldn't even cover 50% of child care fee's

round and round we go

OK.One more time as it's not sinking in!

With no independent links from yourself to prove what you are saying!

We aren't going round and round, you think you are! Even your €150 argument has been shown not to be true, the circuit and high courts are UNLIMITED! That is your main basis, it's been proved incorrect, yet you persist!


EVERYTHING is included. Usually only ONE parent has childcare expenses, not 2! So it usually is counted for one parent, not both. Therefor, rent/mortgage is allowable for both parents, childcare isn't.

If a couple seperate and both are working and have childcare bills, that is a child expense! Same as if a mother works previous to the birth it should be assumed she will continue after, unless that is not the case!

Goodnight!

ntlbell

Seanies32 wrote: »

OK.One more time as it's not sinking in!

With no independent links from yourself to prove what you are saying!

We aren't going round and round, you think you are! Even your €150 argument has been shown not to be true, the circuit and high courts are UNLIMITED! That is your main basis, it's been proved incorrect, yet you persist!


EVERYTHING is included. Usually only ONE parent has childcare expenses, not 2! So it usually is counted for one parent, not both. Therefor, rent/mortgage is allowable for both parents, childcare isn't.

If a couple seperate and both are working and have childcare bills, that is a child expense! Same as if a mother works previous to the birth it should be assumed she will continue after, unless that is not the case!

Goodnight!

We are going around in circles, the MAXIMUM for the family court is 150e

we have established that the average ind wage is around 35k in cases were the wages are average or below they wont be going to any circuit court as there would be no point as one on that wage couldn't really afford to give anymore than 150e so it wouldn't make much sense...READ THIS PARAGRAPH REALLY SLOWLY...

Every single bill/outgoing BOTH parents have are put forward to the judge I'm telling you this as someone who has been involved in this procedure very recently so I take it has slightly more weight than someone who hasn't ever been through it?

phone/esb/gas/food/credit cards/credut unions loans/mortgages/remortgages just about every single outgoing you have on both sides is put forward.

now from the above in the case of an AVERAGE COUPLE (WHICH IS MOST OF THE COUNTRY SEE?)

The maximum figure is 150E now if we take into account

average rent/bills/food/car/insurance/tax blah blah from a single person on the average ind wage been 35k regardless of what court you go to they can't award the other partner something you don't have

so after all that if in just about every single case involving THE AVERAGE the OH won't be paying for 50% of the childcare as 150e wouldn't even cover that!

ding dong....

K-9

ntlbell wrote: »

We are going around in circles, the MAXIMUM for the family court is 150e

No, we aren't!:pac: What family court? The District, Circuit or High Court?

ntlbell wrote:

we have established that the average ind wage is around 35k in cases were the wages are average or below they wont be going to any circuit court as there would be no point as one on that wage couldn't really afford to give anymore than 150e so it wouldn't make much sense...READ THIS PARAGRAPH REALLY SLOWLY...

Just because you repeat something over and over doesn't make it right. €150 is not the Court limit! The mechanism is there. The person may be able to pay more, depending on expenses!

ntlbell wrote:

Every single bill/outgoing BOTH parents have are put forward to the judge I'm telling you this as someone who has been involved in this procedure very recently so I take it has slightly more weight than someone who hasn't ever been through it?

Been there, bought the t-shirt. Again repeating it doesn't make it right. Normally, only ONE parent has childcare bills!

ntlbell wrote:

phone/esb/gas/food/credit cards/credut unions loans/mortgages/remortgages just about every single outgoing you have on both sides is put forward.

They are usually common expenses, perfectly allowable. Childcare usually isn't common! One person pays it!

ntlbell wrote:

now from the above in the case of an AVERAGE COUPLE (WHICH IS MOST OF THE COUNTRY SEE?)

Average, not ALL!

Ntlbell wrote:

The maximum figure is 150E now if we take into account

No it isn't! Again, what is the limit in the Circuit Court and High Court?

ntlbell wrote:

average rent/bills/food/car/insurance/tax blah blah from a single person on the average ind wage been 35k regardless of what court you go to they can't award the other partner something you don't have

so after all that if in just about every single case involving THE AVERAGE the OH won't be paying for 50% of the childcare as 150e wouldn't even cover that!

ding dong....

What you fail to grasp or actually will not admit as it means you are wrong is they can take a person to the Circuit or High Court. The fact that it may not be financially worthwhile is irrelevant! The exact reason that is there is for a people with higher incomes!

And of course you'll still say there is a €150 limit despite links and information showing that not to be true. Averages does not make what you are saying correct!

If you want to continue this, use your own thread!

ntlbell

Seanies32 wrote: »

N
What you fail to grasp or actually will not admit as it means you are wrong is they can take a person to the Circuit or High Court. The fact that it may not be financially worthwhile is irrelevant! The exact reason that is there is for a people with higher incomes!

And of course you'll still say there is a €150 limit despite links and information showing that not to be true. Averages does not make what you are saying correct!

If you want to continue this, use your own thread!

Words fail me.

If the limit of the district court is 150e based on the fact the majority of the country is on average or below ind wage especially outside of Dublin were it drops dramatically then the majority of the country in these cases won't be going to the high or any other bleedin court as they couldn't afford in the MAJORITY of cases to pay more than 150e a week!

christ all mighty.

K-9

Until you provide a link saying creche fees are specifically disallowed, you are wrong!

Your problem is with the average wage, not the court limits!

Person 1

Income 3000

Expenses 2500
of which childcare 1000

Person 2

Income 3000

Expenses 2500
Childcare Zilch!



Penny dropping yet?

ntlbell

Seanies32 wrote: »

Until you provide a link saying creche fees are specifically disallowed, you are wrong!

Your problem is with the average wage, not the court limits!

Person 1

Income 3000

Expenses 2500
of which childcare 1000

Person 2

Income 3000

Expenses 2500
Childcare Zilch!



Penny dropping yet?

It's not a case of them being disallowed or not.

The mother/father doesn't HAVE to work she's/he's not been forced to pay creche fee's the child doesn't HAVE to go to a creche there is always options.

So if SHE/he chooses to put the child in a creche then why would the OH have to pay for that choice?

Should he/she start paying for the baby sitter while she/he socialises in the evenings too?

come off the stage..

Kildrought

If the limit of the district court is 150e based on the fact the majority of the country is on average or below ind wage....

Actually that's not correct.

The maximum maintenance award available per week per child in District court used to be €75 per week; some time back (2 -3 years? don't recall exact date off the top of my head) it was doubled to a maximum award of €150 per child per week.

At around the same time SW officers started to insist that parents claiming OPFA were obliged to make every effort to seek maintenance from the non-resident parent. And that is why the max District court figure was set to €150 - it had nothing to do with actual costs or average wages and everything to do with saving SW money.

You should also note that the District Court maximum is per child per week, someone with 2 or 3 children could be paying €500 or €750 per week on foot of a District court order.

ntlbell

Kildrought wrote: »

Actually that's not correct.

The maximum maintenance award available per week per child in District court used to be €75 per week; some time back (2 -3 years? don't recall exact date off the top of my head) it was doubled to a maximum award of €150 per child per week.

At around the same time SW officers started to insist that parents claiming OPFA were obliged to make every effort to seek maintenance from the non-resident parent. And that is why the max District court figure was set to €150 - it had nothing to do with actual costs or average wages and everything to do with saving SW money.

You should also note that the District Court maximum is per child per week, someone with 2 or 3 children could be paying €500 or €750 per week on foot of a District court order.

150e per child per week, yes. no one said any different

i'm also not saying the amount awarded has anything to do with average wages, what i was stating was people on average wages in ireland today couldn't afford to pay much more than 150e a week per child as of the costs of living in this country are pretty high so it wouldn't make sense in those situations which make up for about 8/10 cases to go to any higher court as the money simply wouldn't be there regardless of judge or court

K-9

ntlbell wrote: »

It's not a case of them being disallowed or not.

The mother/father doesn't HAVE to work she's/he's not been forced to pay creche fee's the child doesn't HAVE to go to a creche there is always options.

So if SHE/he chooses to put the child in a creche then why would the OH have to pay for that choice?

Should he/she start paying for the baby sitter while she/he socialises in the evenings too?

come off the stage..

It is the case as my basic statement of means shows.

The rest is an opinion piece and I'll refer you to my previous replies.

The fact remains that the maintenance payer is subsidising the childcare of the other person.

Many Dads would argue that if they have the child half the time they will pay less maintenance. Why, because they are providing some of the childcare! So less childcare, less maintenance! Therefor it is counted!

My God that took a long time!

K-9

Kildrought wrote: »

Actually that's not correct.

The maximum maintenance award available per week per child in District court used to be €75 per week; some time back (2 -3 years? don't recall exact date off the top of my head) it was doubled to a maximum award of €150 per child per week.

At around the same time SW officers started to insist that parents claiming OPFA were obliged to make every effort to seek maintenance from the non-resident parent. And that is why the max District court figure was set to €150 - it had nothing to do with actual costs or average wages and everything to do with saving SW money.

You should also note that the District Court maximum is per child per week, someone with 2 or 3 children could be paying €500 or €750 per week on foot of a District court order.

The limit was €135 in 2005, then increased to €150.

ntlbell

Seanies32 wrote: »

It is the case as my basic statement of means shows.

The rest is an opinion piece and I'll refer you to my previous replies.

The fact remains that the maintenance payer is subsidising the childcare of the other person.

Many Dads would argue that if they have the child half the time they will pay less maintenance. Why, because they are providing some of the childcare! So less childcare, less maintenance! Therefor it is counted!

My God that took a long time!

I would of thought if the child was at the dads half the time they would pay less maintenance because of the following..

less food is consumed at the mother's = less money required

any esb/heating/ even clothing and anything else you can think of that's consumed there = less money required

= less maintenance

makes more sense no?

Kildrought

The mother/father doesn't HAVE to work she's/he's not been forced to pay creche fee's the child doesn't HAVE to go to a creche there is always options.

Unless one is of independent means, the only other option is to claim SW; that still does not remove the requirement to pay maintenance.

In any event it is generally better from the child's perspective to be in a family where their parent(s) are working rather than living long-term on SW.

(Before anyone jumps up and down this is a general statement; there are good reasons why lone parents would chose not to work when children are very small or have special needs and I'm not disrespecting that. But long term, and all other things being equal, families tend to do better when parents are in employment).

Assuming you want to do the best for your child, why would you have a difficultly with supporting the resident parent to continue working?

Should he/she start paying for the baby sitter while she/he socialises in the evenings too?

In setting out one's income and expenditure, reasonable allowances for social activities should be included. As are holidays, Christmas etc.,

K-9

ntlbell wrote: »

I would of thought if the child was at the dads half the time they would pay less maintenance because of the following..

less food is consumed at the mother's = less money required

any esb/heating/ even clothing and anything else you can think of that's consumed there = less money required

= less maintenance

makes more sense no?

Yes.

Also childcare required say only 3 days instead of 5!

Maintenance payers can claim FIS. The fact that the payer has the child a large percentage of the time can be counted as taking care of the child. Basically it recognises the financial cost saved.

http://www.welfare.ie/foi/depsqc.html

(4) Substantial contribution by the other parent

Where

• the parent with whom the child is residing is not in receipt of a Social Welfare payment (other than Child Benefit, Guardian's Payment (Non-Contributory) or Supplementary Welfare Allowance)
• AND the other parent is contributing substantially towards the maintenance of the child

the child may be deemed to be normally resident with the other parent, and would not be considered normally resident in any other household.
"Contributing substantially" in this context is taken to mean at least the current equivalent of the Increase for a Qualified Child.
Monetary Contribution
If the claimant is making a monetary contribution towards the maintenance of each child of at least the equivalent of the current Increase for a Qualified Child, it can be accepted that s/he satisfies the "contributing substantially" condition. Where the claimant is not currently making such a contribution but the Deciding Officer is satisfied that s/he would do so if IQC were awarded (e.g. if the claimant had previously been making this level of contribution when last in a position to do so), it may also be accepted that the condition is fulfilled.
Contribution in-kind
In some cases there may be an arrangement in operation whereby, in addition to or instead of direct monetary contribution, the claimant has care of the child(ren) for some period/s during each week e.g. regular visits by them. IQC may be payable in such cases if the cost of expenses incurred by the claimant equates to "substantially contributing" to their maintenance i.e. if the cost is at least the equivalent of the appropriate IQC rate. It will be for the Deciding Officer to consider each such case by reference to all the facts.
Only costs actually incurred by the claimant on behalf of the child(ren) which could reasonably be construed as necessary their maintenance (e.g. transport, meals, social activities, ensuring accommodation is suitable, cost of overnight accommodation where applicable, etc.) should be taken into consideration in this context.
All such cases should be dealt with sensitively and sympathetically. In cases of doubt, the Decisions Advisory Office should be contacted for advice.

Kildrought

The limit was €135 in 2005, then increased to €150.

Fair enough - it was in 2005 that the big increase was made so.

ntlbell

Seanies32 wrote: »

Yes.

Also childcare required say only 3 days instead of 5!

But the "childcare" creche is the OH'S choice to do, if I choose to do it during my half of the week i wouldn't expect anyone else to pay for it bar me???

as it's my choice not my expense.

K-9

ntlbell wrote: »

But the "childcare" creche is the OH'S choice to do, if I choose to do it during my half of the week i wouldn't expect anyone else to pay for it bar me???

as it's my choice not my expense.

You seem to be suggesting being a SAHP is the default situation?

That isn't the case anymore, times have moved on!

Edit: The other person if it's such an issue, could stop work and provide the childcare. Obviously then there would be no childcare to pay for.

ntlbell

Seanies32 wrote: »

You seem to be suggesting being a SAHP is the default situation?

That isn't the case anymore, times have moved on!

the only assumption i'm making is if i was to choose to put the child into a creche during my half of the week instead of looking after the child myself I wouldn't expect anyone to pay for it?

fairly straight forward...i'm making a choice, that choice is costing ME money, why would anyone else have to pay for that choice?

K-9

ntlbell wrote: »

the only assumption i'm making is if i was to choose to put the child into a creche during my half of the week instead of looking after the child myself I wouldn't expect anyone to pay for it?

fairly straight forward...i'm making a choice, that choice is costing ME money, why would anyone else have to pay for that choice?

It may not be a choice to give up a career that you had previously.

Mother works previously, the assumption should be she'll work after! Why would it be otherwise?

You have a point if she didn't work previously and decides to work.

Kildrought

...she didn't work previously and decides to work.

Since both the family and the child benefit enormously where the parent is working; I don't understand why a non-resident parent would have such a difficulty in supporting that?

ntlbell

Seanies32 wrote: »

It may not be a choice to give up a career that you had previously.

Mother works previously, the assumption should be she'll work after! Why would it be otherwise?

You have a point if she didn't work previously and decides to work.

What she did previously and you can make the assumption she can work after I can't see why she shouldn't and I'd hope she would but it comes down to her choice and how she goes about having the child cared for during that time but if she chooses a creche I don't see why the OH would have to pay for it? the same way I wouldn't expect my OH to pay for the creche if i chose to use it during my "half" of the week?

back to the circles we go..

There's always the choice of waiting until the child starts school but again these are choices that the parent has to make

K-9

Kildrought wrote: »

Since both the family and the child benefit enormously where the parent is working; I don't understand why a non-resident parent would have such a difficulty in supporting that?

I said he may have a point!

It could be argued that what the other parent decides to do after the relationship is there business.

Usually in relationships decisions are reached jointly.

That may not be the case here.