Maintenance Q

jones

Folks not sure if this is the correct area to post - mods move if needs be,

Just a quick question re maintenance. My ex and i split up 6 years ago, we have a 7 year old, and i've been paying 150 maintenance a fortnight since then (we both agree on this amount and there has never been an issue with non payment etc). It has always stayed at that amount even with pay cuts.

I received a letter in the door last week from the Department of Social Protection informing me that i had to pay another €25 a week to my ex or directly to them and i had until the 18th of October to do so. Apparently they means tested me on my revenue information from last year. Basically this is putting it up to €100 a week which i cannot afford. :eek:

Is this normal for a government department to just throw their input in on this or is my ex claiming something she shouldn't be? I consider myself a good father i pay for anything my child needs when i have her - which is for a minimum of 30 hours each week.

Has anyone had a similar issue to this? Where do i stand legally contesting this "assessment"?

wowzer

Similar situation happened to me, I wrote a letter explaining all incomings and out goings and provided proof that I simply could not afford to pay any extra. After a bit of a battle it concluded that I didn't have to pay.
It's not your ex looking for anything extra, its the dept of social protection looking to squeeze a few extra quid out of us so they can reduce their own outgoings. It actually made me quite angry and stressed as us decent guys that pay our way and take an active role in our child's life are the ones who are being chased and not the thousands of absent fathers out who don't give a damn.. fight it, you are already paying enough.

jones

Cheers wowser i'm glad i'm not the only one because thats exactly how i felt reading the letter. It came across like i was somehow neglecting my child and now had to start paying my way (obviously implying that i hadnt up to this point) :mad:

wowzer

It's not worth the stress so don't let it get to you as it drove me mad for weeks. In the end the y realised they couldn't get money off me that I didn't have to give. As I said fight it, let us know how you get on. Good luck.

jones

Cheers again wowzer. I think there's a part of the form that i can get my ex to sign to say the current amount is ok by both parties? does this have any implications on her though?

wowzer

Has no implications for her because what ever extra you have to pay will be deducted from her one parent family allowance.. so its not as if she will see any of the extra money you pay.

jones

i think this might be the simplest solution so get her to sign the form - assuming she will of course ha! Thanks for the help

Zipppy

Had this a few years ago myself...SW wanted an extra €75 per week from me ...:eek:.

I had many 'arguements' on phone with SW including a discussion where I was told that I was 'allowed' a weekly means for myself of something like €150, plus €50 allownace for accomodation costs..rest of my income was liable to be assessed as means and possibly paid to ex / DSW..... what a joke (one admin officer in SW agreed it was all a joke and suggested I fight it all..)
In the end I just ignored letters and havent heard ought for few years now :rolleyes:

jones

haha i can see me doing the same its ridiculous! I wonder what the chances are of getting taken to court if you do ignore it?

The Corinthian

I've heard a few of these stories all right - none resulted in the SW going any further on the subject, AFAIK. My understanding is that the SW have no legal powers to demand any money from you. Additionally, there's absolutely no legal scale of 'weekly means' or 'accommodation costs' that they can impose - maintenance levels are decided by the courts, not SW.

The SW do pressure custodial parents on LPA to get a court ordered maintenance order, but I suspect that were they to start forcing them to seek increases by repeatedly applying for variance orders, they'd end up in hot water pretty quickly.

The whole thing strikes me as a scam - shaking the tree to see what falls out, as it were - by scaring people into paying without questioning whether this is actually legal or not.

In your position I would formally query, by registered letter, under what legal powers they are able to impose such demands and the consequences for non-compliance. My guess is that it'll be the last time you'll hear from them, if not bring their reply to a solicitor.

Equality

My personal opinion is that you should pay 29.80 into the mother's bank account, and send proof of this weekly deposit to social welfare, with a letter stating that in the event the mother is claiming the child as a dependent on a social welfare payment, you are refunding the full cost to the department. (The maximum rate paid to the mother in respect of a dependent child is 29.80, regardless of what payment the mother is receiving.)

You should also set up a bank account for the child, and pay the remainder (in your case 45 euro per week) into this account. This is therefore the child's money and cannot be used to reduce the amount of social welfare payable to the mother. You should mention this money to the Department, and also that you have the child for X hours per week, and provide for the child when he/she is in your care.

A lot of pension schemes, where a parent has died, pay a certain amount to the widow, and pay considerably more to the dependent child, as the money paid to the child does not have any impact on the mother's entitlement to social welfare payments. It is also usually not taxable, as the child is unlikely to be in receipt of sufficient income to be liable for tax.

This approach will maximise the amount of money available to provide for your child.

Orion

The Corinthian wrote: »

maintenance levels are decided by the courts, not SW.

Exactly what I was thinking reading the thread.

Equality: that's an interesting analysis. Can you provide links to back that all up?

Equality

Hi Orion,

As stated, it is a personal opinion. I did do some checking over the weekend, and I have set out below what I found. Please find below my interpretation, but I am open to a different opinion, if anyone has one.

The provsions relating to Liability to Maintain Family are contained in
• Part 12 of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act 2005, as amended.
‘Where a person who is liable to contribute under subsection (1) (subsequently referred to in this Part as “the liable relative”) fails or neglects to contribute, the competent authority may apply to the District Court for an order directing the liable relative to make that contribution towards the allowance.’
This is why you should pay the 29.80, into the bank account of the other parent. Payment of this sum makes it much more difficult for the Dept to seek a court order, as you can prove that you have not ‘failed to contribute’. They can still seek the court order looking for more money, but they are not very likely to do it.

There is a second relevant piece of legislation. It is S.I. 142 of 2007, and by reading this I conclude that any parent who is himself on social welfare is not required to pay any maintenance, no matter how many children he has. That will definitely be useful to some people I am acquainted with, so I’m glad I looked it up.

S.I. 142 of 2007 also gives the formula that will be used to calculate how much maintenance you are required to pay, if social welfare decide to pursue the matter because you have a good job. They would need to go to court to get the amount set by the court, and it is more difficult to do this if you can show that you are already paying some maintenance. It is very rare for SW to take a father who is currently paying maintenance to court, no matter how high his income is.
One loophole is that if the child is taken off the mum’s OPFP (which she can easily do if she has other qualifying children) the father cannot then be pursued for any maintenance by SW, as SW are making no payment in respect of his child.

Equality

A 'liable relative' is basically either father or mother. A child cannot be a liable relative.

The child is not liable for the maintenance of the parent. This is why any money paid directly to the child is not counted against the mother's SW payments.

The most obvious examples of this occur when the child has significant assets/income. The mother can still claim means tested social welfare for herself, and get the increase for the child. This is despite the fact that the child has a million in the bank and an income of fifty thousand per year.

The two cases where I know this happen are when a child gets compensation or an inheritance. The mom cannot access either, as they do not belong to her. If the parent does access the child's money, this is theft, and punishable as such by the courts.

You sometimes have a situation where an unmarried dad dies, leaving no widow, no will and just one child. In this situation the child is sole heir to all property. The child could inherit a farm/house worth 2 million, with an income of tens of thousands per year. Mom still gets her means tested social welfare, and can claim for this child as a dependent.

In the case I am familiar with, it was decades ago, and in addition to the mum being paid on the means tested social welfare, the child got the higher education grant in college (both free fees and maintenance grant) as these were based on the mother's means (none) and the child's income/assets were not counted. The child had a medical card as well.

Equality

Regarding the occupational pension schemes, these are a hobby of mine. I can provide no links, as they are not published online.

Some years ago I commuted to Dublin on the train, for about three hours per day. The only thing you could do was read, so I entertained myself reading occupational pension schemes (you can manipulate these to get a significantly increased pension, in many cases), and all types of state legislation. Very interesting, as there are a lot of things people are entitled to claim, but don't know about. The time I spent on the train reading this stuff was a lot more profitable than the time I spent in work. I might be going back to commuting soon, so I will have time to get up to date on all the new changes to many of these schemes.