Payments to ex wife

MoltonMan

Can anyone advise on the following situation a friend finds themselves in.

Their ex wife and kids have left him and are with another man now, they are not married but live together.

My friend still has to pay huge maintenance payments and it is crippling him, at what point can it end, considering that she is with someone else now.

Anyone have similar experiences or advises?

uch

When the kids turn 18

Keane2baMused

Has your friend gotten legal advice and gone through court proceedings?

racso1975

MoltonMan wrote: »

Can anyone advise on the following situation a friend finds themselves in.

Their ex wife and kids have left him and are with another man now, they are not married but live together.

My friend still has to pay huge maintenance payments and it is crippling him, at what point can it end, considering that she is with someone else now.

Anyone have similar experiences or advises?

He can challenge in court as her expenses are not the as when the maintenance would have been agreed as it is expected this man is now contributing to the household bills. Outside of that maintenance stop once they stop education so for example 16/18/23 years of age.

Edit: Also go to the divorce and seperation forum. Lots of advice and info there

RobbieTheRobber

The esteemed legal professional Mr K west has been recorded as saying this on the matter.

18 years, 18 years
She got one of your kids, got you for 18 years
I know somebody paying child support for one of his kids
His baby mamma car and crib is bigger than his

PowerToWait

He should man the fūck up and pay his share towards the feeding, lodging and education of his kids.

Keane2baMused

PowerToWait wrote: »

He should man the fūck up and pay his share towards the feeding, lodging and education of his kids.

How is that in any way helpful?

py2006

Wrong thread my good man.

But plenty of men are being fleeced by ex wives.

ScumLord

PowerToWait wrote: »

He should man the fūck up and pay his share towards the feeding, lodging and education of his kids.

That's what he is doing. But it could be the case that he's paying his share and the ex wifes new conditions means she doesn't have to pay hers.

PowerToWait

Keane2baMused wrote: »

How is that in any way helpful?

Not very if you're talking about advising someone on how to weasel out of paying for their kids.

What has it got to do with begin in another relationship, does he expect his ex wife's partner to take responsibility for his children?.

You will get all sorts of stories and anecdotes here but it general it goes like this maintenance until the child is 18 or 23 if they are in full time education and often once the last child has left third level education the family house is sold and divided between them.

PowerToWait

py2006 wrote: »

Wrong threat my good man.

But plenty of men are being fleeced by ex wives.

I see. There are also plenty of ex husbands refusing to pay their share of the kids upkeep.

mariaalice

mariaalice wrote: »

What has it got to do with begin in another relationship, does he expect his wife partner to take responsibility for his children?.

I know nothing about this stuff but would something like her being a stay at home mum with her new man mean you would pay less because of daycare?

As a general case.

mariaalice

mariaalice wrote: »

What has it got to do with begin in another relationship, does he expect his wife partner to take responsibility for his children?.

he'll obviously have to contribute something, but it's fair to expect any reduction in the cost of accommodation, utilities, etc to be reflected in the maintenance payment.

When two adults move in together, there are often big savings to be made, and this should obviously lessen the OP's friend's obligations.

Unless it's being suggested that the OP should be covering the new boyfriend's share of rent and bills?

professore

Maintenance can be awarded to a spouse/civil partner for their own benefit and/or for the benefit of a dependent child who is under the age of 18, or 23 if the child is in full-time education.

Source: http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/separation_and_divorce/maintenance_orders_and_agreements.html

Seems the bit highlighted has changed. Also if he is on the breadline, and the wife's new partner is rolling in it, and she left her husband for this new guy, then surely she and her new partner should pay more?

Why doesn't he go for joint custody?

beach_walker

He should get with his ex-wife's partner's ex-wife. All balanced out.

py2006

PowerToWait wrote: »

I see. There are also plenty of ex husbands refusing to pay their share of the kids upkeep.

I see. But that is not what we are talking about.

ScumLord

PowerToWait wrote: »

Not very if you're talking about advising someone on how to weasel out of paying for their kids.

Nobody's doing that. But if she moved out and had no way of supporting herself then she needs money to live. If she then gets to move into a house rent free I don't see why she should get to keep the money she was getting for living expenses as free money for nothing.

jake_boy_men

py2006 wrote: »

Wrong thread my good man.

But plenty of men are being fleeced by ex wives.

women are not only defended when they go after the assets of an ex , they are actively encouraged to do so and hailed as strong women , getting married nowadays is a sure way of risking wealth destruction , we need pre nups badly in this country

Keane2baMused

PowerToWait wrote: »

I see. There are also plenty of ex husbands refusing to pay their share of the kids upkeep.

I'm a woman, not helping anyone to weasel out of anything thank you very much.

It is both the mother AND fathers responsibility to pay for their children. The fact in this case may be that the father is paying too much and the mother not enough. She is cohabiting that does make a difference whether you are willing to admit it or not.

Sapphire

MoltonMan wrote: »

Can anyone advise on the following situation a friend finds themselves in.

Their ex wife and kids have left him and are with another man now, they are not married but live together.

My friend still has to pay huge maintenance payments and it is crippling him, at what point can it end, considering that she is with someone else now.

Anyone have similar experiences or advises?

That shouldn't make a difference to child maintenance.

Unless you are thinking that a man who is not the children's father has to contribute to their upkeep. You aren't, are you?

He might be able to make an adjustment on any spousal maintenance he pays if she's cohabiting. Basically he needs to talk to a solicitor.

Well the father could go back to court and say my ex wife circumstance have changed and that they feel this should be reflected in the maintenance arrangement's. Its up to the judge to decide then.

But I though this was about maintenance for the children not maintenance for his ex wife. They are two separate issues.

py2006

The 'other' man may not be have to pay anything. But if he is in a relationship with a woman who has children and they are living together then the children are not in as much need or certainly don't require the same level of support (financially) if the woman was living alone etc.

I don't think the guy is looking to not pay anymore, just a reduction as he seems to be struggling to afford it.

ScumLord

Sapphire wrote: »

That shouldn't make a difference to child maintenance.

Unless you are thinking that a man who is not the children's father has to contribute to their upkeep. You aren't, are you?

It could very well change things. Her new lover may not be making her pay any bills, if the house is bought and paid for there may be no mortgage. Do you think when they go shopping for food they segregate the food into some for her and the kids and he gets his own food then they all eat separately?

No they're all cohabiting and sharing things like food, house, heating, electricity. Her bills would have reduced even if she is paying her share of household bills.

BrokenArrows

Ill never understand why the courts still assign custody to the mother by default when she has no ability to look after the children herself.

If the man has to pay for everything surely the kids should stay with him by default (unless there are specific reasons such as abuse for the divorce) until the mother can get on her feet and be self reliant then the custody can be revisited and costs shared.

The only reason why the man should lose custody and have to pay for everything is if he Forced the wife to be a housewife.

If i had kids in a divorce you would be dam sure that if i was paying for everything then i would expect the kids to be under my roof.

jake_boy_men

Sapphire wrote: »

That shouldn't make a difference to child maintenance.

Unless you are thinking that a man who is not the children's father has to contribute to their upkeep. You aren't, are you?

He might be able to make an adjustment on any spousal maintenance he pays if she's cohabiting. Basically he needs to talk to a solicitor.

well it should make a difference , her new man took on her kids as well as her , its all very well for him that he gets to hang out with another mans wife and kids but the other poor eejit has to pick up the tab

marilynrr

It totally depends, are the huge maintenance payments court ordered? Is it all maintenance for the children or is he paying money for spousal support too?

jake_boy_men

BrokenArrows wrote: »

Ill never understand why the courts still assign custody to the mother by default when she has no ability to look after the children herself.

If the man has to pay for everything surely the kids should stay with him by default (unless there are specific reasons such as abuse for the divorce) until the mother can get on her feet and be self reliant then the custody can be revisited and costs shared.

The only reason why the man should lose custody and have to pay for everything is if he Forced the wife to be a housewife.

If i had kids in a divorce you would be dam sure that if i was paying for everything then i would expect the kids to be under my roof.

because the feminist lobby has the ear of the courts , anyone with even the smallest sense of justice can see that seperated fathers are treated appallingly

Dyr

to refashion a song for the modern era:

"don't get married boys for marriage is a curse/you'll start out as her husband but end up as her purse"

ScumLord

BrokenArrows wrote: »

Ill never understand why the courts still assign custody to the mother by default when she has no ability to look after the children herself.

If the man has to pay for everything surely the kids should stay with him by default (unless there are specific reasons such as abuse for the divorce) until the mother can get on her feet and be self reliant then the custody can be revisited and costs shared.

Because traditionally the man pays for everything but doesn't do feck all. He can't pay the oven to cook dinner, or pay the washing machine to collect the clothes, wash and dry them. He may hand over a €20 and think it's equivalent to actually going into town to the shops and finding everything the kids need but it's not, it's the very least that could be done to help.

stuar

I have plenty of experience with this sh1t, been in dolphin house more times than I can remember, basically if they give an order for maintenance it must be stuck by. But €25 a week per child is the going rate, he can fight it if he's on jobseekers or similar.

I was ripped off by the mother(s) of my children, I had a good business back when times were good, bought a house 20 odd years ago and put everything into the mothers name, just so the tax man couldn't rob me, he didn't need to, she did, we're cool now, but I was ripped left right and centre.

Then I met the woman of my dreams, haha, guess what, she ripped me too, I'm a sucker for punishment.

Now I have the woman of my dreams looking over my shoulder(literally), so must end now while I'm ahead.......

uch

uch wrote: »

When the kids turn 18

In Spain even when they turn 18, if they are still living at home with the other parent, maintenance still has to be paid.

FortySeven

BrokenArrows wrote: »

Ill never understand why the courts still assign custody to the mother by default when she has no ability to look after the children herself.

If the man has to pay for everything surely the kids should stay with him by default (unless there are specific reasons such as abuse for the divorce) until the mother can get on her feet and be self reliant then the custody can be revisited and costs shared.

The only reason why the man should lose custody and have to pay for everything is if he Forced the wife to be a housewife.

If i had kids in a divorce you would be dam sure that if i was paying for everything then i would expect the kids to be under my roof.

Very innocent. Men are just cash cows to the family court.

Standard breakup. I got a solicitor letter the other day warning me if I breached my court ordered access again I would be restricted from travelling to a large area of galway.

My crime? Stopped to talk to my son who was chasing my car on his bike. It was not my access time. I'm supposed to just ignore him apparently.

You would not believe the power women have.

Boom_Bap

Moved to Seperation and Divorce from AH.

If you are following this thread from AH, please read the charter of the new forum.

Sapphire

jake_boy_men wrote: »

well it should make a difference , her new man took on her kids as well as her , its all very well for him that he gets to hang out with another mans wife and kids but the other poor eejit has to pick up the tab

They don't 'take on' another persons children.

The only people responsible for the cost of rearing a child is the child's parents. Just because your ex enters into a new relationship it does not mean that you get to relinquish your financial obligations towards your children and lump it onto your ex's new partner as some sort of revenge for them not pining forever after for you. Unless you legally relinquish your claim to the children and let them get legally adopted by the new partner.

It could be argued that there is a small reduction in rent or utilities given that another adult now lives there but costs associated with children should be soley between the parents.

Estrellita

Your friends children are not the other mans responsibility. If communication between the ex husband and wife is not good, it might be worth reminding your friend not to use the children's entitlement as a weapon to get at her. If they cannot agree a more fitting figure between them then they should both resubmit their means in court.

BrokenArrows

BrokenArrows wrote: »

Ill never understand why the courts still assign custody to the mother by default when she has no ability to look after the children herself.

If the man has to pay for everything surely the kids should stay with him by default (unless there are specific reasons such as abuse for the divorce) until the mother can get on her feet and be self reliant then the custody can be revisited and costs shared.

The only reason why the man should lose custody and have to pay for everything is if he Forced the wife to be a housewife.

If i had kids in a divorce you would be dam sure that if i was paying for everything then i would expect the kids to be under my roof.

Do you really think money should be the major determinant of which parent becomes primary carer?

I can see an argument which says that the parent with the greatest resources will offer the best opportunities for the child's welfare, but if that parent is the breadwinner, who will take care of the child? A babysitter? There seems to be particularly strong evidence that children get better grades when cared for by a stay-at-home parent.

http://cepa.stanford.edu/news/eric-bettinger-why-stay-home-parents-are-good-older-children

So personally I can see an argument both ways, but purely from the child's point of view, s/he's probably better-off being raised by a stay-at-home parent.

Perhaps the best scenario will be one where a parent minds the kids during the morning and at homework time, then leaves, at which point parent 2 comes home from work, and stays with the children in the evening and at night time. Weekends might be shared. But there are very few families for whom this will be a workable solution, so parents are going to have to be pragmatic. Failing that, the courts will have to intervene with their version of pragmatism.

VinLieger

Edit: Thread switched forums

Keane2baMused

FortySeven wrote: »

Very innocent. Men are just cash cows to the family court.

Standard breakup. I got a solicitor letter the other day warning me if I breached my court ordered access again I would be restricted from travelling to a large area of galway.

My crime? Stopped to talk to my son who was chasing my car on his bike. It was not my access time. I'm supposed to just ignore him apparently.

You would not believe the power women have.

Fortyseven that's really awful to hear.

I can never understand why someone uses their child as a pawn to get at their ex essentially.

Jawgap

He needs to check is separation / divorce agreement.

If the maintenance is to his wife (spousal) then it ends when she gets married, not before, even if she is living with someone. These payments are tax deductible and if he hasn't been getting the deduction he should be.

If the maintenance is for the kids specifically (child maintenance) then his obligation is to pay until they turn 18 or finish full time education (but even then it ends at age 23).

Given that it seems there has been a material change of circumstances then he can apply to the court to vary the maintenance - it's a bit of a double edged sword - he can apply for a reduction and she can counter by applying for an increase (she'll need to show she needs the extra).

idnkph

Bam Bam Mickey wrote:

In Spain even when they turn 18, if they are still living at home with the other parent, maintenance still has to be paid.

You do know we are not in Spain?! OP I feel your pain.