Child Maintenance in Ireland

rebelwithcause

I was shocked to find out that one of the consequences of the changes to the One Parent Family Payment was that the 'liable relative' was discarded from the legislation around social welfare payment (previously the DSP issued determination orders to liable relatives on the amount of maintenance they had to pay). This in effect means that once a child turns 7, social welfare writes out to the liable relative (ie Dads) and tells them they no longer have to pay child maintenance unless court ordered. Very few women want to go through the courts as once an order issues they are deducted money, regardless of whether they receive the maintenance or not, so the risk outweighs the benefit, It seems shocking to me that the state has decided that a Father no longer has to pay for his child once the child is over 6. Children in lone parent families have the highest rates of consistent poverty and deprivation than any other group and we are now compounding that by letting Dad's off the hook and placing a bigger burden on taxpayers. Ireland already had the second lowest prevalence of child maintenance payments at 20.1% out of 16 EU countries and now we have written out to Dads to tell them they can stop paying!!! Am I missing something, or has the world gone nuts!!

Your Face

Hon Connacht !

Junkyard Tom

rebelwithcause wrote: »

the state has decided that a Father no longer has to pay for his child once the child is over 6.

I find that hard to believe to be honest. Why would that be the case?

MilesMorales1

Too long didn't read.

rebelwithcause

rebelwithcause wrote: »

It seems shocking to me that the state has decided that a Father no longer has to pay for his child once the child is over 6.

That's certainly not the view taken by the legislation and the Courts, which pretty much treat the issue of maintenance as an obligation, and rightly so. You see very few zero maintenance orders for children, even in cases where the parent without custody shows inability to pay the Courts like to insist on some nominal amount. Of course parents with custody can't be compelled to make applications and know many arrangements that are made to maximise the amount that can be drawn from the Department of Social Protection.

groucho marx

I thought from previous ah posts that all maintenance was paid by the nine to five folk of this good forum

rebelwithcause

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I find that hard to believe to be honest. Why would that be the case?

This is from Burton in answer to a parliamentary question in April.

"The liability to maintain family provisions, contained in social welfare legislation, are separate to family law legislation. In every case where a one parent family payment is awarded, the Department seeks to trace the other parent (liable relative) to ascertain whether he/she is in a financial position to contribute towards the cost of this payment. This does not alter an individual’s obligation to pay maintenance pursuant to a Court Order.

Currently, once the one-parent family payment recipient’s youngest child reaches age 7, and their entitlement to the one-parent family payment ceases, the liability assessed under the liable relative provisions no longer applies. The Department advises the liable relative accordingly."


I can't post a look but if you look up photos Irish Single Parents Fight Back facebook page they have a copy of the letter sent out to all the Dad's last October!

rebelwithcause

Deleted User wrote: »

That's certainly not the view taken by the legislation and the Courts, which pretty much treat the issue of maintenance as an obligation, and rightly so. You see very few zero maintenance orders for children, even in cases where the parent without custody shows inability to pay the Courts like to insist on some nominal amount. Of course parents with custody can't be compelled to make applications and know many arrangements that are made to maximise the amount that can be drawn from the Department of Social Protection.

The stats show only 20.1% of parents pay maintenance - this is shockingly low and it's important we ask why? In Denmark it's over 90% and in Sweden 100%, we're doing something wrong!!

Tasden

rebelwithcause wrote: »

The stats show only 20.1% of parents pay maintenance - this is shockingly low and it's important we ask why? In Denmark it's over 90% and in Sweden 100%, we're doing something wrong!!

Where is that figure from? There are plenty of parents paying maintenance/contributing financially towards their child's upbringing through their own arrangement with the other parent which wouldn't necessarily show up in any stats.

FortySeven

Tasden wrote: »

Where is that figure from? There are plenty of parents paying maintenance/contributing financially towards their child's upbringing through their own arrangement with the other parent which wouldn't necessarily show up in any stats.

Lots of maintenance is not declared so fis can be claimed. The figures are rubbish.

rebelwithcause

Tasden wrote: »

Where is that figure from? There are plenty of parents paying maintenance/contributing financially towards their child's upbringing through their own arrangement with the other parent which wouldn't necessarily show up in any stats.

From this EU report : - Directorate General for Internal Policies, 2014, “Child maintenance systems in EU Member States from a gender perspective”, FEMM Committee

rebelwithcause

FortySeven wrote: »

Lots of maintenance is not declared so fis can be claimed. The figures are rubbish.

You think people who got a letter from social welfare telling them they were no longer obliged to pay decided to pay anyway??

pickarooney

rebelwithcause wrote: »

This is from Burton in answer to a parliamentary question in April.

"The liability to maintain family provisions, contained in social welfare legislation, are separate to family law legislation. In every case where a one parent family payment is awarded, the Department seeks to trace the other parent (liable relative) to ascertain whether he/she is in a financial position to contribute towards the cost of this payment. This does not alter an individual’s obligation to pay maintenance pursuant to a Court Order.

Currently, once the one-parent family payment recipient’s youngest child reaches age 7, and their entitlement to the one-parent family payment ceases, the liability assessed under the liable relative provisions no longer applies. The Department advises the liable relative accordingly."


I can't post a look but if you look up photos Irish Single Parents Fight Back facebook page they have a copy of the letter sent out to all the Dad's last October!

Maybe it's just me but that seems to have nothing to do with your original post. The quoted text refers to a social welfare payment which is available to single parents until at least age seven and possibly extendable thereafter if supplementary maintenance c not be obtained from the absent parent. It says nothing about absolving said parent of their maintenance obligations.

Ted111

Some of these hoes are broke-down, busted and disgusted and not to be trusted.

Grandeeod

Sorry OP. Paragraphs please.

Carlos Orange

rebelwithcause wrote: »

From this EU report : - Directorate General for Internal Policies, 2014, “Child maintenance systems in EU Member States from a gender perspective”, FEMM Committee

You would think with a title like that you would have been able to work out that 1 in 7 single parents is a man.

rebelwithcause

pickarooney wrote: »

Maybe it's just me but that seems to have nothing to do with your original post. The quoted text refers to a social welfare payment which is available to single parents until at least age seven and possibly extendable thereafter if supplementary maintenance c not be obtained from the absent parent. It says nothing about absolving said parent of their maintenance obligations.

They write to the liable relative (mainly Dad's ) and tell them they no longer have to pay maintenance! Once the child turns 7 the custodial parent changes to a different social welfare payment and the new payment (JST) does not contain a provision for the liable relative so that's why the Dept writes to them to say they can stop paying!

FortySeven

rebelwithcause wrote: »

You think people who got a letter from social welfare telling them they were no longer obliged to pay decided to pay anyway??

Most dads aren't deadbeats. We want the best for our children. Perhaps if mothers weren't excluding fathers from their children's lives they may find maintenance more forthcoming.

There needs to be more accountability on maintenance. It should be dependant on receipts proving the money went on the child.

Cue feminist hate rants in 3.2.1

Ted111

It would be more cost effective if they sent Emails.

rebelwithcause

rebelwithcause wrote: »

The stats show only 20.1% of parents pay maintenance - this is shockingly low and it's important we ask why? In Denmark it's over 90% and in Sweden 100%, we're doing something wrong!!

Before I comment, do you have a link to that stat? Thanks.

rebelwithcause

Deleted User wrote: »

Before I comment, do you have a link to that stat? Thanks.

Directorate General for Internal Policies, 2014, “Child maintenance systems in EU Member States from a gender perspective”, FEMM Committee

Tasden

FortySeven wrote: »

Most dads aren't deadbeats. We want the best for our children. Perhaps if mothers weren't excluding fathers from their children's lives they may find maintenance more forthcoming.

There needs to be more accountability on maintenance. It should be dependant on receipts proving the money went on the child.

Cue feminist hate rants in 3.2.1

Perhaps if you didn't make sweeping generalisations about mothers you wouldn't be on the receiving end of "feminist hate rants". Both of the generalisations in your post are equally offensive and ignorant.

eviltwin

FortySeven wrote: »

Most dads aren't deadbeats. We want the best for our children. Perhaps if mothers weren't excluding fathers from their children's lives they may find maintenance more forthcoming.

There needs to be more accountability on maintenance. It should be dependant on receipts proving the money went on the child.

Cue feminist hate rants in 3.2.1

You really let yourself down with your comments on feminists. I am a feminist and I agree with everything you say bar that last line. I think most dad's are doing the best they can but if there are stats showing such a low number supporting their children we need to look into it and see why that is and how we can change it.

rebelwithcause

rebelwithcause wrote: »

Directorate General for Internal Policies, 2014, “Child maintenance systems in EU Member States from a gender perspective”, FEMM Committee

I'm wondering what the underlying criteria are. For example, if it shows that x country was at 80% and we were at 20%, I wouldn't so much wonder if Irish fathers are 4 times worse than x country, but maybe that there are reasons eg. X country has tax breaks for maintenance that make disclosure of such payments preferable, or that they relied on Court Order data which of course does not cover private arrangements etc.

rebelwithcause

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm wondering what the underlying criteria are. For example, if it shows that x country was at 80% and we were at 20%, I wouldn't so much wonder if Irish fathers are 4 times worse than x country, but maybe that there are reasons eg. X country has tax breaks for maintenance that make disclosure of such payments preferable, or that they relied on Court Order data which of course does not cover private arrangements etc.

We're one of the few countries that don't have a maintenance collection system. It's up to the custodial parent to go to court and if there is no compliance, who follows up? If you issue enforcement proceedings and the other parent doesn't turn up a bench warrant issues. The bench warrants are rarely executed because unlike other cases there is no prosecuting guard to follow up on the warrant. If there is a court order in place, social welfare deduct based on the amount awarded and even if you prove it's not being paid, benefits are cut. There is a lot of effort involved, a lot of risk and for very little return if you need social welfare. And now, it's worse as the Dpt. are upsetting non court arrangements by writing out saying there's no need to pay of child is over 6.

In other countries, the money is paid directly to the parent and then revenue collect it at source. Courts really are no the idea place to sort out these things, as they are adversarial by nature, and that certainly isn't in best interest of parents working together for their child.

ceadaoin.

FortySeven wrote: »

Most dads aren't deadbeats. We want the best for our children. Perhaps if mothers weren't excluding fathers from their children's lives they may find maintenance more forthcoming.

There needs to be more accountability on maintenance. It should be dependant on receipts proving the money went on the child.

Cue feminist hate rants in 3.2.1

Can you make a post that doesn't rant about "feminists" (aka women) somewhere in there? Sorry but the majority of fathers who are not involved in their children's lives are making the choice to not to be. If a court has ruled that a parent can't have access to their children then there is usually a very good reason for that.

Also, child maintenance doesn't work on a pay per view basis.

FortySeven

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Can you make a post that doesn't rant about "feminists" (aka women)? Sorry but the majority of fathers who are not involved in their children's lives are making the choice to not to be. In most cases it's nothing to do with evil mothers withholding contact, although these fathers might like to convince others that's the reason. If a court has ruled that a parent can't have access to their children then there is usually a very good reason for that.

Also, child maintenance doesn't work on a pay per view basis.

Where are you getting your majority fathers fault figures from? Most seperations are instigated by women and they take the kids. The father may get to see them but a few hours a week is not participating in their lives. It is just visiting. There are plenty mothers not allowing fathers access. So much so that legislation was introduced to combat it last year. It is still not being enacted upon though.

The argument that men don't pay is rubbish. It is very easy for a parent to get an attachment of earnings where maintenance is deducted from welfare or wages at source. This can even be applied to UK wages and benefits. So the argument put forward for poor mothers having benefits cut due to a court ordered amount not being paid is rubbish. Fathers can be jailed for non payment and they are.

I never stated maintenance was pay per view. I put forward the idea that perhaps men would be more generous voluntarily if mothers would be more willing to allow them more say in their children's lives.

rebelwithcause

rebelwithcause wrote: »

We're one of the few countries that don't have a maintenance collection system. It's up to the custodial parent to go to court and if there is no compliance, who follows up? If you issue enforcement proceedings and the other parent doesn't turn up a bench warrant issues...

The Courts Service issue enforcement proceedings now.

rebelwithcause

Deleted User wrote: »

The Courts Service issue enforcement proceedings now.

Yes, and if someone doesn't turn up a bench warrant is issued that is rarely executed for reasons explained earlier.

FortySeven

rebelwithcause wrote: »

Yes, and if someone doesn't turn up a bench warrant is issued that is rarely executed for reasons explained earlier.

Attachment of earnings? Deducted at source?

What rubbish you are attempting to peddle.

rebelwithcause

rebelwithcause wrote: »

Yes, and if someone doesn't turn up a bench warrant is issued that is rarely executed for reasons explained earlier.

I see the opposite with bench warrants, Gardai pleading with clients to turn up to avoid the need to haul them in because a bench warrant is an order by the Judge compelling the Gardai to do exactly that. When you say they are rarely executed, do you have any stats for that that exclude the numbers who have moved to an unknown address?

rebelwithcause

FortySeven wrote: »

Attachment of earnings? Deducted at source?

What rubbish you are attempting to peddle.

Attachment of earnings can only occur if employers are summoned. There are a lot of cases where the custodial parent doesn't know the employer and the other parent deliberately keeps it from them and also not applicable for self employed.

And again, the real point if the other parent fails to turn up, bench warrants are rarely executed because there is no prosecuting guard to follow up.

alta stare

Wont some one please think of the kids.......no seriously think of the kids. Too much fighting over access and money and it gets out of hand. People need to grow up and be there for their kids financially, emotionally and physically. I know it can be hard if the parents dont see eye to eye but it can be worked out its for the benefit of everyone involved.

Im not trying to preach just speaking from experience. Im very thankful the situation im in was handled (not all of the time) in mature and sensible way. It is a shame when this does not happen tho, both parties should work hard to give their children as much of a positive outcome as they can. Its really sad to see a kid caught up in something which can be really nasty it can set a bad tone for their future.

rebelwithcause

Deleted User wrote: »

I see the opposite with bench warrants, Gardai pleading with clients to turn up to avoid the need to haul them in because a bench warrant is an order by the Judge compelling the Gardai to do exactly that. When you say they are rarely executed, do you have any stats for that that exclude the numbers who have moved to an unknown address?

No, there are no stats available but after doing research after hearing this, a guard explained that there is no one assigned to the bench warrant, hence they are not executed. In every other case with a bench warrant, there is a prosecuting guard who will follow their case. Family law cases have no prosecuting guard. Usually the only way they are executed is if the person has come to Gardai attention before and they are looking for the person.

Look, reality is maintenance in Ireland is a mess and has been made worse by DSP writing to non custodial parents saying they don't have to pay for kids over 6. We don't have a proper maintenance system as in other countries, social welfare is straining and families are living in poverty.

Too often the debate about reducing poverty is around work or welfare, surely we need to be adding maintenance into the debate too. The recent changes to legislation was a backward step that is going to increase child poverty and ultimately cost the tax payer more.

alta stare

rebelwithcause wrote: »

Look, reality is maintenance in Ireland is a mess and has been made worse by DSP writing to non custodial parents saying they don't have to pay for kids over 6. We don't have a proper maintenance system as in other countries, social welfare is straining and families are living in poverty

Your right it is a mess a big mess which unfortunately is aided by some (i said some) women taking good decent guys to the cleaners all the while refusing access.

Any person who shows zero interest in their kid should be taken to task and made accountable for the childs welfare, Any person who shows a healthy interest in their kid should be shown respect and not be allowed be taken to the cleaners, unfortunately many guys are getting the **** end of the stick and its not right.

Iv had to endure crap, i paid monies for years i still am and when all of that crap was on going i made a choice to be there for my kids no matter how bad i was being treated i done that so i could be there for them, it has paid off i have a great relationship with them. Their mam finally respects my position with them and realises she dont need to be greedy she needs me to be there for OUR kids. They are stable because we are stable.....fighting and rowing over money is bad, the unfair court system fuels that in certain situations and i for one om glad we are not in that merry go round.

Family law in Ireland is a mess and it needs a big overhaul which i fear wont happen for a very long time.

snor

I work full time to support myself and my young children. I have ever received anything from the state (except children's allowance for which I am very grateful)

He can have all the access he wants over and above what is court ordered (1 afternoon a week) - No problem.

My ex has paid no maintenance for his children for the last 4 years. Not a cent. I repeatedly bring him to court, he tells the judge he is not working (by choice - is qualified to Masters level) and not getting social welfare as he lives with his working partner. So his life choices mean That my children loose out.

Great auld country we live in....

foggy_lad

OP all that means is that once the parent with custody who is getting the one parent payment stops receiving this payment when they youngest eligible child turns 7 then the DSP no longer have any entitlement to seek any payments based on the one parent family payment from the other parent.

This does not mean that court ordered maintenance payments will cease or will be reduced in any way.

rebelwithcause

foggy_lad wrote: »

OP all that means is that once the parent with custody who is getting the one parent payment stops receiving this payment when they youngest eligible child turns 7 then the DSP no longer have any entitlement to seek any payments based on the one parent family payment from the other parent.

This does not mean that court ordered maintenance payments will cease or will be reduced in any way.

I got that, but unlike you I also got that non court ordered arrangements were now encouraged by DSP to cease. You think they were right to say that maintenance should only be paid until a child turns 7. DSP should not have brought in legislation that effectively let the other parent off the hook!!

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

I don't know why DSP are paying lone parents at all. It should be both the parents job to support their child/children and should not be left sucking off the publics teet.

That said - I think fathers in general get a very raw deal in this country when it comes to access. A lot of women seem happy enough to take a mans money but make it as difficult as possible for him to see his children.

At the end of the day, the only ones that matter in all this are the children. They deserve to have both parents present in their lives (unless one is an actual danger to the child physically or emotionally). It's ok not to like your former partner but that should never be projected onto the child. No child should be made feel bad about loving both parents, or be made choose sides.

What I find bizzare is when people in family court can decide to haul each other up in front of the judge for little or no reason. It baffles me a little bit why on earth someone would need a judge to tell them to support their child, but I suppose there are a lot of women using access as something to dangle over the fathers head.

FishOnABike

rebelwithcause wrote: »

I got that, but unlike you I also got that non court ordered arrangements were now encouraged by DSP to cease. You think they were right to say that maintenance should only be paid until a child turns 7. DSP should not have brought in legislation that effectively let the other parent off the hook!!

Can you post the full text of the letter. From the quoted minister's dail response it seemed clear that a parent's responsibility to their parent was not in question, only the DSP's role in recovering money paid under one parent family payment allowance as this allowance only applied up to the age of 7.

I think you are putting two and two together and getting five.

Judge Trudy

Threads like this sadden me to read all the typical stereotypes being wheeled out, mostly about women...Like another poster said, at the end of the day it should be about the welfare of the child and what is best for them and that every single one of their needs are met. I don't want to go into my personal situation but I have been waiting for 3 years for maintenance but my hands are tied as he very cleverly moved to a country which is outside the EU and outside the jurisdiction for chasing child maintenance.

I think it's high time that if a court order is in place for maintenance that it legally has to come straight out of pay slips or social welfare. I've read that in other countries not paying maintenance can affect your credit rating going forward. You're legally obliged to pay towards your offspring so why shouldn't this be enforced more. It's why statically children of one parent families end up in poverty more than the children of a two parent family unit.

bikermartin

LexieOnRale wrote: »

I don't know why DSP are paying lone parents at all. It should be both the parents job to support their child/children and should not be left sucking off the publics teet.

That said - I think fathers in general get a very raw deal in this country when it comes to access. A lot of women seem happy enough to take a mans money but make it as difficult as possible for him to see his children.

At the end of the day, the only ones that matter in all this are the children. They deserve to have both parents present in their lives (unless one is an actual danger to the child physically or emotionally). It's ok not to like your former partner but that should never be projected onto the child. No child should be made feel bad about loving both parents, or be made choose sides.

What I find bizzare is when people in family court can decide to haul each other up in front of the judge for little or no reason. It baffles me a little bit why on earth someone would need a judge to tell them to support their child, but I suppose there are a lot of women using access as something to dangle over the fathers head.

Most father's are better than mothers, that's what I'm seeing, and I'm confident I'm right. I see it all the time where in my location, the lone parent (supposedly) has 3 children, 3 different father's, getting maintenance from one has to declare it as he pays through bank ( smart man !). Another father giving her cash (not declared, not a smart man).

She is drinking 3 to 4 nights weekly that I can see. She is driving a 2 year old car,she's works for cash I'm certain of. She had a child recently to keep on lone parents.... As her youngest child before baby born must be about 7.

Don't tell me this is is a bad deal for lone parent moms.Why should any father support a lone parent like this, so they can live the high life.

Sick of looking it I am.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

It's not about the parent. He/she is the person YOU CHOSE to have a child with. It's not a competition. It's about the child. Why should the father pay? Because he has a child and his child costs money to feed and dress. It's not about the mother, or your dislike for her. The child doesn't deserve to be punished, you both made the child, don't use the child to punish the other parent. It's disgusting.

eviltwin

bikermartin wrote: »

Most father's are better than mothers, that's what I'm seeing, and I'm confident I'm right. I see it all the time where in my location, the lone parent (supposedly) has 3 children, 3 different father's, getting maintenance from one has to declare it as he pays through bank ( smart man !). Another father giving her cash (not declared, not a smart man).

She is drinking 3 to 4 nights weekly that I can see. She is driving a 2 year old car,she's works for cash I'm certain of. She had a child recently to keep on lone parents.... As her youngest child before baby born must be about 7.

Don't tell me this is is a bad deal for lone parent moms.Why should any father support a lone parent like this, so they can live the high life.

Sick of looking it I am.

That woman isn't representative of most single mothers. The single mothers I know do a brilliant job with their children, they are excellent parents and not living the high life, they are doing their best to get by.

alta stare

LexieOnRale wrote: »

It's not about the parent. He/she is the person YOU CHOSE to have a child with. It's not a competition. It's about the child. Why should the father pay? Because he has a child and his child costs money to feed and dress. It's not about the mother, or your dislike for her. The child doesn't deserve to be punished, you both made the child, don't use the child to punish the other parent. It's disgusting.

I agree with all of that but a big problem is also how many women take the piss out of guys and the courts system for years facilitates this kind of behaviour. Its slowly changing though which i guess is better than no change at all. But yeah using kids as a weapon is horrible and very pathetic from whomever is doing so.

Calahonda52

Guys and gals, we are at post 44 and I am as yet clueless as to what this thread is about.
There is the now obligatory single (ma and da) bashing, as well appeals to think of the children, and hand wringing about the Government inaction and what happens in other countries, none of which adds any value to the kernel issue.

On the other side there are requests from folk like Conor74 who clearly knows a bit about this for some clarification so OP can we have some clarity on the problem, maybe as follows.
1/1/2000: child born.
Mother entitled to CA and ? (including some SW payments)
1/1/2007 child is 7, what happens to ?

Is there also the point that CM reduces the SW payment?

As for the state ever caring about its children, just look at the industrial schools, magdalene laundries, institutionalised abuse in state run schools and now we have the latest Grace revelations.

I have an interest in this as I do some work in the debt restructuring field....
Thanks

Tasden

alta stare wrote: »

I agree with all of that but a big problem is also how many women take the piss out of guys and the courts system for years facilitates this kind of behaviour. Its slowly changing though which i guess is better than no change at all. But yeah using kids as a weapon is horrible and very pathetic from whomever is doing so.

And plenty of women work and receive no maintenance whatsoever. Lots of women have an amicable agreement with the father. Or seek only what the child needs and asks for no more or less. Or who make an agreement at mediation and don't even get to court. There are also many who can't even get into "the system" because they don't have an address for the father, or the father is in another country. There are those who pay maintenance and spousal support to the father and receive no assistance themselves.

Not all single fathers are the same and not all single mothers are the same, and some posters on the thread would do well to remember that they don't like being stereotyped as one type of parent so they shouldn't do the same to other parents.

bikermartin

eviltwin wrote: »

That woman isn't representative of most single mothers. The single mothers I know do a brilliant job with their children, they are excellent parents and not living the high life, they are doing their best to get by.

There is 3 of this example I describe in my road. The example I have given has already been caught for sw fraud, as she was not declaring the money received from father 1.

I should not know this but I do, and I'm delighted to know that not all will get away with it.

This woman has a narcissistic personality, as in nothing matters except me.


She is still continue to collect money from the father's and still not declare it

But I suppose, its in her background her mother,father,sister are also claiming fraudulent payments.

I have a very basic life myself, don't drink or smoke, so Of course I am sick of watching this woman bleed our country dry.

She is buying clothes socialising, buying cars all the time. She is a single mother living with 3 kids. Not the brightest spark, when the father see the life she has at his expense.... If it were me I'd take her to court and see where my money is going.


The money is for the children...NOT the mother.


If it was not a bank holiday, I would ring the fraud protection unit.

alta stare

Tasden wrote: »

And plenty of women work and receive no maintenance whatsoever. Lots of women have an amicable agreement with the father. Or seek only what the child needs and asks for no more or less. Or who make an agreement at mediation and don't even get to court. There are also many who can't even get into "the system" because they don't have an address for the father, or the father is in another country. There are those who pay maintenance and spousal support to the father and receive no assistance themselves.

Not all single fathers are the same and not all single mothers are the same, and some posters on the thread would do well to remember that they don't like being stereotyped as one type of parent so they shouldn't do the same to other parents.

I know everybodies situation is different and this thread is turning into a mother father bashing which is pointless so its going to go no where fast. My point is that from experience the mothers have far more rights and help within the judicial system than the fathers. As i mentioned in a previous comment any parent male or female that dont contribute financially emotionally and physically should be held ccountable. I have zero issue with women claiming against their childrens fathers as long as it is warranted and not just a way of screwing him over because she may not like him or she feels its the thing to do.....the latter can be said for a few women i know. Also i know plenty of guys who dont bother with their kids and some of those losers are still with the kids mother it beggars belief.

riclad

I know a single mother,she works 3 days a week in a restaurant .
She has an iphone 5,upc cable tv,2 laptops, an ipad, sky tv, broadband upc.
she is not exactly starving .
rent is 50 euro a week.
She has 1 child.
She told me i never asked the father for a single cent .
she does not want the child to have any contact with the father .Unless the father is well off ,she might get 30 euros per week if she went to court .
Her life style is similar to someone who works full time ,she has a small car .She go,s to spain for 2 weeks holiday every year .

Tasden

riclad wrote: »

I know a single mother,she works 3 days a week in a restaurant .
She has an iphone 5,upc cable tv,2 laptops, an ipad, sky tv, broadband upc.
she is not exactly starving .
rent is 50 euro a week.
She has 1 child.
She told me i never asked the father for a single cent .
she does not want the child to have any contact with the father .Unless the father is well off ,she might get 30 euros per week if she went to court .
Her life style is similar to someone who works full time ,she has a small car .She go,s to spain for 2 weeks holiday every year .

Ok and I work full time and also have little luxuries myself. I dont go telling neighbours my financial circumstances, for all they know I'm sponging off the state too. For every waster there is someone working hard for what they have. It's not limited to single parents. Happens in all walks of life.