New bill proposes prison for non payment of maintenance

Stheno

The Civil Law Miscellaneous Provisions Bill 2010 which was published yesterday is proposing to decouple family maintenance debt from civil debt on the basis that such debt has already been ordered to be paid by a court, and imprisonment will be a consequence of non payment.

“One issue being addressed by the Bill is an amendment to the Family Law (Maintenance of Spouses and Children) Act 1976. This amendment will de-couple family law maintenance debt from civil debt in general. The proposed amendment to the law is based on the premise that a court has already deliberated in setting an appropriate level of maintenance and that if the debtor breaches that order without a significant change in his or her circumstances, that breach will constitute contempt of court and can be punished by imprisonment.

It covers both spousal and child maintenance. I've posted it here as I would percieve that this issue would most likely affect guys more so than women due to men being more likely to pay maintenance.

There's not yet been much reaction to it, but personally I wonder how it will potentially impact on relationships between former partners, given that there is still little equal consequence for the withdrawal of or non compliance with court ordered visitation rights.

iptba

I have read on various occasions that in the US, a *lot* of men go to jail for non-payment of maintenance etc, including when they have fallen on hard times themselves.

jgr12

I thought it would have been a minority of men who refused to pay maintenance

Pherekydes

Just to clarify, it's not jail for non payment of maintenance, but jail for contempt of court [ordered mainenance payments].

I know of one situation where the mother is having maintenance withheld by one father and hasn't even pursued the other father, and this wouldn't give much succour, as there is no court-ordered payments in place.

iptba

iptba wrote: »

I have read on various occasions that in the US, a *lot* of men go to jail for non-payment of maintenance etc, including when they have fallen on hard times themselves.

Here's an article from the National Center for Men
http://www.nationalcenterformen.org/page15.shtml
that touches on various issues without being too indepth that it takes a long time to read.

Intro:

Child Support "Talking Points"

Television talk show producers usually ask us to submit a list of "talking points" prior to our appearance on a program. Presumably, they use those talking points to prepare their host and develop the show.

We thought visitors to this website might like to see the talking points memo we sent to the producers of "Dr. Phil" in advance of their February 27, 2009 show about child support.

iptba

Fathers' group says more jailed for not paying maintenance

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0622/1224249265691.html

Start:

THE NUMBER of men being jailed for non-payment of maintenance has increased in recent months, a support organisation for unmarried and separated fathers has claimed.

Speaking at a Father’s Day eve march in Dublin, Ray Kelly, chief executive of the Unmarried and Separated Fathers of Ireland, said many separated men were living below the poverty line because of the downturn.

goose2005

Will women be jailed for refusing a man "access" to his children? Or for making a false declaration of paternity? Not likely.

CDfm

Yes, Family Law is Civil Law but with Criminal Penalties.

This leads to uneven enforcement and it is scary when you see the pressures on young men increase in areas such as unemployment in the construction industry and with a 25% increase in male suicide reported

http://www.leitrimobserver.ie/news/Alarming-increase-in-suicide-among.6504558.jp

It is amazing that the same concern showed to homeowners in debt is not extended to men in arrears of maintenance and it is a paradox.

metrovelvet

jgr12 wrote: »

I thought it would have been a minority of men who refused to pay maintenance

According to the Daily Mail my mother handed me today, its one in seven who do pay maintenance.

I think this new leg is old leg. Same old same old. Just another tax and a way to get the other parent to do the dirty work and the chasing up.

There are so many other things they can do. How is someone supposed to earn money when they are in prison? Who wants to visit their dad in prison? Who wants to put their kids dads in prison? What tax payers want to pay for the expense of keeping people in prison who are not dangers to society.

It's pathetic. There is no limit to how little shame this government has in its ineptitude and lack of vision.

CDfm

metrovelvet wrote: »

According to the Daily Mail my mother handed me today, its one in seven who do pay maintenance.

I find this figure to be very low , though I do note your objection to automatic custodial sentences.

I seem to remenber some stats along that lines for social welfare recipients. Do you have a link ?

metrovelvet

CDfm wrote: »

I find this figure to be very low , though I do note your objection to automatic custodial sentences.

I seem to remenber some stats along that lines for social welfare recipients. Do you have a link ?

No sorry I don't. It was on the front page of yesterday's or the day before's newspaper.

Mrmoe

I think a better solution to this would be to introduce mandatory deductions of child maintenance from payslips and social welfare income. I am not too sure how it would work for people who are self employed.

In general, I think prison sentences for these types of offences do not achieve much.

CDfm

Mrmoe wrote: »

I think a better solution to this would be to introduce mandatory deductions of child maintenance from payslips and social welfare income. I am not too sure how it would work for people who are self employed.

Thats a bit of a minefield as some women do not declare maintenance payments or other income.

Thats life and it is not a value judgement.

It is just as fair to say that the childcare system in Ireland is long due an overhaul. In Belgium their are "subsidised systems" and the costs are a fraction of the Irish costs. It uses a different social welfare distribution model.

So a conclusion might be that the current system suits all parties involved.

I also think that the threat of imprisonment will lead to a lot of men applying for a reduction in maintenance payments to reflect a loss in income.

Just a thought.

Though I would like to see the Daily Mail Article.

sophia25

Just a little bit of info. This isn't something new. The ultimate sanction of jail always existed for errant parents who defy the Court Ordered maintenance. The problem arose when a High Court Case (McCann) found that it was unconstitutional to jail someone for a Civil Debt. The govt. immediately brought in new legislation (Enforcement of Court Orders Act) to resolve the problem. The Courts then decided they were not in a position to hear Family Law cases in relation to the enforcement of a maintenance order and all existing cases where struck out and no knew summons were issued. This meant that an order for maintenance could be issued but if a person chose to ignore it there was no recourse at all for the recipient.

To claim OPFA there is now rightly a requirement that maintenance is sought from the liable relative so that the taxpayer is not burdened with the full responsibility. In fact there is now a Maintenance Recovery Unit within the Dept. of Social Protection who sole responsibility is to seek payment from the liable relative where a maintenance arrangement is not already in place. This is to ensure the liable relative is paying the state back for support of the child and secondly to exposes recipients of OPFA who are receiving undeclared maintenance. If the recipient of OPFA arranges and declares this maintenance in general they are able to keep 50% without a reduction of OPFA, this is to incentivise people to organise their own maintenance.

With that in mind, the situation where the Courts no longer listened to cases about non compliance, meant that there was a significant increase in defaulters. Many men who have had "difficulties" paying maintenance are obliged to lodge weekly money in the Family District Court Office.There was a notice put up saying that due to current difficulties with legislation that no cases could be heard re enforcement of maintenance. To a certain segment of men, this gave them the green light to stop paying.

For women (as majority are) on OPFA their Social Welfare entitlement was assessed based on what the Court Ordered. If the maintenance was not received, the Courts told them they could do nothing until legislation changed. The Dept. of Social Protection told them they could not increase payment as it was Court Ordered and it was the recipients obligation to pursue it if it wasn't being paid. This has been the situation for the last 14 months and many families have been put well below the poverty line, receiving less than what SW consider subsidence living.

In my case, I have written endlessly to newspaper, TD's etc trying to highlight this anomaly. While, I do not necessarily agree with a jail term, the last 14 months has shown that without this ultimate sanction, a certain segment of men will wriggle out of their obligations to their children. This is why it had to be restored.

In my case, I have had to sell my engagement and wedding rings, all my jewellery and still at times went to bed hungry, so that the pasta bake I made would feed my two kids for a second day. I have gone to Court and even got An Attachment of Earnings Order against his employers. Unfortunately, as it is a family business, they have chosen to ignore this and I will be in Court on Monday with his brothers for Contempt of that Court Order. The District Court Clerk wrote out twice to his brothers looking for an explanation as to why they were defying the Order, but they ignored letters and phonecalls. In the meantime, he continues to drive his 5 series BMW and has had two foreign holidays this year. I have nothing left to sell so I welcome the restoration of the Courts powers. Unfortunately, to a certain minority, only the threat of jail will elicit compliance.

CDfm

I think what the issue is here is that a man can be jailed if he does not pay court ordered maintenance and he does not have the means to do so.

So if someone becomes unemployed and cant afford the amount this legislation is a fast track to jail.

Some years back I was at the Family Court and there was a guy in handcuffs going to jail as he owed 60 punts and only had 40 punts. We heard him begging someone on a mobile phone the cop gave him.Myself and another lad chipped in a tenner each. He was due to be taken to Mountjoy once the Prison Van arrived.

So what I am saying here is yes by all means have enforcement but if there is Social Welfare issue then jailing someone on benefit is plain silly.I dont think a man should have to beg,steal or borrow to pay maintenance.Thats my objection.

I know one guy whose arrears go up by 250 per week and he is unemployed.

@sophia I feel sorry for you but individual stories are all heartbreaking. I know one guy currently living in a city centre hostel who has child access problems.

sophia25

It's not an individual story it's the reality for countless families over the last 14 months. It is not a fast track to jail. If someone's personal circumstances change they can seek a variation order to reflect their reduced means. The new legislation makes it clear that it is for people who refuse to comply with an order when there has been no significant change in circumstances. Jail is not the ideal solution, but in the absence of any other suggestions it is the only deterrent on offer. It is a reality that there is a persistent minority of hardcore Fathers who refuse to support their children. There has to be a differentiation of those who won't pay and those who can't. There is no easy solution in Family Law cases and I don't condone women restricting access either or men who don't bother to turn up. However, maintenance is not like an ordinary civil debt, the victims are in the main children. Is there not something reprehensible about a parent who chooses to wilfully deprive their own offspring of basic necessities? Should they not be subjected to the disapproval of a just and humane Society?

CDfm

The why's and wherefores of it all are fairly weird anyway.

I disagree with it because a someone can be sent to jail without the case being heard in open court unlike any other court or sentencing procedure in the country. It is a jail sentence in a prison with slopping out and the like -its not a community service order -it is an extreme punishment. People get convicted of manslaughter and get suspended sentences.


So if you are going to jail someone you have to offer them the same protections, review and appeal procedures as everybody else.

25% of the adult population of the country are functionally illiterate and may not understand the procedures either - so the safeguards are not there for people.

Now I sympathise with children and families who do without because maintenance is not paid by people who can afford it , but, this is not the way to do it because the safeguards are not there.