Give it or not?

blond45

hi guys,just a question my husband has two other duaghters, one is 22, the other is 20 going to college and working at weekend when she comes back home to galway for weekend. before all this happend the court said he has to pay 150 weekly until she finishs school age eg collage. she has a grant, im sure she gets other fees , does anyone know about these things . he is now no job at the end of june. what do ye think? he,s going back to court next week.

Southsider1

If his circumstances have changed he can apply for a change to the court order. Needs to see a lawyer.

LegacyUser

<mod snip>

It's his business to discuss this with ex partner, kids, legal advisor... if he has no job, it can surely be adjusted to reflect this.

Denerick

150 snots + grant is ludicrous to be honest. Especially if he lost his job.

blond45

when the leveys were put on his wages he had to cut it down to 50e. he is 100e out of pocket and she was going to collage at that time. she owes him 7,000.cos she was working full time which she should have told him that she was cos the maintinence is for her college only or till shes 23. being a good that he is he kept paying it even though i told him i saw her al the time in working. he is now back in front of the judge on wednesday hoping it will be cut to nothing. the job loss is going to be at the end of june , his work mates were told last thursday that they wont have a job after the 30.we dont know what grant she has , theres 25% 75% and 100%. i done some dective work to find out if she did get grant.

ash23

The grant won't cover all her costs as a student. It will go part of the way but realistically, she is also paying for accomodation (or if she's living at home, transport). She might be working at weekends but when exams etc are approaching she'll have to give up work for a while. Depending on her course she may not be able to work at weekends once she gets into her 2nd/3rd year as the workload can increase dramatically.

He can put forward his case to the courts but he really should be helping support his child through college.

blond45

she was working all last year. he still payed the 150e when he had it . now he dont but pays 60e to date. the order is he pays 150 til she finishes school or till 23. she on the other hand didnt let himknow that she was working full time to stop the payment till she went back to school. her mother told her not to. the mother threw out the older daughter she now lives with us . more money in shopping, she dont work . im her councellor cos the mother wasnt very nice to her.always shouting and cursing her.going back to the other one he is giving over 60 e a week.the girl dont see the cash cos it goes into the mothers account. he cant give what he dont have . dont think they herd of ressision.

LegacyUser

blond45 wrote: »

when the leveys were put on his wages he had to cut it down to 50e. he is 100e out of pocket and she was going to collage at that time. she owes him 7,000.cos she was working full time which she should have told him that she was cos the maintinence is for her college only or till shes 23. being a good that he is he kept paying it even though i told him i saw her al the time in working. he is now back in front of the judge on wednesday hoping it will be cut to nothing. the job loss is going to be at the end of june , his work mates were told last thursday that they wont have a job after the 30.we dont know what grant she has , theres 25% 75% and 100%. i done some dective work to find out if she did get grant.

I am sorry you sound like you are begrudging his daughter of money to help her make something of herself.And if anyone should been doing detective work it should be him.My husband has kids from previous relationship and i would not stick my nose in to his finances were paying for them is concerned.It is up to the courts and up to him and if he wants to put it to the courts he is earning less then he will. It seems like you are implying she is robbing her father.Never forget this his kids should come first.He is old enough to make his own choices were his finances are concerned not like you are paying for her.He knew she was working be it as may she should have told him still be that as may,you gave him that information and he kept paying isnt nothing good about it he is her father and his duty and he obviously wants to.Support him thats all you are meant to do in his choices.

Denerick

Is there some sort of class thing going on here? Since when has a parent been obliged to keep funding a child up to 23. Plenty of people go to college and don't get that much money from their folks. I know some who don't get any financial support at all. If the father can't pay, then thats the end of the story, sorry. A 22 year old shouldn't be entitled to financial backing from her parents, whether she's in college or not. Its a privilige, not an entitlement.

LegacyUser

Sorry OP but you need to butt out. These are his kids, not yours and why shouldn't he help his daughters out. I take it you're not from this country going from your sentences and spelling, so maybe its a culture thing but in this country the general consensus is that peoples children come first before girlfriends or boyfriends. You don't have the right to tell him to stop paying them the money.

uoluol

It's standard maintenance clause that the child is supported until the age of 18 or 23 if in full time education.

But if the OP's partner's circumstances have changed, he should apply to the courts to get the original maintenance agreement changed. It's pretty commonplace these days.

blond45

confusedmuch wrote: »

Sorry OP but you need to butt out. These are his kids, not yours and why shouldn't he help his daughters out. I take it you're not from this country going from your sentences and spelling, so maybe its a culture thing but in this country the general consensus is that peoples children come first before girlfriends or boyfriends. You don't have the right to tell him to stop paying them the money.

dont tell me what to do . i am 100% irish. i have seen the man working his fingers to the bone. he pays 60e weekly.was 150. his wage has cut like everyone else. theres more to the story. now they are adults 22 and 23 not kids. to me kids are o-18.

kraggy

The OP isn't butting in. She's just concerned about her other half being taken for a ride.

Give her a break.

If I felt my partner was being taken advantage of, I'd be concerned too.

Paying money up to the age of 23 is unfair on him I think myself.

jimmycrackcorm

pirateslayer wrote: »

I am sorry you sound like you are begrudging his daughter of money to help her make something of herself.And if anyone should been doing detective work it should be him.My husband has kids from previous relationship and i would not stick my nose in to his finances were paying for them is concerned..

He is paying 150 per week for a child - now if he had 8 kids then do you think he'd be forced, acutally able, to pay that for each? So if it's not possible for 8 kids then why is it reasonable for one?

aidan24326

uoluol wrote: »

It's standard maintenance clause that the child is supported until the age of 18 or 23 if in full time education.

If that's true it's a bullsh1t law. I do think that a parent's legal obligations are/should be finished once you reach 18, and are finsihed leaving cert. Now I know most decent parents will help out with putting their kids through 3rd level as much as possible, and so they should, but I really can't see why any parent should be legally obliged to support their offspring up to the age of 23, regardless of whether they're in college or not. If short of money to go to college, a person at that age has other options. Work for a couple of years, save up money and then go to college when you can afford it. Or sign on for a while and get back to education allowance.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

blond45 wrote: »

dont tell me what to do . i am 100% irish. i have seen the man working his fingers to the bone. he pays 60e weekly.was 150. his wage has cut like everyone else. theres more to the story. now they are adults 22 and 23 not kids. to me kids are o-18.

To you kids can be one thing, but to the state, which matters in this case, the kids have to be cared for if they are in fulltime education up until the age of 23.

confusedmuch wrote: »

Sorry OP but you need to butt out. These are his kids, not yours and why shouldn't he help his daughters out. I take it you're not from this country going from your sentences and spelling, so maybe its a culture thing but in this country the general consensus is that peoples children come first before girlfriends or boyfriends. You don't have the right to tell him to stop paying them the money.

What an ignorant comment... I guess it's ok though, since you are unreg...

kraggy wrote: »

The OP isn't butting in. She's just concerned about her other half being taken for a ride.

Give her a break.

If I felt my partner was being taken advantage of, I'd be concerned too.

Paying money up to the age of 23 is unfair on him I think myself.

It can seen as unfair, but that's the way it is.

If she is in part-time work, and gets the grant, and this 150 from her dad, then she shouldn't be entitled to that grant in the first place, from what I can remember, it's means tested? I'd look into that if I were you.

There's taking and then there's being very greedy.

LegacyUser

blond45 wrote: »

dont tell me what to do . i am 100% irish. i have seen the man working his fingers to the bone. he pays 60e weekly.was 150. his wage has cut like everyone else. theres more to the story. now they are adults 22 and 23 not kids. to me kids are o-18.

Sorry OP, but they are his kids his flesh and blood regardless of their age, why do you have a problem with him supporting his children, would you be happy if you fell pregnant and he left you then a few years down the line his new gf was giving out because he's supporting his kids.

LegacyUser

Rowan Rancid Tentacle wrote: »

What an ignorant comment... I guess it's ok though, since you are unreg...
.

Why is it ignorant it's the truth. I can't stand peoples bfs/gfs trying to become between parents and their children or dictating what they do. I'm ungreg because i'm waiting for my password, is that okay with you.

Xterminator

It appears ignorant to me because you are bringing your own personal hangups to this discussion.

you assume the OP's motives are because she begrudges the money to his children, when in fact all she has written is that he i struggling to make ends meet himself, and is in fact supporting ADULTS not children.

Even if you dont agree with her, at least you can acknowledge her concerns are genuine and perhaps that she does have to right to be concerned as to his welfare.

LegacyUser

Xterminator wrote: »

It appears ignorant to me because you are bringing your own personal hangups to this discussion.

you assume the OP's motives are because she begrudges the money to his children, when in fact all she has written is that he i struggling to make ends meet himself, and is in fact supporting ADULTS not children.

Even if you dont agree with her, at least you can acknowledge her concerns are genuine and perhaps that she does have to right to be concerned as to his welfare.

Personal hangups?? Yes of course she is concerned about her husband as are most people in this current climate. That still doesn't justify poking around in his daughters business and having a problem with him helping them out. While they may be Adults they are still his daughters, and its not for anyone else to say he should or shouldn't give them money,well except for the courts that is.

metrovelvet

Wow. You want to deprive your bf's children of money they are entitled to? That's not very nice. Do you want it all for yourself?

OS119

metrovelvet wrote: »

Wow. You want to deprive your bf's children of money they are entitled to? That's not very nice. Do you want it all for yourself?

that may not be fair MV, while i'd agree about the dodgyness of current girlfriends getting involved in the financial affairs of parents and their children/grown-up kids, if she is suffering (joint loans not being paid off on time, maybe mortgage repayments or rent in jeopardy, possibly even just a marked decrease in their standard of living) because his income has gone down yet his maintainence hasn't, then she has a right to express concern.

she may be, in effect, paying for him while he pays for his kids. that absolutely gives her the right to challenge him about the situation. if she's happy to agree to that arrangement then fine, but she doesn't have too - they're his kids, not hers, and its not her 'duty' to take a financial hit so that he can continue to pay his kids what he can't affaord.

ash23

He's already cut the maintenance in half. He is unaware of whether or not the child is getting a full grant or part grant. If he is capable of supporting his child through college at all then he should.

It seems that he has the attitude (going on the OPs posts) that the money is going into the moms pocket and therefore the money is begrudged.

Op, tell him to go to court and see how he gets on.
As for whether it's "right" that the child is supported to 23 while in full time education, well the child didn't ask for mom and dad to split, didn't ask for there to be 2 homes to be run and didn't ask for dad to get himself a 2nd family/girlfriend etc.

My standard of living decreased dramatically when my OH left me for another woman. Not my daughters fault but she is paying the price for his choices as is the OPs step daughter. Paying for the sins of the mother/father.

Denerick

Thats all well and good but you assume quite a lot there. For all you know the mother could eat live kittens for breakfast and then dance over the graves of newborn puppies after dinner. Don't assume straight away that the father is some kind of skirt chasing chancer.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

confusedmuch wrote: »

Personal hangups?? Yes of course she is concerned about her husband as are most people in this current climate. That still doesn't justify poking around in his daughters business and having a problem with him helping them out. While they may be Adults they are still his daughters, and its not for anyone else to say he should or shouldn't give them money,well except for the courts that is.

It does when she is effected. Either way, you do not know her motives. You are only making assumptions. The op has every right to intervene if she is being effected. If she has to support her OH because he is paying a lot of money to his children when he shouldn't be (hypotheticaly speaking) then it is very much her business.

confusedmuch wrote: »

Why is it ignorant it's the truth. I can't stand peoples bfs/gfs trying to become between parents and their children or dictating what they do. I'm ungreg because i'm waiting for my password, is that okay with you.

It is ignorant because we all lack the knowledge to and authority to pass judgement here. You assumed that she was from another country because of her typing. Probability would suggest that she is from an older generation and they didn't have PC's. You also assumed that she wants him to stop paying his kids money. You make the assumption that his kids are entitled to it, they may not be if they have other incomes. See where I am going?

Denerick wrote: »

Thats all well and good but you assume quite a lot there. For all you know the mother could eat live kittens for breakfast and then dance over the graves of newborn puppies after dinner. Don't assume straight away that the father is some kind of skirt chasing chancer.

That's the problem, people give opinions and go over the top based on the little information we have. Read the OP, don't twist it to your agenda and then comment on it. It's in black and white, we cannot assume anything. Assumptions should be banned from this forum :P

LegacyUser

Rowan Rancid Tentacle wrote: »

It does when she is effected. Either way, you do not know her motives. You are only making assumptions. The op has every right to intervene if she is being effected. If she has to support her OH because he is paying a lot of money to his children when he shouldn't be (hypotheticaly speaking) then it is very much her business.



It is ignorant because we all lack the knowledge to and authority to pass judgement here. You assumed that she was from another country because of her typing. Probability would suggest that she is from an older generation and they didn't have PC's. You also assumed that she wants him to stop paying his kids money. You make the assumption that his kids are entitled to it, they may not be if they have other incomes. See where I am going?

Sorry but the last I checked words are spelled the same whether they are typed or written on a piece of paper. Call them assumptions or whatever you like, the OP can leave if she's not happy about her money being spent if that is what her problem is but she's no right to tell the husband not to be supporting his kids whether they are entitled to it or not, he should want to help out. I can't believe the attitude of some people, ah sure the court says I don't have to give money to my son/daughter so I won't bother. Any decent self respecting human being should want to help their sons/daughters.


That's the problem, people give opinions and go over the top based on the little information we have. Read the OP, don't twist it to your agenda and then comment on it. It's in black and white, we cannot assume anything. Assumptions should be banned from this forum :P

It's not about assumptions, the OP has a problem with the husband given money to his daughters, for whatever reason. I disagree with this that is not an assumption it's a fact.

LegacyUser

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

He is paying 150 per week for a child - now if he had 8 kids then do you think he'd be forced, acutally able, to pay that for each? So if it's not possible for 8 kids then why is it reasonable for one?

He actually isnt he is paying 60 euro a week now,So he? she? is looking to get him to pay less or maybe nothing.If he is concerned he has a lawyer why is she here asking questions his lawyer can answer?
Op stated she is getting grants and wants to know what they are why? Because from her post it looks like she is making like the daughter is robbing her father and not telling him.
I am sure his daughter if he talked to her and realised the situation of her fathers finances would allow him to cut them if she indeed is living so wealthy as full time student as she is trying to make out.

ash23

Denerick wrote: »

Thats all well and good but you assume quite a lot there. For all you know the mother could eat live kittens for breakfast and then dance over the graves of newborn puppies after dinner. Don't assume straight away that the father is some kind of skirt chasing chancer.

I don't believe I said that. Whatever the reason for the breakup, whoevers fault it was, the mother is the custodial parent and therefore the father pays maintenance. It is not the daughters fault her family broke down. it is not her fault if the mother uses the maintenance for beer and make-up or if the father has another family to support etc.

Point is that she is trying to get through college. The mother feeds and clothes her, puts a roof over her head and food on the table. The op doesn't feel the girl is being starved or neglected so I can assume this to be true.
So the dad has to help with this. Not the childs fault what happened. it's pretty much rule of thumb (social welfare. child benefit etc) that a child is to be supported until 18 or 23 if they are in full time education.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

confusedmuch wrote: »

It's not about assumptions, the OP has a problem with the husband given money to his daughters, for whatever reason. I disagree with this that is not an assumption it's a fact.

It has everything to do with assumptions, you don't just jump into a problem and assume certain criteria to make your opinion "fact". You don't have the full story, so you do not know, therefore what you state is not fact but an assumption. You even stated "for whatever reason", yet you seem to have an answer even though you don't know the full problem. How is that even possible?

pirate slayer wrote: »

He actually isnt he is paying 60 euro a week now,So he? she? is looking to get him to pay less or maybe nothing.If he is concerned he has a lawyer why is she here asking questions his lawyer can answer?
Op stated she is getting grants and wants to know what they are why? Because from her post it looks like she is making like the daughter is robbing her father and not telling him.
I am sure his daughter if he talked to her and realised the situation of her fathers finances would allow him to cut them if she indeed is living so wealthy as full time student as she is trying to make out.

Nobody can be sure of anything. If the ops OH confronts his daughter there may be some sort of compromise. It would not be fair for him to be paying money to them if they are already making a lot of money. Something is very odd, if they have a part-time job, getting a grant and maintanance.

ash23

Rowan Rancid Tentacle wrote: »

Something is very odd, if they have a part-time job, getting a grant and maintanance.

Not at all.

I am the youngest of a family of 6(separated parents). Myself and my sister went to college and got a full grant. We also worked part time and my mum got maintenance for us (a lot from my dads point of view but not a lot to raise 6 kids on). We had a council house, medical cards and my mother got a reduced rate of OPFA. Everything was means tested on my mother and fathers earnings.

Working part time does not affect a grant as far as I am aware.



Anyway, even a full time grant is just over 3k per year. So thats about 58 per week. Plus her maintenance of €60 plus her wages of what? About 130?

So a 23 year old in full time education and part time employment, paying for travel, rent, books, courses, socialising and food and clothing on €250 per week?
Hardly living in the lap of luxury is she?
The dole is €200 plus rent allowance. Bearing in mind the girl needs to study so would have to cut her hours at exam time and probably in final year etc.

Denerick

ash23 wrote: »

So the dad has to help with this. Not the childs fault what happened. it's pretty much rule of thumb (social welfare. child benefit etc) that a child is to be supported until 18 or 23 if they are in full time education.

No it's not. Some families simply can't afford to put their kids through college. Again I see some sort of class divide here, were middle class people see it as a basic entitlement whereas its actually a privilege that you have no right to expect. If the father can't pay, then the 22 year old daughter has to make her own way in life. You'd swear thats a horrible prospect, but most people don't expect to live off handouts from their parents after 18!

blond45

confusedmuch wrote: »

Sorry OP, but they are his kids his flesh and blood regardless of their age, why do you have a problem with him supporting his children, would you be happy if you fell pregnant and he left you then a few years down the line his new gf was giving out because he's supporting his kids.

look you ,you dont know what your rabbiting on about. so you BUTT out. her mother is living with her partner. he has being taken for a rid all the way .she has 6,000e for grant. she got that without claiming she gets 150 weekly.

LegacyUser

Rowan Rancid Tentacle wrote: »

It has everything to do with assumptions, you don't just jump into a problem and assume certain criteria to make your opinion "fact". You don't have the full story, so you do not know, therefore what you state is not fact but an assumption. You even stated "for whatever reason", yet you seem to have an answer even though you don't know the full problem. How is that even possible?


Nobody can be sure of anything. If the ops OH confronts his daughter there may be some sort of compromise. It would not be fair for him to be paying money to them if they are already making a lot of money. Something is very odd, if they have a part-time job, getting a grant and maintanance.

Look the OP said in her post, daughter getting money, OP not happy about it. This was what i'm talking about, you're just talking nonsense now.

LegacyUser

blond45 wrote: »

look you ,you dont know what your rabbiting on about. so you BUTT out. her mother is living with her partner. he has being taken for a rid all the way .she has 6,000e for grant. she got that without claiming she gets 150 weekly.

I really don't like your tone, quiet aggressive. Does her father know she's getting 150e a week? If he does then what's the problem. Do you think you could lilve off 6k a year? Besides it's really irrelevant he has to support her until she's 23, Deal with it and stop being a nasty interfering girlfriend trying to come between a man and his daughters, you should be ashamed of your carry on.

Balmed Out

Cant see why she needs that at all surely the grant covers accomodation. Is her home too far off to commute?
I didnt get a grant and parents had no intention of supporting me either but i did get to stay home for free and travel in the 70 min bus journey eavh day. Most of my friends did same and worked all weekend and few evenings each week.

ash23

Balmed Out wrote: »

Cant see why she needs that at all surely the grant covers accomodation. Is her home too far off to commute?
I didnt get a grant and parents had no intention of supporting me either but i did get to stay home for free and travel in the 70 min bus journey eavh day. Most of my friends did same and worked all weekend and few evenings each week.

The grant is 3000 per year. So no, it wouldn't cover accomodation. When I was in college 10 years ago my room in a crappy house was €60 per week. A quick browse on daft.ie indicates a room now in the same area would be about €70 per week. Which is 3640 per year.

The OP doesn't even know if the daughter is getting the full grant.

Like you and your friends, I worked during uni. We all did. However I didn't have parental financial support. So at exam time I couldn't take time off. That was fine the first couple of years. But as costs of books and travel increased, hours needed for study increased and I ended up working 30 hours a week to cover costs plus trying to juggle college. Ergo, lots of failed exams, late assignments, total burnout and eventually dropping out.

A part time job will not cover books, labs(if applicable) and travel, food and balance of rent, clothing and some semblance of a social life.

So who is picking up the remainder of the tab at the moment? Mam and Dad. Except dad doesn't want to.

LegacyUser

I think a lot of people are being very biased here.
I'm 24 and my parents gave me the best start in life until after my leaving cert (private school and the rest).
Straight after my leaving cert I got a job and started paying for myself. As they told me themselves, they had done their best.... the rest was up to me. Most of my friends have parents who are comfortable/wealthy also, none of whom get hand-outs of any kind from their folks.
€60 pw I wish!

metrovelvet

Grants do not exist so that parents can fobb off their responnsibilities. They still have to make contributions to their children.

ash23

SillyStuff wrote: »

I think a lot of people are being very biased here.
I'm 24 and my parents gave me the best start in life until after my leaving cert (private school and the rest).
Straight after my leaving cert I got a job and started paying for myself. As they told me themselves, they had done their best.... the rest was up to me. Most of my friends have parents who are comfortable/wealthy also, none of whom get hand-outs of any kind from their folks.
€60 pw I wish!

Are you in full time education?
If you aren't then thats fair enough to say that.

If you are, are you saying that your parents have NEVER helped you with anything? That you live out of home, pay for all food, clothing, ESB, heating, books, travel etc yourself while also attending a full time college course?

OS119

metrovelvet wrote: »

Grants do not exist so that parents can fobb off their responnsibilities. They still have to make contributions to their children.

and in exactly the same way as children within 'nuclear' families do, the children of seperated parents have to live within the incomes and assets that their parents have.

if the father can genuinely no longer afford to provide 'X' level of support then the children can't have it - and its abolsutely not the duty of the parents new partners to plug the financial gap.

omahaid

SillyStuff wrote: »

I think a lot of people are being very biased here.
I'm 24 and my parents gave me the best start in life until after my leaving cert (private school and the rest).
Straight after my leaving cert I got a job and started paying for myself. As they told me themselves, they had done their best.... the rest was up to me. Most of my friends have parents who are comfortable/wealthy also, none of whom get hand-outs of any kind from their folks.
€60 pw I wish!

I agree with you. I worked 4 12 hour night shifts during full time college and paid every one of my own bills. Why would I expect my parents to pay for me? I have a child of my own and I will pay for them through college if I can, but if like the OP's partner, I find myself in hard times, then I will expect my child to pay as well.

I think it's crazy a parent is forced to pay for a child through college. College is not a right, no matter what anyone says.

Xiney

confusedmuch, I will not be approving any further posts along the lines you have been going down here.

OP, I think you have a point. You did not mind when your husband was supporting his daughter through college and he had a well paying job, but since then things have gotten tighter financially and you have become aware that your step-daughter may have gotten a grant through fraudulent means.

Furthermore, you are concerned that the money is not being used by the daughter at all but that your husband's ex, who has NO entitlement to it, is using it.

However, I would be concerned about the fact that he is only paying half of what the court ordered him to without court permission, if I've read the thread correctly. This may not show up well in court.

150 a week (or 60 at this stage) when you're soon to be on the dole is insanity.


If I were you, I would challenge the maintenance with any evidence of the grant she is receiving. If they order that maintenance in any amount continues to be paid, I would ask that it be paid into the daughter's account and not the mother's.

Kimia

ash23 wrote: »

So a 23 year old in full time education and part time employment, paying for travel, rent, books, courses, socialising and food and clothing on €250 per week?
Hardly living in the lap of luxury is she?

Ash, I agree with a lot of what you've said, but if I was living on €250 per week when I was a student I would have been delirious with excitement over my riches.

Hell, if I was living on €250 NOW a week I'd be delighted.

Back on topic, OP as the wife/partner of the dad, you have a right to be consulted about the way he spends his money. If the agreement was that he pays €150 per week (regardless of the child's part time job or communion money or whatever) then that's what he should pay.

However if he loses his job and the means to pay this money, then he may be entitled to investigate lowering this payment.

But he still has a responsibility towards his child and by the way that's not just regarding money.

ash23

I did say that the OPs OH should go to court and based on the proof of earnings etc, have the amount reduced if the court deems it necessary.
However I disagree with him stopping the maintenance just because he "thinks" the child doesn't need it or he "thinks" the mother is using it for herself or he "thinks" she's too old.
That is my gripe with it. He cannot take matters into his own hands based on his assumptions etc.
Go to court, lay out all the proof in front of a judge who will make a decision for them based on that and not on personal issues.

Kimia

ash23 wrote: »

However I disagree with him stopping the maintenance just because he "thinks" the child doesn't need it or he "thinks" the mother is using it for herself or he "thinks" she's too old.
That is my gripe with it. He cannot take matters into his own hands based on his assumptions etc.
Go to court, lay out all the proof in front of a judge who will make a decision for them based on that and not on personal issues.

Agreed. OP it's fairly straightforward.

LegacyUser

ash23 wrote: »

Are you in full time education?
If you aren't then thats fair enough to say that.

If you are, are you saying that your parents have NEVER helped you with anything? That you live out of home, pay for all food, clothing, ESB, heating, books, travel etc yourself while also attending a full time college course?

Yes Ash23 I am saying that. I was a UCD studend finished now thank god. I worked 3 days a week and earned €300. I didn't live too frugally. Bought my own car, clothes etc... food costs nothing if you shop smart & plan meals. I bought second hand books/lab kit where possible. My bills were roughly €200 pw I was running a car and living away from home.
What I am saying is that I could have gone to my parents if really I needed to I could have lived at home if I wanted to but I wanted to do it on my own and it is very possible!

I can honestly say that I will do all I can to give my children the same start in life that I have had. I will probably help them out (depending on my financial situation) but I would not give them money to socialise. They would be more than welcome to live at home and travel to a local college but I wont be paying for them to rent a flat in town.

Also, my partner has a daughter from a preious relationship who lives with us 3 days a week. He pays a €70 pw to her mother. He has read this tread and has already said she will be more than welcome to live with her mother or us when she starts college but she will not be getting hand-outs.

blond45

my husband found out that she got full grant of 6000e. twice he has being hit by wage cut. he can not afford 150e. he cut it to 60e. he told his solicitor what he was doing. he knows he has to pay somthing towards collage. june 30 he will have no job. those of you who live in galway will know about musgraves shutting down. thats where he works. she didnt declare that she gets money from dad. some of you think that i dont want him to pay nothing at all ,well i do care very much and im proud of him for doing that , some fathers couldnt care less . it will be in court on 1st of june. his soilictor told him today that yesterday he saw a few cases like my husbands in court getting money cut and were succesfull . so the court is at last coming to terms with the blight of wage cuts and dads losing jobs.

blond45

Balmed Out wrote: »

Cant see why she needs that at all surely the grant covers accomodation. Is her home too far off to commute?
I didnt get a grant and parents had no intention of supporting me either but i did get to stay home for free and travel in the 70 min bus journey eavh day. Most of my friends did same and worked all weekend and few evenings each week.

she goes to IT TRALEE.lives in the west of eire.

Jo King

blond45 wrote: »

she goes to IT TRALEE.lives in the west of eire.

Eire?

omahaid

Eire is another name for Ireland