Mother wants more maintenance

niall1979

Hi,
I have been paying child maintenance for 3 yrs now.The mother of my child was working until a few months ago.now she has applied for the lone parents allowance through the department of family affairs,who sent out an assessor who means tested her. He told her that she needed to get me to pay €433 per month. an increase of €133 on child support. I think i have been very fair with what i have been paying so far, considering her circumstances and mine. I also have my daughter 9 days a month.

She told me they will come after me for the extra money if i don't pay.
can they do this?
I read today that there are 80000 lone parent allowances for single mothers and only 10000 of them recieve child maintenance from thier childs father. thats 70000 who avoid paying anything. I think that is a disgrace in itself but feel good that i am one of the 10000 that do pay it. but many of these 70000 fathers could be paying in cash.

can anyone shed any light on the subject, Will they come after me for more money? I can't really afford it and doubt i'll be means tested for the extra money.

Thanks

Kildrought

Do you have a maintenance order in place? If not, get one asap.

Once that's in place, SW can't do anything - it's not their job to second guess the courts.

niall1979

No i have been paying direct debit since my daughter was born.We were in court last year so i could increase my access but maintenance was never brought up or has ever been an issue. I am due to go back to court April again for over night access. Should i rubber stamp it then? how do i go about doing that?

Kildrought

Contact your local district court, they'll let you have the necessary documents to be completed; it's pretty straightforward and you'll find the court clerks very helpful though they can't give legal advice.

Superdaddy

I doubt very much that SW will come looking for you or even if they can. Keep paying what you are paying by direct debit. This is your contribution and is fair as far as you are concerned, she disagrees, surprise surprise. She is obviously being awkward if you have to go to court to get access and again to get overnights. Do you have guardianship?
If not it's time to get it and as kildrought said maybe time to sort out a maintenance order, although i would get more advice on that one. Are you claiming One parent family tax credit, you are entitled to it if your child spends one night per year at your home.
Don't allow her to walk on you and blackmail you emotionally or otherwise, if she gets away with it once it will only get worse. Ex's can be damn nasty and use our childeren to hurt us. Learn what rights you have and fight for what you believe is right.
Speak to Unmarried and separated fathers of Ireland or Parental equality or similar group. Don't trust a solicitor until you learn a little more. They can take you for a ride if you meet the wrong one. Start working on learning what is best for your child future now!

niall1979

Yes i do have Guardianship,I applied for it last year. I am with my third solicotor at this stage.There is as many good ones out there as there is bad ones.I am happy with the one i have.Thanks for the info on one parents tax credits. I will get that sorted ASAP.
My girl is nearly 3 now and i am going back to court soon for overnight access. I have my own place with a room for her etc, do you recon the case will be straight forward enough? Its not a very messy case, both parents are civil and get along ok,but disagree on overnights.
Is 2 nights every 2 weeks,1 night every other week much to ask?
Also a week in the summer to spend with myself and my family.
every second xmas?

Thanks for your help. it has eased my worries somewhat.

Thanks again

The Corinthian

Kildrought wrote: »

Do you have a maintenance order in place? If not, get one asap.

I don't think he can, at least not unless he can do so with the mother's cooperation, as technically I believe she has to make the application.

As for what the DSW has told her, I would get more information on the subject. It sounds as if they have told her that she has to get €100 p.w. from you (SW always think in weeks, not months), which seems odd as while they may instruct her to get a court order to show that she is getting maintenance, there is no requirement AFAIK that she get a particular level of maintenance to qualify for SW assistance - quite the opposite, actually.

It may well be that they told her what she could get from you, or that she herself believes she could get. In short, it is likely that an increase is her idea, not theirs. If so, getting cooperation from her for a maintenance order at the present level is unlikely. Ask her for written proof of this demand.

As for your rights, you don't really have many. All you can do is keep a record of all expenditure relating to your child, your own expenditure, your debts, income and assets so as to underline that you are paying above the €300 p.m. and that you're not made of money. Then all you have to hope for is that you don't find yourself in front of a mad judge.

marti101

I think also that if she has been working and now has to go on l.p.a her money is down anyway cause she wont be getting on lpa wat she was working.So if its down to you to give her a help out so your child doesnt go without so really its not her being awkward more circumstance that she cant control.

LINDA08

I read a similar query on a website lately, could have been Rollercoaster where the mother was being asked by SW to contact father of her child with whom she had no contact to ask him to increase his maintenance but someone quiet rightly pointed out that the SW only pay 24euro or so for a child per week under Lone Parents and therefore is all they really can look to recoup from the father, they can ask you to increase it but I don't believe you are obliged to. The father if he was never married to the mother of the child is not legally obliged to maintain the mother. I'm not sure if they expect the father to contribute to the Rent Allowance if the mother is in receipt of it.

The Corinthian

LINDA08 wrote: »

the SW only pay 24euro or so for a child per week under Lone Parents and therefore is all they really can look to recoup from the father, they can ask you to increase it but I don't believe you are obliged to.

My understanding is that while they can demand proof that a mother has sought maintenance from the father, I don't think they can demand that they can demand that he pay any maintenance threshold. Such a practice would be unenforceable, as these amounts are decided by the courts, not the DSW.

Even in the case of demanding proof that a mother has sought maintenance from the father, I suspect that this is also unenforceable. After all, what happens if the father is unknown, deceased or untraceable?

I'm not sure if they expect the father to contribute to the Rent Allowance if the mother is in receipt of it.

Bottom line is that an unmarried father can be ordered to pay up to €150 p.w. through the circuit court. Unless he is very well off (we're talking top 5% here) any application to a higher court would likely be thrown out. As such, this is the practical limit that fathers can be ordered to pay, and a court is expected to award this upon the interests primarily of the child, then those of both parents - the interests of the DWS doesn't enter into it.

TargetWidow

She wouldn't go through all the hassle of getting it at all if she wasn't really stuck in the first place. Its thirty something extra quid a week. Is there any way you can come up with it to see to it that your little girl has everything she needs? Maybe if you get those extra tax credits? It's lovely to see a dad that actually wants to spend time with his little girl. You're obviously a good man at heart. I hope you find a way to get the access you want without disturbing the good relationship you have with the mother. Best of luck.

The Corinthian

TargetWidow wrote: »

She wouldn't go through all the hassle of getting it at all if she wasn't really stuck in the first place.

Not necessarily the case. She may be operating under a false assumption - that she must get the extra money to qualify for SW, when in reality she is not really required to. Or she may simply be looking to maximize her income from him, which is something that happens all the time.

Its thirty something extra quid a week.

It's also a 44% increase, or an additional €1,600 p.a. - it is a pretty big increase and I would not simply agree to (or reject) it without investigating if it is either fair or necessary.

Maybe if you get those extra tax credits?

He needs his daughter's mother to agree to overnights (at least one p.a.) to qualify for this, which is not guaranteed given he needs to bring the mother to court for it.

And if he gets overnights, then he will have additional costs. These should be taken into account, as should any other expense he carries out that is outside of maintenance. It all adds up.

I hope you find a way to get the access you want without disturbing the good relationship you have with the mother.

It can't be that good if he had to go to court on multiple occasions - for access, quite likely guardianship and now for overnights to the point that he is on his third solicitor.

CDfm

There are plenty of fathers rights groups such as Parental Equality, Amen and the Single and Seperated Fathers Groups that can go thru the drill with you about what the Courts and Dept an Social Welfare Can and cant do. But the Courts do limit maintenance at around 60 per week - so you seem to be paying the upper limits and it seems to me that the SW assessor was making it up as they went along.

Believe it or not I have heard of SW Assesors letting details slip of guys earnings etc- which they should not do.

It also looks like the Mum might be looking to get you to hand over your extra tax relief to her and which is really there for you and your child.

So it seems to me that you need to educate yourself on the do's and dont's and what can be requested. Contact www.amen.ie and they will put you in touch with the appropriate group in your area.

I am jaded and cynical having been thru the system- you have done great so far and seem like a very fair and good guy. Best of luck.

The Corinthian

CDfm wrote: »

But the Courts do limit maintenance at around 60 per week - so you seem to be paying the upper limits and it seems to me that the SW assessor was making it up as they went along.

Incorrect. In theory there is no limit as a father may be sued for maintenance in any of the higher courts. In practice, unless you are very wealthy, any application to a court higher than circuit would be thrown out.

As for amount, it really depends upon income and expenditure of both parties - and the judge you get, as a lot of it is discretionary. So there are plenty of guys who pay the €150 p.w. out there, just as there are those who pay €5 p.w. €80 appears to be the anecdotal average, but I wouldn't call it gospel.

It also looks like the Mum might be looking to get you to hand over your extra tax relief to her and which is really there for you and your child.

Possibly, but it is more likely that she discovered that she could potentially hit the OP for more money after hearing some anecdotal evidence on Rolercoaster or some other gyno-nazi forum of the kind. At the same time, she could be genuinely, and I believe mistakenly, under the impression that this is a requirement for SW.

Like you, the cynic in me thinks it's the former.

The Corinthian

CDfm wrote: »

It also looks like the Mum might be looking to get you to hand over your extra tax relief to her and which is really there for you and your child.

Just on this topic. If you are paying child maintenance as an unmarried parent, you cannot claim tax relief. However, AFAIK, you can qualify for One Parent Family Tax Credit but to do so I believe that the minimum criteria is that your child does at least one overnight with the non-custodial parent per year.

As such, if the mother is opposing overnights, it is unlikely that she is seeking his extra tax relief, unless she has been advised that the OP is likely to get them and so is acting pre-emptively.

As for opposing overnights, it is difficult to say why without full facts. The argument may well be that the mother thinks it would be too disruptive to the child, although IMHO the benefits greatly outweigh any such disruption. Unfortunately, I've seen too many threads in other fora where mothers bring up the issue of overnights and co-parenting and their first question is about how much maintenance it might mean they'll lose rather than whether it is good for the child.

CDfm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Just on this topic. If you are paying child maintenance as an unmarried parent, you cannot claim tax relief. However, AFAIK, you can qualify for One Parent Family Tax Credit but to do so I believe that the minimum criteria is that your child does at least one overnight with the non-custodial parent per year.

As such, if the mother is opposing overnights, it is unlikely that she is seeking his extra tax relief, unless she has been advised that the OP is likely to get them and so is acting pre-emptively.

As for opposing overnights, it is difficult to say why without full facts. The argument may well be that the mother thinks it would be too disruptive to the child, although IMHO the benefits greatly outweigh any such disruption. Unfortunately, I've seen too many threads in other fora where mothers bring up the issue of overnights and co-parenting and their first question is about how much maintenance it might mean they'll lose rather than whether it is good for the child.

The one night is the criteria and thats anywhere and you can backdate the claim to previous years even if you have had the child overnight not even in your own house.

While access and maintenance are seperate and distinct issues and are not supposed to be linked nevertheless they do get linked.It just seemed to me that there is an extra 1600 or so floating about and the figures seem too similar to the increase being asked.Cynical I know.

Will your payments affect her eligibility for her claim and what is the effect on her net cash position.

It is what is best for the child and not whats best for the mother. Its good to do your research and if she has a problem with co-parenting Gingerbread used to run a co-parenting course and you should find out about it or similar courses and be in a position to suggest it to your solicitor and to the judge -if it does go to court.There are benefits to her in going out etc for weekends and rebuilding her life too -which presumably are healthy and should be pointed out in court.

IMO - someone who keeps thinking court as a solution is confrontational at some level.

TargetWidow

The Corinthian wrote: »

gyno-nazi .

Corinthian there is no need for this kind of talk. This is offensive to me and I'm sure to many others.:mad:

CDfm

TargetWidow wrote: »

Corinthian there is no need for this kind of talk. This is offensive to me and I'm sure to many others.:mad:

I had never heard that phrase before. Very John Water-ish in a perjorative in a "I know this is going to" way.

It does convey the meaning that as a mother she might be using her gender and status for an advantage in an unfair way.Is there an alternative phrase that is brief and to the point and conveys the same meaning?

" Misandrist Mother" doesnt quite do it.

The Corinthian

TargetWidow wrote: »

Corinthian there is no need for this kind of talk. This is offensive to me and I'm sure to many others.:mad:

It's actually quite difficult to otherwise describe the self-indulgent mysandry you often find on such sites. Personally I find them pretty offensive too, so I suppose it balances out.

The Corinthian

CDfm wrote: »

I had never heard that phrase before. Very John Water-ish in a perjorative in a "I know this is going to" way.

It does convey the meaning that as a mother she might be using her gender and status for an advantage in an unfair way.Is there an alternative phrase that is brief and to the point and conveys the same meaning?

" Misandrist Mother" doesnt quite do it.

I was thinking of something with matriarchal in it, but it just wasn't catchy enough.

TargetWidow

As per usual, the usual characters are all here, and all absolutely useless to the poor OP. Such lovely "Christian" spirits too hmmm? Amazing how some posters essential character change like a chameleons except instead of blending in they spread dissent. Id say troll-like behaviour... OP beware.:rolleyes: And good luck OP. I'm off. It stinks of misogyny in here.

The Corinthian

TargetWidow wrote: »

As per usual, the usual characters are all here, and all absolutely useless to the poor OP.

With respects, both CDfm and I gave the OP more practical advice than your effort, which seemed to boil down to "give her whatever she wants".

And good luck OP. I'm off. It stinks of misogyny in here.

Toys out of the pram time, I see.

TargetWidow

"Toys out of the pram".....Very good, so women AND children are on the hitlist now. Well I can see now why ye are in the situation you are both clearly in. And goodness gracious Corinthian that must surely be a mistake "with respect" ??? towards a woman ???? from you ???

Good luck in life. You'll both need it. Thank goodness the human race doesn't depend on the conflict resolution skills of men like yourselves. :P

CDfm

TargetWidow wrote: »

"Toys out of the pram".....Very good, so women AND children are on the hitlist now. Well I can see now why ye are in the situation you are both clearly in. And goodness gracious Corinthian that must surely be a mistake "with respect" ??? towards a woman ???? from you ???

Good luck in life. You'll both need it. Thank goodness the human race doesn't depend on the conflict resolution skills of men like yourselves. :P

Corinthian was being blokeish. Phrases like "gyno-nazi" are kind of funny. Gallows humour and are not it popular culture like MCP is.

On face value the OP sounds like a cool bloke and a good responsible modern guy.

OUt of interest - is there anything positve you can suggest to OP or suggestions of where to go for support?

So guys cant trade a few tips of what to do in family law situations without a bit of friendly banter. The support I got from women friends with my situation was great - they had brothers and sons etc in the same boat.

I used to think PAS was Power Assisted Steering until I discovered Parental Allienation Syndrome in the family courts. Animal Farm should be required reading for all men trying to enforce their rights as parents.

I really dont know how to take your last comment. But it does seem very condescending and patronising and I wondered if you wanted to elabotate.

embee

TargetWidow wrote: »

"Toys out of the pram".....Very good, so women AND children are on the hitlist now. Well I can see now why ye are in the situation you are both clearly in. And goodness gracious Corinthian that must surely be a mistake "with respect" ??? towards a woman ???? from you ???

Good luck in life. You'll both need it. Thank goodness the human race doesn't depend on the conflict resolution skills of men like yourselves. :P

TargetWidow,

You're getting a touch too personal here for my liking. No one here has gotten personal with you, other than a "toys out of the pram" quote. You aren't qualified to decide what sort of parent anyone here is, unless you're privy to a whole world of information on The Corinthian/CDfm/A.N.Other. Even if you are, it's irrelevant to this thread and is only taking it off topic.

I'd suggest that ye keep on topic with practical, helpful advice to the OP. If ye can't do that, then just don't post at all.

Thanking you all so kindly.

K-9

The Corinthian wrote: »

Possibly, but it is more likely that she discovered that she could potentially hit the OP for more money after hearing some anecdotal evidence on Rolercoaster or some other gyno-nazi forum of the kind.

The Allies quickly refute the claims.
Whether he/she chooses to listen to the propaganda is up to them.

Tbh, I think you are listening to the noise too much over there.

Anyway back on topic, the Maintenance sounds lowish, but it depends on his Income and Expenses and the childs.

AFAIK, the SW do not decide maintenance. The Courts do. However, SW can pass the case onto the Maintenance Recovery Unit who in my experience are useless.

They can assess you, but if you have a Court Order or mutually agreeable amount, you should be ok. Court Order maybe the best route.

Bear in mind, any increase decided by the Recovery Unit is payable to THEM, Not the Mother or child. A Mother can get €95 a week in Maintenance and it isn't deducted from LPA if Rent/Mortgage is higher, so an increase could be going to the SW not your child.

CDfm

K-9 wrote: »

The Allies quickly refute the claims.
Whether he/she chooses to listen to the propaganda is up to them.

Bear in mind, any increase decided by the Recovery Unit is payable to THEM, Not the Mother or child. A Mother can get €95 a week in Maintenance and it isn't deducted from LPA if Rent/Mortgage is higher, so an increase could be going to the SW not your child.

Thats interesting -is there a formula OP should be aware of -so if maintenance is brought up as a tactic in negotiation or an issue in court he might explain it to a judge.

K-9

CDfm wrote: »

Thats interesting -is there a formula OP should be aware of -so if maintenance is brought up as a tactic in negotiation or an issue in court he might explain it to a judge.

If the Recovery Unit decides it isn't enough, it would be paid to them, not the Mother. There really is no formulae AFAIK, unlike the UK.

It depends on Income and Expenses.
EG. Income €600, Expenses €500, Means is €100.

Having said that, I've heard of cases of Judges disallowing Credit Card repayments as Expenses if for purely personal debt. Personally I 'd agree on that if it's purely personal, frivolous expenditure. A child should be more important than that.

craiginireland

niall1979 wrote: »

Hi,
I have been paying child maintenance for 3 yrs now.The mother of my child was working until a few months ago.now she has applied for the lone parents allowance through the department of family affairs,who sent out an assessor who means tested her. He told her that she needed to get me to pay €433 per month. an increase of €133 on child support. I think i have been very fair with what i have been paying so far, considering her circumstances and mine. I also have my daughter 9 days a month.

She told me they will come after me for the extra money if i don't pay.
can they do this?
I read today that there are 80000 lone parent allowances for single mothers and only 10000 of them recieve child maintenance from thier childs father. thats 70000 who avoid paying anything. I think that is a disgrace in itself but feel good that i am one of the 10000 that do pay it. but many of these 70000 fathers could be paying in cash.

can anyone shed any light on the subject, Will they come after me for more money? I can't really afford it and doubt i'll be means tested for the extra money.

Thanks

Call her bluff, sounds like profiteering to me, although no doubt SW are getting tighter these days with budget cuts etc.

niall1979 wrote: »

No i have been paying direct debit since my daughter was born.We were in court last year so i could increase my access but maintenance was never brought up or has ever been an issue. I am due to go back to court April again for over night access. Should i rubber stamp it then? how do i go about doing that?

The Corinthian wrote: »

I don't think he can, at least not unless he can do so with the mother's cooperation, as technically I believe she has to make the application?

Nope you can do it, I was getting ****ed around my my childs mother and unreasonable demand, I went to court myself to get it sorted.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Possibly, but it is more likely that she discovered that she could potentially hit the OP for more money after hearing some anecdotal evidence on Rolercoaster or some other gyno-nazi forum of the kind. At the same time, she could be genuinely, and I believe mistakenly, under the impression that this is a requirement for SW.

Like you, the cynic in me thinks it's the former.

It amazes me the stuff thats written on those sites, Sign up as a male and your pretty much garunteed that someone will give you a knife to cut your bits off. Some people honestly get confused by the ****e being spouted on it and it causes problems. My ex even text me demanding holiday money for her going away on her own cos she read it online that it was her rights :eek:. These people campaigning for their rights should learn what their rights are before joining the brigade. That applies to both Mums and Dads

CDfm wrote: »

IMO - someone who keeps thinking court as a solution is confrontational at some level.

Couldnt agree more

K-9 wrote: »

Having said that, I've heard of cases of Judges disallowing Credit Card repayments as Expenses if for purely personal debt. Personally I 'd agree on that if it's purely personal, frivolous expenditure. A child should be more important than that.

In some cases I'd dissagree, I got into money problems as a result of courtcases and as a result I was living off a credit card. Not a nice time. I made the bank a fortune and they wanted it back!!!

mikemac

OP, the Social Welfare assessor offered an opinion but you are not bound by it.
If the same assessors told the mother you were paying too much maintenance would she be contacting you and asking you to pay less? :rolleyes:

If she wants to push this and you can't agree to it, let a judge decide and not some comment from the SW.

The Corinthian

craiginireland wrote: »

Nope you can do it, I was getting ****ed around my my childs mother and unreasonable demand, I went to court myself to get it sorted.

Didn't know you could do that. What happened?

My ex even text me demanding holiday money for her going away on her own cos she read it online that it was her rights :eek:.

Been there.

K-9 wrote: »

The Allies quickly refute the claims.
Whether he/she chooses to listen to the propaganda is up to them.

Tbh, I think you are listening to the noise too much over there.

I gave up listening to anything there a long time ago. The problem with such sites is that they perpetuate a very self-serving morality around parenthood. The principle of "what's good for the mother is good for the child" is often taken to an extreme and you end up with situations where unreasonable or even malicious behaviour is validated and even re-enforced.

In short, it is easy to choose to listen to the propaganda if it suits your ends and so many do, leading them to become hypersensitive to environments where this is not done, such as we have seen here.

mikemac wrote: »

I'd say ye scared the OP away!

Unlikely. The OP had stopped posting long before things got lively here. He may simply not have had time to check in or may feel he has the info he needs already.

CDfm

If the D of SW are doing it surely they will use a Model.

Isnt there a Model they use for Legal Aid Eligability that will give some indication -some of the helplines give it out.

Also- guys have more rights then they think - OP is correct lots of Solicitors are useless at Family Law.

craiginireland

mikemac wrote: »

Hey, I'm no mod and I don't I've posted in this forum before but had a quick read through this thread and what a wreck.

I'd say ye scared the OP away!

That's just sad reality. After Hours is where to go if you wanna bury your head in the sand

The Corinthian wrote: »

Didn't know you could do that. What happened?

I was lucky, had a solicitor -I was applying for a few things at once. My solictor went up to the ex before hand and told her maintance will be x.
And if she wanted to fight it she could.... She didnt and it was agreed.
Had to fill in loads of forms i remember tho.. What did you have for breakfast sort of thing

CDfm

craiginireland wrote: »

That's just sad reality. After Hours is where to go if you wanna bury your head in the sand



I was lucky, had a solicitor -I was applying for a few things at once. My solictor went up to the ex before hand and told her maintance will be x.
And if she wanted to fight it she could.... She didnt and it was agreed.
Had to fill in loads of forms i remember tho.. What did you have for breakfast sort of thing

Good post - the reality is you have to be very clear and prepared- on everything from maintenance to childcare issues.

If the OP is looking for overnight access he should have a full discription of the property and accomadation he is bringing the child to etc.

When you get into it its easy.There are guys who thru lack of funds repreent themselves and are successful at it.

The Corinthian

craiginireland wrote: »

That's just sad reality. After Hours is where to go if you wanna bury your head in the sand

That's a little unfair. We don't know if this is the reason.

Amazotheamazing

OP, ring your local Family District Court Office and ask to speak to a Clerk about it. They can be very helpful and if you want, can suggest a solicitor they think would suit your case.

As it stands, I think so far you have a fairly bad deal going. You are paying a good bit of maintenance for relatively minimal time with your child. You might be glad to be supporting her, but a child needs a father, and it needs a father for more than just a few afternoons a month. Overnight access is a must imo, if you want to develop a proper relationship with your kid. Why is your ex preventing you from overnight access?

I'm not trying to place any blame on either you or your ex, but ask yourself, is what is going on now in the best interest of your daughter? That has to be the main focus.

niall1979

Hi all,
Thanks for the replies,I have not been scared off i just didn't know what else to say.
I have spoken to FLAC & AIM, was too waiting ton the phone to speak with the SW so i hung up. I am pretty sure now that she was calling my bluff,but it could be brought up in court,I will speak to my solicitor,

Why is your ex preventing you from overnight access?

She think my daughter has a good routine and doesn't want to spoil it.I wanted to bring her on holidays this year with my parents,sister,brother in law and 4 nieces/newphews aged 4weeks-6years. I was told she was too young.Thats a joke!.
We don't speak about these matters or argue in front of her, We would meet somewhere to discuss..
I think overnights is a must and the sooner the better for my daughter,
I also think what i'm paying maintenance is appropriate,I pay her medial insurance and buy her clothes/shoes often.the ex lives at home with her parents(Always has),her mother is a home maker and can mind my girl anytime,at the drop of a hat.
This i find is a disaster for me, If she was living out on her own and couldn't get out much or didn't have much of a life.I would be called to mind her or take her for a weekend etc.
anyway thanks for your support, i am pretty confident on overnights from the courts.

craiginireland

The Corinthian wrote: »

That's a little unfair. We don't know if this is the reason.

I wasn't refering to the op specifically. In fact I commend him for taking the steps he has done and will do to ensure the child gets whats best for them.

I meant i know it's not easy and lot of weaker people do bury their heads etc

Amazotheamazing

niall1979 wrote: »

Hi all,

She think my daughter has a good routine and doesn't want to spoil it.I wanted to bring her on holidays this year with my parents,sister,brother in law and 4 nieces/newphews aged 4weeks-6years. I was told she was too young.Thats a joke!.
We don't speak about these matters or argue in front of her, We would meet somewhere to discuss..
I think overnights is a must and the sooner the better for my daughter,
I also think what i'm paying maintenance is appropriate,I pay her medial insurance and buy her clothes/shoes often.the ex lives at home with her parents(Always has),her mother is a home maker and can mind my girl anytime,at the drop of a hat.
This i find is a disaster for me, If she was living out on her own and couldn't get out much or didn't have much of a life.I would be called to mind her or take her for a weekend etc.
anyway thanks for your support, i am pretty confident on overnights from the courts.

A routine is important for a young child, but this doesn't mean you can't be a part of that routine and the routine doesn't have to change just because a different person is minding her for the night. Have you and your ex attended parenting courses? the HSE run some.

I would have thought that the longer you put off overnight access the more disruptive it's going to be on your daughter's routine when it does happen.

CDfm

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

A routine is important for a young child, but this doesn't mean you can't be a part of that routine and the routine doesn't have to change just because a different person is minding her for the night. Have you and your ex attended parenting courses? the HSE run some.

I would have thought that the longer you put off overnight access the more disruptive it's going to be on your daughter's routine when it does happen.

Yes routines are important and not just for children. Its very important that the mother and her parents get into a routine of handing the child over.

Its also great that the OP is so commited and is a great safety net if things go wrong.

Joint Parenting Classes were run by Gingerbread and are not a requirement for overnight access. I dont know if the still do them but they were run by the ex-chairman of Gingerbread who is a man and a father.

LolaDub

Just thought i'd add this in in case it was helpful. When i applied for the one parent benefit there was a section of the form regarding the father, all details including salary. On mine i put down don't know but i was quizzed about this when i went in. I told the inspector what he was on pre promotion when we were together and inspector said he should be paying x amount and therefore i would receive x amount from sw. They did mention the maintenance recovery thing if the father was disagreeable but the father has never contributed at all. It does seem similar to what op said

K-9

craiginireland wrote: »

In some cases I'd dissagree, I got into money problems as a result of courtcases and as a result I was living off a credit card. Not a nice time. I made the bank a fortune and they wanted it back!!!

I did say, personal, frivolous expenditure.

LolaDub wrote: »

Just thought i'd add this in in case it was helpful. When i applied for the one parent benefit there was a section of the form regarding the father, all details including salary. On mine i put down don't know but i was quizzed about this when i went in. I told the inspector what he was on pre promotion when we were together and inspector said he should be paying x amount and therefore i would receive x amount from sw. They did mention the maintenance recovery thing if the father was disagreeable but the father has never contributed at all. It does seem similar to what op said

Did you ever lose money over it?

It could be scare tactics from the SW alright.

Anyway with maintenance, often courts are best to decide. Not an ideal route but at least an independent party decides.

Zynks

niall1979 wrote: »

I am pretty confident on overnights from the courts.

Good luck OP

Superdaddy

niall1979 wrote: »

anyway thanks for your support, i am pretty confident on overnights from the courts.

Best of luck, well done on being a Superdaddy too:) Enjoy your time with your little girl:)

MammaTina

Have you contacted the USFI? This is an organisation that looks after rights for unmarried and separated fathers. They should be able to give you good advice. The website is USFI.ie and all contact numbers are on the site.
Good Luck!

994

TargetWidow wrote: »

She wouldn't go through all the hassle of getting it at all if she wasn't really stuck in the first place. Its thirty something extra quid a week.

Very very naive. She may be just doing it to get at him. €1,600 a year is quite a bit.

"Is there any way you can come up with it to see to it that your little girl has everything she needs?"

How do you know she won't spend it on herself??

The Corinthian

994 wrote: »

How do you know she won't spend it on herself??

I think that's a little unfair to most single mothers and realistically the level of maintenance would have to certainly be over the district court levels before it seriously could be abused.

However, it is a flaw in the system of how maintenance is handled, in that once transferred, there is no accountability. The theory goes that if a father earns more then the child should benifit more, and thus get more maintanance - so that instead of getting runners from Dunnes, the child should be able to get runners from Nike, for example.

Unfortunately, the accountability ends there and while the father may be ordered to pay so that his child can get runners from Nike, the mother can still buy the pair from Dunnes and pocket the rest.

Kildrought

The country is of course awash with Lone Parents driving expensive cars, taking three holidays abroad every year and wearing haute couture ....

The Corinthian

Kildrought wrote: »

The country is of course awash with Lone Parents driving expensive cars, taking three holidays abroad every year and wearing haute couture ....

Of course not, but don't let that stop you adopting a straw man argument.

CDfm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Of course not, but don't let that stop you adopting a straw man argument.

Equality please - straw man is a perjorative misandrist term. Now straw woman I have no objection to.;)

But, of course, here the court system is being used to scare the father from applying for more access with threats of a maintenance application. When making his application the OP should detail this as part of his affadavit and raise it with the judge.

shaca

How can the SW say that you have to pay "x" amount to your ex without knowing your circumstances. They cant just go by your earnings, can they? Surely they have to take mortage and car loan etc. into account. Does your ex have all these details? I know the sw used to interview the father too.