Father's child maintenance doubled

blacklilly

Although we don't know the full details of the custody agreement, this is an unusual case that will be looked upon favourably by all fathers fighting for equal rights and access rights to their children. I acknowledge that the father in this case was married to the childrens mother which leaves him in a stronger position then a single father.
There are so many stories of "bad fathers" and fathers who do not care, it's great to read about a ruling of this type.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/stay-at-home-father-s-child-maintenance-doubled-1.1672739

Dravokivich

I can understand the reasons for maintenance and how the sale of the house should be arranged. But I don't see why the father should have a cut of her pension.

Sounds good to me. If the father had given them a horrific time for three years, he'd have no chance of even seein them again.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Sounds good to me. If the father had given them a horrific time for three years, he'd have no chance of even seein them again.

She doesn't see them, her only contact is through letters, according to the article.

Nice to see the courts work the other direction fairly. Hopefully it's the start of a more equitable situation for fathers who are primary carers.

smallerthanyou

Dravokivich wrote: »

I can understand the reasons for maintenance and how the sale of the house should be arranged. But I don't see why the father should have a cut of her pension.

I thought exact same. He previously ran a business and intends running one now and there may have been some of his working life before the kids depending on the age when having the kids so why can't he provide for his own pension? Maybe a few percent to account for the time he was at home but 25per cent seems punitive.
everything else seems fair.

tigger123

smallerthanyou wrote: »

I thought exact same. He previously ran a business and intends running one now and there may have been some of his working life before the kids depending on the age when having the kids so why can't he provide for his own pension? Maybe a few percent to account for the time he was at home but 25per cent seems punitive.
everything else seems fair.

Would a woman not have access to a mans pension if the roles were reversed? Genuine question, ie, she was deemed by the courts as the primary care giver and he was paying maintenance.

Lollipops23

Great to see the courts not automatically side with the mother (especially as she doesn't sound like she was the most stable).

At a loss to see why he'll get 25% of her pension though...he didn't give up his entire career to mind the kids.

blacklilly

tigger123 wrote: »

Would a woman not have access to a mans pension if the roles were reversed? Genuine question, ie, she was deemed by the courts as the primary care giver and he was paying maintenance.

This is what I don't know tbh and why I haven't commented on it. I would preseume there is some logic to it. Maybe someone else knows?

Lollipops23

Lollipops23 wrote: »

Great to see the courts not automatically side with the mother (especially as she doesn't sound like she was the most stable).

At a loss to see why he'll get 25% of her pension though...he didn't give up his entire career to mind the kids.

He did give up a chunk of it though, if he gave it up entirely it might have been a 50% award.

I think the pension allocation is fair. He's put the kids first for so long any pension he takes out now will never catch up on those years.

rambutman

tigger123 wrote: »

Would a woman not have access to a mans pension if the roles were reversed? Genuine question, ie, she was deemed by the courts as the primary care giver and he was paying maintenance.

Yes is the answer.......this is a big factor in maintenance settlements. I suppose the thinking being if the pension was being paid through their "together" life - then this is money they would have been spending/saving together.

No Pants

It doesn't give any details about the pension. There might have been more in the case, but it's just not reported.

tigger123

No Pants wrote: »

It doesn't give any details about the pension. There might have been more in the case, but it's just not reported.

??? It says in the article that he should be awarded 25% of her pension ???

Awful situation, feel sorry for the kids, especially when things are that dysfunctional.

Yellowblackbird

She's the only family member that can pay into a pension. The rest are subsisting.

Cee-Jay-Cee

Dravokivich wrote: »

I can understand the reasons for maintenance and how the sale of the house should be arranged. But I don't see why the father should have a cut of her pension.

Because if it were the other way about she would have a cut of his.

2Mad2BeMad

I know child maintenance in some cases are all good and the mothers actually spend the money that is given on the children

but I know plenty of woman who have children, when they get their maintenance off the fathers , its spent on a night out or spent on clothes , when it should be spent on the child

blacklilly

tigger123 wrote: »

??? It says in the article that he should be awarded 25% of her pension ???

Awful situation, feel sorry for the kids, especially when things are that dysfunctional.

Hold on, we only know every few details not exactly fair to say that their situation is "that dysfunctional". The children involved seem to have a solid father in their lives who is suppoting them.

nicowa

I don't understand being a stay-at-home parent of teenageers though. Even if the youngest is 13 surely they'd be ok for the hour it takes him to get home from work?

And yes I would say this to a woman too.

In a SAHMum and I wouldn't see myself doing that. What do you see yourself doing at home the whole time? I'd be gone bananas!

But I am happy he's got custody if his remarks about the kids time with their mum is any way correct. I don't see what a mother gets automatic custody whatever her parenting skills almost.

bajer101

Things do seem to be changing. I am a single father with sole custody of my daughter and I was awarded maintenance in the District Court a couple of weeks ago. The Judge didn't seem to be taken aback by the application and I found him to be very amenable. He advised me that I could apply for up to €150 per week and he also advised me of other awards he could make - such as back to school expenses. In the end I only asked for €50 per week, but he backdated it to when I submitted the application to the Court, which was last October. My ex didn't turn up in court, so I did have an easy time of it, but I just felt that the experience was more "normal" than I was expecting. Even though I have had sole custody for two and half years now, I only recently decided to apply for maintenance as I was originally just happy to get custody.

justsomebloke

Lollipops23 wrote: »

Great to see the courts not automatically side with the mother (especially as she doesn't sound like she was the most stable).

They did though. According to the article the kids had spent over 3 years of 'hell' with the mother and they actually had to ring the Gardai asking to be removed.

So the woman had to go to extremes for the father to be given the rights a mother would have atomically been given

tigger123

blacklilly wrote: »

Hold on, we only know every few details not exactly fair to say that their situation is "that dysfunctional". The children involved seem to have a solid father in their lives who is suppoting them.

Should have been clearer, I meant dysfunctional in so far as their mother is only communicating with them through letters, after the family unit has broken down, which to me is dysfunctional. There's a lot hurt there, for whatever reason.

nicowa

2Mad2BeMad wrote: »

I know child maintenance in some cases are all good and the mothers actually spend the money that is given on the children

but I know plenty of woman who have children, when they get their maintenance off the fathers , its spent on a night out or spent on clothes , when it should be spent on the child

You say that, but she's spending money she would use to socialise on the kids. If she wasn't getting the maintenance then she would have no social life but the kids wouldn't be suffering. But she is. And if he's earning enough to pay maintenance then she can get back some element of her life. It's a "would you begrudge her a night out" kind of a thing. As long as the kids are taken care of then all is good.

blacklilly

tigger123 wrote: »

Should have been clearer, I meant dysfunctional in so far as their mother is only communicating with them through letters, after the family unit has broken down, which to me is dysfunctional. There's a lot hurt there, for whatever reason.

Ok granted, however with seperation/divorce hurt is to an extent inevitable. What's important is that the childrens primary career, in this case their father is supported equitably.

tigger123

blacklilly wrote: »

Ok granted, however with seperation/divorce hurt is to an extent inevitable. What's important is that the childrens primary career, in this case their father is supported equitably.

Hurt is inevitable, but the extent of which and how the parents choose to behave in the aftermath of the divorce can dictate how damaging the process can be for the children.

I have no issue at all with full support being given to the father as primary giver. I think its a fantastic step forward tbh.

No Pants

tigger123 wrote: »

??? It says in the article that he should be awarded 25% of her pension ???

Awful situation, feel sorry for the kids, especially when things are that dysfunctional.

I mean it doesn't give an explanation of how the decision was reached.

bodice ripper

I am just going to skip 15 pages into this thread:

Life is so unfair for (enter gender here)! Whatabout this person (enter gender here)? Patriachy, glass ceiling, PC brigade, double standards, misconception, Daily Fail, welfare cheats, mental health! HELP HELP I AM BEING OPPRESSED!

Seems a cop out to not have worked since 2008. He has teenage children. It must be so hard doing nothing all day while his children are in school.

xXxkorixXx

as a woman i am delighted to see this. the children are the priority after all. i would also love to see what them hypocrite feminists think about it

bodice ripper

Mod

bodice ripper wrote: »

I am just going to skip 15 pages into this thread:

Life is so unfair for (enter gender here)! Whatabout this person (enter gender here)? Patriachy, glass ceiling, PC brigade, double standards, misconception, Daily Fail, welfare cheats, mental health! HELP HELP I AM BEING OPPRESSED!

If you don't wish to partake in the thread that's fine, but leave the needless inflammatory posts out of it please.

xXxkorixXx wrote: »

I would also love to see what them hypocrite feminists think about it

Same goes for this kind of thing, it only serves to wind people up and there's no need for it.

blacklilly

Deleted User wrote: »

Seems a cop out to not have worked since 2008. He has teenage children. It must be so hard doing nothing all day while his children are in school.

I would hesitate a guess that he may have previously worked in construction or a construction related disapline as it states that he was previously employed, following on from this I would guess that his business was hit by the recession and therfore he has been unemployeed since.

hatrickpatrick

tigger123 wrote: »

Would a woman not have access to a mans pension if the roles were reversed? Genuine question, ie, she was deemed by the courts as the primary care giver and he was paying maintenance.

She would, but that would be totally wrong as well.
Correcting this by applying that wrong reverse as well is entirely the wrong direction to be going in, and I say that as someone who is outspoken in favour of men's rights.

To give you an analogy, the double standard with regard to violence against men vs women is wrong, but we don't correct that by making violence against women more accepted, we correct it by making violence against men equally reviled and equally punished.
The concept of "the lifestyle to which he/she is accustomed" is fundamentally wrong to begin with. Such things should focus on who dumped who and why - if I'm being supported by my wife and I choose to dump her without something like her abuse or infidelity to justify it, why should I be entitled to continue livig off her? Her resources are a side effect of being in a relationship with her, not the main aspect for it. Same applies in reverse.

Thoie

Deleted User wrote: »

Seems a cop out to not have worked since 2008. He has teenage children. It must be so hard doing nothing all day while his children are in school.

First off, the children may not have been teenagers in 2008. Children are not at school 365 days a year. I see a lot of parents (where both are working) desperately trying to pack their kids off to granny's, summer camp, tiddlywinks conventions, etc. during the school holidays. If he doesn't have family near by who can help, then trying to afford all those things, even when working, may not be feasible.

Most stay at home parents will tell you there are plenty of things to be doing during the day. Sure, maybe they get to spend an hour drinking coffee with a neighbour in the afternoon, but most of us who work also get to spend some time during the day drinking coffee with other adults.

tigger123

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

She would, but that would be totally wrong as well.
Correcting this by applying that wrong reverse as well is entirely the wrong direction to be going in, and I say that as someone who is outspoken in favour of men's rights.

To give you an analogy, the double standard with regard to violence against men vs women is wrong, but we don't correct that by making violence against women more accepted, we correct it by making violence against men equally reviled and equally punished.
The concept of "the lifestyle to which he/she is accustomed" is fundamentally wrong to begin with. Such things Gould focus on who dumped who and why - if I'm being supported by my wife and I choose to dump her without something like her abuse or infidelity to justify it, why should I be entitled to continue livig off her? Her resources are a side effect of being in a relationship with her, not the main aspect for it. Same applies in reverse.

If one person in the relationship is the primary care giver, and makes sacrifices in their career (or foregoes their career altogether) in order to look after the kids on a full time basis, they are in effect giving up any possibility of earning a private pension. Its a sacrifice they make for the family unit which they should be compensated for if the relationship breaks down.

Teyla Emmagan

25% of her pensions seems a bit unfair to me. He's only been out of work since 2008, and we don't know how long he has been a full time carer. I would think he should only be compensated for the years he was unable to pay into his own pension (6 tops), which is not exactly 25% of a person's working life (45 years).

Now the 2 kids are in secondary school (presumably if the youngest is 13) then I think any full time parent should also be able to work, at least part time. Being self employed may give flexibility, but there's no stability in it. I dunno if that's the most logical choice for him so, and there will doubtless need to be start up capital sourced from somewhere. Where's that going to come from?

Interesting anyhoo.

Teyla Emmagan

Deleted User wrote: »

Seems a cop out to not have worked since 2008. He has teenage children. It must be so hard doing nothing all day while his children are in school.

The shopping has to be done, the house has to be kept, food has to be cooked. As he said himself - you wouldn't question it if he were a woman. And he may not have been able to GET a job all things considered.

blacklilly

blacklilly wrote: »

I would hesitate a guess that he may have previously worked in construction or a construction related disapline as it states that he was previously employed, following on from this I would guess that his business was hit by the recession and therfore he has been unemployeed since.

That is six years without even a part time job. Six years. The recession wasn't that bad that somebody who was seeking work would not get even a part time job. Like, if he needed more money for his children. Why not get a part time job then?

K-9

tigger123 wrote: »

Would a woman not have access to a mans pension if the roles were reversed? Genuine question, ie, she was deemed by the courts as the primary care giver and he was paying maintenance.

As far as I'm aware this has been a regular enough thing in divorce settlements in Ireland since the law was introduced. The law might be a bit out dated and need reform in respect of pension stuff like that, but it is pretty egalitarian.

Teyla Emmagan

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

The shopping has to be done, the house has to be kept, food has to be cooked. As he said himself - you wouldn't question it if he were a woman. And he may not have been able to GET a job all things considered.

I absolutely would question it if was a woman. I thought men and women were suppose to be equal. I just don't see how somebody who was self-employed (obviously had some sense of business acumen) could not get any work for six years.

blacklilly

Deleted User wrote: »

That is six years without even a part time job. Six years. The recession wasn't that bad that somebody who was seeking work would not get even a part time job. Like, if he needed more money for his children. Why not get a part time job then?

True the recession wasn't too bad at all, totally exaggerted.

K-9

2Mad2BeMad wrote: »

I know child maintenance in some cases are all good and the mothers actually spend the money that is given on the children

but I know plenty of woman who have children, when they get their maintenance off the fathers , its spent on a night out or spent on clothes , when it should be spent on the child

As long as the children are reasonably looked after during the month/week it shouldn't really matter if the mother/father has a night out.

bajer101

Deleted User wrote: »

That is six years without even a part time job. Six years. The recession wasn't that bad that somebody who was seeking work would not get even a part time job. Like, if he needed more money for his children. Why not get a part time job then?

If this thread were about a stay at home mother being awarded maintenance, would the fact that she hadn't worked in six years be even raised? As I mentioned earlier, I'm a single Dad. I work full time, but I can easily imagine finding myself in a situation where I was unable to find work. I'm lucky in that I have a good skillset that is usually in demand.

I have worked in mainly contract roles for the last number of years, and I am usually able to find employment. But being a lone parent does restrict you in the jobs you can apply for - early last year I was out of work for almost four months, and found myself getting into a rut that I felt could easily have dragged on a lot longer. There are a lot of people in the country who are unemployed and can't find work, without the added handicap of being the sole carer of children.

wonderfullife

It's none of our business why he doesn't work.

He could have been looking for work. He could have been suffering from depression or a stress related issue. I would imagine if things were so bad for the children to ring the Guards to ask to be taken away from the mother, then it's a fair assumption that life wasn't peachy for the father with her either.

Anyway there's a whole variety of reasons why he might not have been working and none are particularly relevant.

ash23

Asked by counsel for his ex-wife why he “chose not to work outside the home”, the man said the question was laughable. “You’re saying that because I’m a man and at home looking after my children; if I was a housewife you wouldn’t be saying that to me,” he said.

I don't think that this is an unfair question. If the children are now teenagers, then by new social welfare law, he would be expected to be out looking for work. One parent family allowance is no longer available for new applicants once their youngest is between 16 and 7 depending on when the claim began. It's being reduced to 7 by 2015.

I'm glad to see a father getting equal treatment for a change in the courts, don't get me wrong, but I do think his comment about being asked if he was looking for work is misguided.

suicide_circus

ash23 wrote: »

I don't think that this is an unfair question. If the children are now teenagers, then by new social welfare law, he would be expected to be out looking for work. One parent family allowance is no longer available for new applicants once their youngest is between 16 and 7 depending on when the claim began. It's being reduced to 7 by 2015.

I'm glad to see a father getting equal treatment for a change in the courts, don't get me wrong, but I do think his comment about being asked if he was looking for work is misguided.

not a hope in hell that question would have been posed if he were a woman

EyeSight

K-9 wrote: »

As long as the children are reasonably looked after during the month/week it shouldn't really matter if the mother/father has a night out.

It matters when they're using the child maintenance money. If there's money left over then maybe they are getting too much. Or they should get more for the child with it

ash23

suicide_circus wrote: »

not a hope in hell that question would have been posed if he were a woman

You think? Just take a gander at any threads about single mothers and you'll see it's a pretty common question! And it's one I'd personally expect to be asked in a divorce settlement if the children were teenagers. I don't see a problem with it.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

The shopping has to be done, the house has to be kept, food has to be cooked. As he said himself - you wouldn't question it if he were a woman. And he may not have been able to GET a job all things considered.

I have to say if it was a woman I would question why, now that the children are teenagers, she wasn't trying to get a job. I would consider it unfair on the husband to be the sole provider when there is probably two lots of rent/mortgage to be paid and in this case I think it's unfair on the mother. Obviously he may not be able to get a job in the current climate, but he should be making every attempt to do so.

ash23

EyeSight wrote: »

It matters when they're using the child maintenance money. If there's money left over then maybe they are getting too much. Or they should get more for the child with it

It's all going to the household income. If they spend their own money on food, clothes, rent, heating, ESB, school fees etc then what does it matter if they use the maintenance for a night out. As for them getting too much, should every non custodial parent give every extra penny they have towards the child also, aswell as maintenance. Should every parent turn down a night out to spend the money on their child even if the child has everything it needs?

K-9

EyeSight wrote: »

It matters when they're using the child maintenance money. If there's money left over then maybe they are getting too much. Or they should get more for the child with it

So if it was spent out of their own income it doesn't matter as much?

I just don't get that way of thought. If the household income is say €2,500 a month including child maintenance and as long as the children are looked after well, I'd hardly begrudge a parent a couple of nights out.

clairefontaine

I know people get really excited when they see these cases, and they think justice is finally being served, but I would still hold the impression that family court is ultimately a crap shoot and whoever runs out of money first loses.

I don't think that will ever change tbh. That has always been the way, regardless of whatever ideological flavor of the month is.

Teyla Emmagan

Baylor Lazy Sternum wrote: »

I have to say if it was a woman I would question why, now that the children are teenagers, she wasn't trying to get a job. I would consider it unfair on the husband to be the sole provider when there is probably two lots of rent/mortgage to be paid and in this case I think it's unfair on the mother. Obviously he may not be able to get a job in the current climate, but he should be making every attempt to do so.

I agree that now they're teenagers he should be working. I said the same - my response was to someone who asked why he hadn't been working up to this. I think it's reasonable that he was home full time when the kids were in primary school though, particularly as a single parent.

uck51js9zml2yt

brothers wife had an affair and forced him out of the family home . she got 75% of the house, maintenance for the 2 kids and a cut of his pension when he retires.
he was forced to live in digs until he got enough cash to get his own house after having cleared the mortgage on the family home.
in short..he was shafted. her bf moved in as soon as he left.