Will she get more maintenance?

goodmum

Just wondering if anyone has been in Family law courts recently - I've heard it's packed because there are many men losing jobs and can't afford maintenance.

My friend is due back to court in two weeks. Her son is 6 and at her last maintenance hearing, she was awarded €75pw. That was 3 years ago. Since then, her son has started school and obviously taken up soccer practice and other activities at the weekend (not majorly expensive). Her ex has no involvement with his son (his own choice) so doesn't contribute to any extras.

However he has recently had a new baby and lives (in his home) with new partner. They are both on good salaries and both jobs are secure.

She's wondering if she should bother with court now, as she's aware that a new baby will take up huges costs and no doubt, her ex will maintain that he has no extra cash for his 6 year old. She has hired a solicitor to 'fight' her corner because she genuinely needs more money from him - her childcare alone is €150pw as she works long hours. She is single and working f/t but paying a big mortage too.
Any thoughts?

RedXIV

I'm by no means an expert but i've a little experience in this area and in this economic climate, he'd want to be pulling in serious cash for her to be awarded any more money. €75pw is not bad, having seen alot of women get a mere €10pw. Also, as far as i'm aware, the fact his partner has a good job is irrelevant, as her income isn't taken into account.

On a personal level, i'm sure he's not going to be too impressed either that just as he's about to start incurring serious costs of his own, that your friend starts putting pressure on him for more cash.

I could be wrong of course, but just venturing an opinion

goodmum

I only mentioned his new partners salary because it will obviously be taken into account when the costs of the new baby are taken into consideration,as in there are two salaries paying that creche fee and two salaries contributing towards all costs associated with the new baby.

And I doubt if she cares whether he's impressed or not tbh...he hasn't had any contact with this child and she's raised him alone for 6 years. So she's not concerned with 'impressing' him or otherwise.

Like I said, her childcare alone is €150 so his €75 only contributes 50% of that cost alone. Surely she should be entitled to more?

Depuy lady

Goodmum

I have just been down the route of apply for more maintenance and I got an extra €10 a week. My maintenance of €70 a week doesn't cover half my daughters costs for the week at all. I pay majority of her costs. But what I did negotiate in court was that my ex contribute to half school costs such as uniform and books which will happen once a year, half medical expenses which I will look for towards the end of the year at which point I will show him medical receipts from the doctor and half any other cost which occurs out of the norm such as speech therapy.

It's a fair deal. If I'm being honest Im happy that I can support my daughter on my own and that the maintenance money isnt something I spend every week I try and save it and use then for a big expense for my daughter.

I guess it does all depend on the judge on the day in court

Kildrought

You don't need a soltr to apply for maintenance; the procedure is straightforward and a soltr is unnecessary expense.

see also www.solo.ie for a good spreadsheet on calculating maintenance.

goodmum

Thanks for those replies.

I must mention that one to her about negotiating school costs because I know she's dreading September again what with shcool books and uniform etc.

And thanks kildrought, I know she doesn't need a solicitor but she's been to court 6 times with this fella already - he's very intimidatin - she was only awarded the 75 in the last court case because she had a solicitor. Before that, she had settled on 30pw because she gets quite intimidated by him and is afraid to speak up unfortunately. He's never been violent towards her..more emotional abuse...

Danes

I was in Family Court last Wednesday as my exhusband is claming that from the end of this month he will only be working 27 hours a week. He had no paper work to prove this though so the judge adjourned until July. In the meantime he reduced my maintenance fairly substantially. Having said that, I recently remarried so that affected it too.

The courts are packed with men claiming they need a reduction in their maintenance as the recession hits. The judges say they can't award what they don't have but I wonder what kind of man (or woman) economises by depriving their children. Those of us whose children live with us have to provide for them regardless of how the recession hits us.

If I had a choice, I would steer clear of the courts at the moment

goodmum

Thank you for that Danes.

The difference is she has proof of his earnings AND himself and his partner drive 09 cars which must mean they have money? Her sister works in the same company as him (accounts dept) which is why she knows what he earns..so while he's had the same tax cuts as the rest of us, there's been no reduction in salary or hours etc..However, like I said I imagine he'll have alot of costs associated with the baby like creche fees etc

The Corinthian

goodmum wrote: »

The difference is she has proof of his earnings AND himself and his partner drive 09 cars which must mean they have money? Her sister works in the same company as him (accounts dept) which is why she knows what he earns..

If this proof were to be presented in court, her sister would likely be dismissed from her job. So proof that cannot be used is worth as much as no proof at all.

goodmum

Look, she's not stupid and wouldn't obviously produce this proof in court.

All I'm saying is she knows his earnings and knows that he is in a good financial position now. And it would be up to him to prove otherwise I guess.

She served him with a summons and is going back for a variance.

Lolaa

Just because they drive '09 cars doesnt mean they have money! They may have finance out on these - therefore another expense he may be able to claim that he cant afford more maintenance.

elli21

Lolaa wrote: »

Just because they drive '09 cars doesnt mean they have money! They may have finance out on these - therefore another expense he may be able to claim that he cant afford more maintenance.

Very sad situation when a parent is willing to sit infront of a judge and claim they can't afford more for their child as they have finance on a 09 car.....

A bit of a strange thing to say IMO as most parents I know put their children needs first ,then work out what car they can afford.

Rev Hellfire

elli21 wrote: »

Very sad situation when a parent is willing to sit infront of a judge and claim they can't afford more for their child as they have finance on a 09 car.....

A bit of a strange thing to say IMO as most parents I know put their children needs first ,then work out what car they can afford.

Perhaps the car is a company car, perhaps their partner covers the financing of it, the list goes on.

The simple fact is all you typically get in posts like this is a one sided hatchet job.

goodmum

This is not a one sided hatchet job!

He inherited money last year and owns both cars. He has never had any contact with his 6 yr old son because he's 'not interested' (his words).

They are both facts.

She's a wonderful mum to this little fella but she constantly struggles financially. She rarely gets out and would often borrow small amounts of money from me to literally 'put food on the table'. Meanwhile, her ex is financially stable. Surely she is entitled to more financial contribution from her sons father?

stupidsometimes

Fathers like him make me hate men sometimes. It is seriously appalling that they see fit to engage in sexual intercourse but not willing to take any responsibility for the consequences of the end result.

I pity your friend, she has no option but to keep paying no matter how much is needed but he only coughs up enough to pay for half the childcare costs. That means she has full responsibility for feeding him, clothing him, medical costs, school stuff, pasttimes.

My heart goes out to your friend.

Rev Hellfire

goodmum wrote: »

This is not a one sided hatchet job!

Of course it's one sided, after all the 'facts' are coming one interested party.

goodmum wrote: »

She rarely gets out and would often borrow small amounts of money from me to literally 'put food on the table'. Meanwhile, her ex is financially stable.

Its not his responsiblity to ensure she gets out :rolleyes:

goodmum wrote: »

Surely she is entitled to more financial contribution from her sons father?

I'd agree that if his financial circumstances has improved he has a moral obligation to pass some of that new found wealth to the child.

The Corinthian

stupidsometimes wrote: »

It is seriously appalling that they see fit to engage in sexual intercourse but not willing to take any responsibility for the consequences of the end result.

Err... morning after pill, abortion, adoption..?

goodmum

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Of course it's one sided, after all the 'facts' are coming one interested party.


Its not his responsiblity to ensure she gets out :rolleyes:


I'd agree that if his financial circumstances has improved he has a moral obligation to pass some of that new found wealth to the child.

Where did I say it was HIS responsibilty that she gets out exactly? I mentioned that she never gets out purely to explain the fact that she has very little money.

And so a onesided story is a hatchet job???? Like I said, the facts are there. He inherited money. He drives a (fully paid for) 09 car. I didn't get into the emotion attached to how she's doing. Just stated facts. Can't see where that becomes a hatchet job.

And she chose to have the child. Yes, there were options like adoption/abortion, but she chose to have the child. Some might say that in doing so, she 'made her bed and should lie on it' so to speak and raise the child alone. But in this case, he only decided he didn't want to be involved anymore when she was heavily pregnant so it was well past the point where any other decision could be made.

The Corinthian

goodmum wrote: »

And she chose to have the child. Yes, there were options like adoption/abortion, but she chose to have the child. Some might say that in doing so, she 'made her bed and should lie on it' so to speak and raise the child alone. But in this case, he only decided he didn't want to be involved anymore when she was heavily pregnant so it was well past the point where any other decision could be made.

If this is directed at me, I was not suggesting she had 'made her bed and should lie on it' or even responding to anything you said. I was simply pointing out to another poster that they were being just a teeny-weenie bit hypocritical.

As for the guy's involvement or supposed change of heart, as Rev Hellfire pointed out, we only have one side of the story (and in fairness in these situations both sides tend to get 'revised' a fair bit after the fact).

Maybe he did a U-turn late in the pregnancy (which still would not have ruled adoption out). Maybe he was never terribly interested, but she only got the message late in the pregnancy (hope springs eternal, after all). And maybe, whether he changed his mind or not, it wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference to her own choice. Who knows?

stupidsometimes

The Corinthian wrote: »

Err... morning after pill, abortion, adoption..?

This is Ireland and not a lot of people believe in those actions.

The Corinthian

stupidsometimes wrote: »

This is Ireland and not a lot of people believe in those actions.

So you are equally appalled by those who "not willing to take any responsibility for the consequences of the end result" regardless of gender then, or just men?

And is there some religious opposition to adoption in Ireland?

Lolaa

Lolaa wrote: »

"Very sad situation when a parent is willing to sit infront of a judge and claim they can't afford more for their child as they have finance on a 09 car.....

A bit of a strange thing to say IMO as most parents I know put their children needs first ,then work out what car they can afford."

That was just an example of an expense that the ex might have - as in the OP made it a point to mention he was driving an '09 car - which i think is neither here nor there - doesnt mean i wouldnt put a child before a car

elli21

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Perhaps the car is a company car, perhaps their partner covers the financing of it, the list goes on.

The simple fact is all you typically get in posts like this is a one sided hatchet job.

.

I was referring to lolaa's post ,not Op.
Lolaa's says "They may have finance out on these-therefore another expense he may claim that he can't afford more maintenance"

IMO lolaa was referring to an expense coming from the parents own pocket.