Maintainence arrears - conflicting information...

yepyepyep

Hi
Could anyone out there help us to clarify what appears to be conflicting information form various legal sources - regarding the period of time that maintainence arrears can be sought.
The Summons I received was looking for max. 6 months maintainence arrears, I managed to pay about half of it before we got to court and expected to be paying the remainider of the specified amount in installments.
In conversation with the Court Clerk - she said the amounts are changing soon and up to 2 yrs maintenance arrears max. can be sought.
When we actually reached Ct - more than 2 yrs of arrears was looked for by the judge who had no interest in the 6 months or 2 yrs max. arrears when I brought it up (which ever is currently legal)
Back to Court again next month over other issues but wanted to see whether I should appeal the more than 2yrs amount of arrears considering the Summons only had the 6 months specified amount.
Thanks

January

Pay your arrears for god sake, it's your child you're talking about. If you have more than 2 years arrears you should pay it ALL back.

James Jones

January wrote: »

Pay your arrears for god sake, it's your child you're talking about. If you have more than 2 years arrears you should pay it ALL back.

The chap is looking for legal advice, not moral advice.
The Family Courts are well known to be corrupt. You can take a stand and appeal an unlawful decision but the legal costs will nullify any principle that you might win.
If the courts were, in any way, fair, I would say pay the 6 months you owe and let them chase you for the excess but, given the "In Camera" rule, you might well end up in jail.
Irish Family Law is about as fair as the Gestapo, Col. Gaddafi or the Apartheid regime that used to exist in South Africa.
Give me the Nazis or the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans any day. At least then the enemy was identifiable.

January

James Jones wrote: »

The chap is looking for legal advice, not moral advice.
The Family Courts are well known to be corrupt. You can take a stand and appeal an unlawful decision but the legal costs will nullify any principle that you might win.
If the courts were, in any way, fair, I would say pay the 6 months you owe and let them chase you for the excess but, given the "In Camera" rule, you might well end up in jail.
Irish Family Law is about as fair as the Gestapo, Col. Gaddafi or the Apartheid regime that used to exist in South Africa.
Give me the Nazis or the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans any day. At least then the enemy was identifiable.

Oh come off it, you're a well known advocate of fathers "rights" around here and now we have one trying to weasel his way out of paying money he owes towards the care of his child(ren) and you're giving him ways of getting out of it!?

No wonder the legal system is messed up.

James Jones

January wrote: »

Oh come off it, you're a well known advocate of fathers "rights" around here and now we have one trying to weasel his way out of paying money he owes towards the care of his child(ren) and you're giving him ways of getting out of it!?

An appeal is not "a weasel way out" but a citizens right to have any matter adjudicated by a higher Court. If the District Court made an order, which if we take what yepyepyep says at face value, then he has a right to appeal the matter to the Circuit. That will cost him approximately €1,000 for his own legal team. He might well have costs awarded against him and so will have to pay twice that.

When yepyepyep said he

wanted to see whether I should appeal the more than 2yrs amount of arrears considering the Summons only had the 6 months specified amount.

he was asking in Legal Discussion and not a parenting forum. Would you also advise a motorist to plead guilty to a motoring offence if the summons was incorrect?

January wrote: »

No wonder the legal system is messed up.

How dare you blame me for the mess that is the Family Law Court system!!! It is quite obvious from this post that a mistake was made on the summons and you have a go at me over it?!?!


Yepyepyep, as far as I know, an original maintenance order can only grant maintenance for the future and for 6 months previous to the order being made. I have no references to this but it has happened to people I know.
However, if an order was made, and you chose not to follow it (for whatever reason) then that order can be enforced. It looks like the 6 months in the summons might be a clerical error.

blueythebear

James Jones wrote: »

If the courts were, in any way, fair, I would say pay the 6 months you owe and let them chase you for the excess but, given the "In Camera" rule, you might well end up in jail.

Can you clarify exactly what the "in camera" rule has to do with a person being put in jail? It seems to me that you don't know what you're talking about from that statement?

James Jones wrote: »

Irish Family Law is about as fair as the Gestapo, Col. Gaddafi or the Apartheid regime that used to exist in South Africa.
Give me the Nazis or the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans any day. At least then the enemy was identifiable.

With a statement like this, I think it's obvious to see that any advice you have to offer might be tainted somewhat by what I can only presume have been negative experiences in the family law courts.

To the OP, in relation to your specific question as to whether you should appeal over the fact that the judge required you to pay over two years maintenance when the summons said six months, that's a question for your solicitor to answer. If you insist on arguing a technical point like that, I would suggest getting a solicitor.

On a side note, you're not doing yourself any favours in arguing that type of point as it makes you look bad before the judge.

James Jones

blueythebear wrote: »

Can you clarify exactly what the "in camera" rule has to do with a person being put in jail? It seems to me that you don't know what you're talking about from that statement?

Yea, its looks like that alright. Posting late at night in haste is not a good idea.:o
What I should have said was "This matter will be covered by the In Camera rule and so the hearing will be in secret but you could end up in Jail".

blueythebear wrote: »

I think it's obvious to see that any advice you have to offer might be tainted somewhat by what I can only presume have been negative experiences in the family law courts.

I have to agree.

blueythebear wrote: »

To the OP, in relation to your specific question as to whether you should appeal over the fact that the judge required you to pay over two years maintenance when the summons said six months, that's a question for your solicitor to answer. If you insist on arguing a technical point like that, I would suggest getting a solicitor.

On a side note, you're not doing yourself any favours in arguing that type of point as it makes you look bad before the judge.

It is a very technical point that Yepyepyep might win if held in open court but will probably pay for dearly due to the secrecy in which the hearing will occur.

January

James Jones wrote: »

An appeal is not "a weasel way out" but a citizens right to have any matter adjudicated by a higher Court. If the District Court made an order, which if we take what yepyepyep says at face value, then he has a right to appeal the matter to the Circuit. That will cost him approximately €1,000 for his own legal team. He might well have costs awarded against him and so will have to pay twice that.

When yepyepyep said he he was asking in Legal Discussion and not a parenting forum. Would you also advise a motorist to plead guilty to a motoring offence if the summons was incorrect?

How dare you blame me for the mess that is the Family Law Court system!!! It is quite obvious from this post that a mistake was made on the summons and you have a go at me over it?!?!


Yepyepyep, as far as I know, an original maintenance order can only grant maintenance for the future and for 6 months previous to the order being made. I have no references to this but it has happened to people I know.
However, if an order was made, and you chose not to follow it (for whatever reason) then that order can be enforced. It looks like the 6 months in the summons might be a clerical error.

Sorry, I wasn't blaming you for the mess that is the Family Law Court, what I meant was that no wonder it's such a mess if you have people such as the OP trying to renegade on his responsibilities as a parent and there are others out there who would give their life to provide for their children. It's quite obvious the OP owes a few years maintenance and the summons could have easily been an error and meant to say 26/36/46 months, which by the way, if in the District Court on a speeding fine would just be corrected by the judge and dealt with then.

Bannasidhe

My brother-in-law was required to pay a considerable amount (over 15,000 lump sum - plus 200 a week until child reached 18) as arrears covering 15 years. When brother-in-law was first asked to pay maintenance the child in question was 5 but he refused as the mother would not agree to allow a DNA test and conception occurred as a result of a drunken one night stand. When the child turned 16 she took him to court, agreed to a paternity test and won. He has now paid it all - did three tours of duty overseas and had to borrow from the credit union. The judge did initially attempt to impose a higher figure until my sister was able to demonstrate that this would result in her being financially penalised as she would have to bare all of the household costs as all of her husband's income would go on maintenance plus he would incur debts with no means to service his loans.

234

Bannasidhe wrote: »

My brother-in-law was required to pay a considerable amount (over 15,000 lump sum - plus 200 a week until child reached 18) as arrears covering 15 years. When brother-in-law was first asked to pay maintenance the child in question was 5 but he refused as the mother would not agree to allow a DNA test and conception occurred as a result of a drunken one night stand. When the child turned 16 she took him to court, agreed to a paternity test and won. He has now paid it all - did three tours of duty overseas and had to borrow from the credit union. The judge did initially attempt to impose a higher figure until my sister was able to demonstrate that this would result in her being financially penalised as she would have to bare all of the household costs as all of her husband's income would go on maintenance plus he would incur debts with no means to service his loans.

That's all very interesting but are you trying to say that your brother-in-law shouldn't have to pay to support his child?

yepyepyep

Wow - what a storm in a teacup this posting caused. January - what can I say...

The chap is looking for legal advice, not moral advice.

Thought I was quite specific and possibly even a bit clinical, in looking for legal advice when I wrote the original request.
May surprise you but 'the chap' is not a chap and having brought up 2 children as a single parent herself - I'm looking out for an unsupported and 'battered by the system' father who's tried/trying to step up to the plate!
Can't believe in this day and age of equality and information avaliabilty that despite not knowing all the facts some people feel the need to add their tuppence worth of judgement - maybe just a bit too much time on their hands...

If you insist on arguing a technical point like that, I would suggest getting a solicitor.

Applied for legal aid and after waiting 6 months they said they couldn't help him. Can't afford one.

On a side note, you're not doing yourself any favours in arguing that type of point as it makes you look bad before the judge.

I agree actually. Was just looking for legal advice.

later12

blueythebear wrote: »

On a side note, you're not doing yourself any favours in arguing that type of point as it makes you look bad before the judge.

I appreciate that this is probably a correct observation, but really shouldn't be remotely relevant. It is the judge's responsibility to interpret the law and not to judge the OP for any legal questions he dares to raise, especially if asking that question might aid his case under the law as it stands.

dermot_sheehan

Six Months Rule for the District Court is now gone. That rule was in section 8(7) of the Enforcement of Court Orders Act, 1940 which provided (as amended in 1976):

(7) No application or other proceedings (whether under this section or otherwise) for the recovery of a sum or sums payable by virtue of an [maintenance order, a variation order, an interim order], shall be maintainable in respect of any such sum which became due and payable on a day more than six months before the institution of such application or other proceedings:

Provided always that, in the case of proceedings otherwise than under this section, the Court may, if on account of special circumstances the Court so thinks proper, allow such proceedings to be maintained in respect of all or any one or more of such sums which became due and payable as aforesaid.

From the 3rd of August 2011, Section 8 of the Enforcement of Court Orders act, 1940 has been repealed and replaced by s. 63 of the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2011 which provides no replacement for section 8(7).
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2011/en/act/pub/0023/sec0063.html#sec63

As always this is something for a person's legal advisers to look into.

yepyepyep

Thank you dermot_sheehan a relevant piece of Irish Statute is exactly what we were looking for!
Thank you for everyone who gave their advice on this matter.

James Jones

later10 wrote: »

I appreciate that this is probably a correct observation, but really shouldn't be remotely relevant. It is the judge's responsibility to interpret the law and not to judge the OP for any legal questions he dares to raise, especially if asking that question might aid his case under the law as it stands.

Unfortunately, the secrecy of the Family Law Courts allows for this corrupt behavior to continue unchallenged. However, there is a possibility that this restrictive rule may soon be relaxed following lobbying by fathers in the compilation of THIS REPORT where the Government have essentially admitted that the rule is an abuse of human rights.

Family Law issues

93. Family law cases are dealt with in private Court sittings. The objective is to protect the identity of the parties to what are clearly cases involving very sensitive and private matters. However, in practice, this has meant that cases are heard in camera, with the unintended effect that there is little transparency or public awareness of what is happening in the family law system.

94. Arrangements have been put in place in recent years to allow reporting of the outcome of a limited number of family law cases. This has led to an improvement in public access to information about the operation of the law in this area, while protecting the identity of the parties. The Government intends to review this issue further with a view to ensuring that information on cases and outcomes is made public on a systematic basis, without compromising the confidentiality of the identity of the parties to family law cases.

James Jones

dermot_sheehan wrote: »

Six Months Rule for the District Court is now gone. From the 3rd of August 2011, Section 8 of the Enforcement of Court Orders act, 1940 has been repealed and replaced by s. 63 of the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2011 which provides no replacement for section 8(7).
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2011/en/act/pub/0023/sec0063.html#sec63

Yepyepyep,
Were you in court before 3rd August 2011? If so, I think you would have adequate grounds for an appeal.

MagicSean

I find it amusing that the op is insisting on legal advice when it is the only type of advice banned on this forum. You would be crazy to try fight this without a solicitor. A consultation won't cost much and can save you much more in the long run.

dermot_sheehan

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

I find it amusing that the op is insisting on legal advice when it is the only type of advice banned on this forum. You would be crazy to try fight this without a solicitor. A consultation won't cost much and can save you much more in the long run.

You're right, my bad.

The original poster shouldnt be asking how to run his family law case n the internet.

Ive no problem telling people about the change in the law regarding the six months rule, and was concerned the Original Poster was planning on relying on a section of law that was quite recently repealed, but people shouldnt be asking how to run their cases on here.