Maintenance debts in court

konraado

Hi,

Small question. What is usually happening if you are due to court for maintenance debt. I was working recently and sent money regularly, however in first years after i arrived here, i worked just part time or did not work at all. My ex gave me to court and after several years now im due to court because of maintenance debt of several grand.

What is happening in these situations? Is there this stupid driving licence ban here in Ireland aswell, as it is in USA and Latvia?

Little CuChulainn

A driving licence ban for not paying maintenance? No.

What happens is the judge will decide on wether money is owed and, if it is, how it is to be repaid. You need a solicitor.

konraado

Thanks,
I am reading in internet that some countries do such a stupid thing as driving ban. Thats why im worried and asking people who knows how things are. Glad to hear that its not like that in Ireland.
Yea, sure, ill go to solicitor and discuss how to pay debt and all things. Im not the one who does not wish to pay child maintenance, so i dont see any problem there

Pat Mustard

konraado wrote: »

Thanks,
I am reading in internet that some countries do such a stupid thing as driving ban. Thats why im worried and asking people who knows how things are. Glad to hear that its not like that in Ireland.
Yea, sure, ill go to solicitor and discuss how to pay debt and all things. Im not the one who does not wish to pay child maintenance, so i dont see any problem there

Driving bans are generally for motoring offences such as drink driving or where a motor vehicle was used in relation to the offence; e.g. getaway drivers for bank robberies.

You are right to have a solicitor to advise you and to represent you.

konraado

Yea, thanks,

Ill visit solicitor, of course. Thanks God here is not like in England or USA or Latvia. Hopefully

Samuel T. Cogley

I've failed. I've tried so hard not too...

By stupid, do you mean countries that believe that a father should be held accountable for their spawn regardless of how much money they're making? Did your child stop eating, growing and requiring support while you were 'only working Part-time or not working at all' over a period of several years?

If you're living in a hostel and sending every penny you possibly can - I apologise. If not I sincerely hope Ireland becomes one of those stupid countries very soon.

Johnboy1951

Libertarian Kant wrote: »

I've failed. I've tried so hard not too...

By stupid, do you mean countries that believe that a father should be held accountable for their spawn regardless of how much money they're making? Did your child stop eating, growing and requiring support while you were 'only working Part-time or not working at all' over a period of several years?

If you're living in a hostel and sending every penny you possibly can - I apologise. If not I sincerely hope Ireland becomes one of those stupid countries very soon.

So you advocate that Ireland should issue driving bans on those that owe maintenance?

How does that help anyone?

Samuel T. Cogley

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

So you advocate that Ireland should issue driving bans on those that owe maintenance?

How does that help anyone?

I'd advocate it for someone who owns a car in Dublin, who is working in Dublin and not paying their child maintenance. I'd advocate it as a general rule in fact unless the person could show it was a requirement for getting/keeping a job.

If you can't afford your maintenance payments you should be on a rusty old bike before you're paying out the expense of a car. I don't care if it takes you three hours to get too and from work. You had the child, you have a duty to support it before yourself.

Johnboy1951

Libertarian Kant wrote: »

I'd advocate it for someone who owns a car in Dublin, who is working in Dublin and not paying their child maintenance. I'd advocate it as a general rule in fact unless the person could show it was a requirement for getting/keeping a job.

If you can't afford your maintenance payments you should be on a rusty old bike before you're paying out the expense of a car. I don't care if it takes you three hours to get too and from work. You had the child, you have a duty to support it before yourself.

So it does not help getting dues paid.

It helps no one.

Seems to me it is just silly spite and not a solution to have the payments made.

Samuel T. Cogley

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

So it does not help getting dues paid.

It helps no one.

Seems to me it is just silly spite and not a solution to have the payments made.

You can't force someone into a salt mine. You may however remove privileges such as driving. Maybe it helps, maybe it doesn't in regard to payment. It certainly creates some pain to deadbeat fathers, which I'm all for.

A good counter argument that comes up is the possibility of driving without the licence or other requirements such as tax and insurance. Personally I think that's a relatively spurious argument though as if you can be bothered feeding and clothing your child, will tax and insurance be high on your list?

Not everyone who can't pay maintenance is a deadbeat, but we should screw the ones that are into the ground.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Samuel T. Cogley

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Dealt with above; with the knock on effect it can be difficult to get some of these people into court to explain themselves in the first place, another excellent reason some why the stupid countries and states (as it's not a blanket thing in the US) do it.

Dravokivich

Libertarian Kant wrote: »

I've failed. I've tried so hard not too...

By stupid, do you mean countries that believe that a father should be held accountable for their spawn regardless of how much money they're making? Did your child stop eating, growing and requiring support while you were 'only working Part-time or not working at all' over a period of several years?

If you're living in a hostel and sending every penny you possibly can - I apologise. If not I sincerely hope Ireland becomes one of those stupid countries very soon.

You didn't try hard enough. Op didn't have money to pay maintenance. He does now and is contributing. Now he's concerned of how the period he couldnt may affect him. What did you miss from the lofty perch of your soapbox?

Samuel T. Cogley

Dravokivich wrote: »

You didn't try hard enough. Op didn't have money to pay maintenance. He does now and is contributing. Now he's concerned of how the period he couldnt may affect him. What did you miss from the lofty perch of your soapbox?

Again, did the child not need to eat during that period?

Dravokivich

Libertarian Kant wrote: »

Again, did the child not need to eat during that period?

You're missing the point and tainting the discussion with a bias viewpoint. Look at what's been said, stop filling in gaps you are looking for that don't exist.

Samuel T. Cogley

Dravokivich wrote: »

You're missing the point and tainting the discussion with a bias viewpoint. Look at what's been said, stop filling in gaps you are looking for that don't exist.

Right back at cha buddy. I've already said

a) People can't be forced into some kind of slave labour
b) If the transport is required and the court makes that determination, fair enough.

The point I am making is punitive sanctions on deadbeat fathers is hardly 'stupid' and in actual fact can be effective in a number of ways. If you want to engage in the argument do so, Mod deletion

Stheno

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Courts here can send people to prison for failing to pay maintenance which is even worse.

Dravokivich

Libertarian Kant wrote: »

Right back at cha buddy. I've already said

a) People can't be forced into some kind of slave labour
b) If the transport is required and the court makes that determination, fair enough.

The point I am making is punitive sanctions on deadbeat fathers is hardly 'stupid' and in actual fact can be effective in a number of ways. If you want to engage in the argument do so,Mod deletion .

Again your bias is showing in spades with the expectation that he's a deadbeat father. There is nothing to indicate that. It is also quite unbelievable that you feel that their should be conditional restrictions placed upon him that are completely unrelated to the matter. That you pick and choose on a whim to meander around a counter point to your commentary.

There is already the potential for fines or imprisonment for failure to comply with the court order. We don't need anything else in there.

Samuel T. Cogley

Dravokivich wrote: »

Again your bias is showing in spades with the expectation that he's a deadbeat father. There is nothing to indicate that. It is also quite unbelievable that you feel that their should be conditional restrictions placed upon him that are completely unrelated to the matter. That you pick and choose on a whim to meander around a counter point to your commentary.

There is already the potential for fines or imprisonment for failure to comply with the court order. We don't need anything else in there.

You quoted the post where I said if he was sending every penny he could I apologised. I've further commented that in the case of people trying their best exceptions have to be made. You keep missing these points and then accuse me of doing it, where actually I'm quite happy to take your points where you chose to make one.

For example, your last point is perfectly reasonable, to which I would respond - if fines and imprisonment worked we wouldn't have any deadbeat parents would we? Furthermore taking money away from someone (fines) or preventing them working (imprisonment) seems to run completely counter to your argument.

Restricting their spending while encouraging them (with a pretty large stick) to work and pay support seems to be the logical approach.

nuac

Mod
Please keep the debate here civil.

konraado

No,

You did not understand me. I do not say anything - i wish to pay all debt, all amount and starting to do it now.
And even in times when i did not work i sent money anyway. It maybe was smaller amounts sometimes

Johnboy1951

konraado wrote: »

No,

You did not understand me. I do not say anything - i wish to pay all debt, all amount and starting to do it now.
And even in times when i did not work i sent money anyway. It maybe was smaller amounts sometimes

Most of us realised that.

You should bring with you all paperwork, such as pay slips etc to show that what you claim about your income is true.
This applies most particularly for the period when you will claim you did not have sufficient income to make the payments in full.

Do not rely on your word being sufficient ...... have paperwork to show the judge.

Also, do not try to hide any income as it might be known about.

Judges are not unreasonable if they can see proof that you were doing your best to comply with payments.
Of course if you were able to take holidays or spend on other 'luxuries' while failing to make payments then the judge will take a dim view of it.

Samuel T. Cogley

konraado wrote: »

No,

You did not understand me. I do not say anything - i wish to pay all debt, all amount and starting to do it now.
And even in times when i did not work i sent money anyway. It maybe was smaller amounts sometimes

Unfortunately OP you're in a minority. As I said in my very first post if you're genuinely trying then I apologise.

However the reason that draconian measures are taken by some states/jurisdictions is you wouldn't be a typical case.

listermint

Libertarian Kant wrote: »

Unfortunately OP you're in a minority. As I said in my very first post if you're genuinely trying then I apologise.

However the reason that draconian measures are taken by some states/jurisdictions is you wouldn't be a typical case.

Hardly... It's because of attitudes like yours...


Which is why America's 3 strike rule is so dam effective. Oh wait.....

barman linen

Libertarian Kant wrote: »

I've failed. I've tried so hard not too...

By stupid, do you mean countries that believe that a father should be held accountable for their spawn regardless of how much money they're making? Did your child stop eating, growing and requiring support while you were 'only working Part-time or not working at all' over a period of several years?

If you're living in a hostel and sending every penny you possibly can - I apologise. If not I sincerely hope Ireland becomes one of those stupid countries very soon.

Maintenance is usually a function of available resources and expenses - on both parents.

If the OP loses work/income and a court order was in place then it is immediately out of date as his resources changed. It usually takes some time to get to court to vary an order and during this time his legal obligation continues to build - based on the previous circumstances.

It may be worse if he didn't try to vary the order. In my experience the courts look to satisfy the order by any means possible before varying.

While I don't know your current resources I would expect the Judge to look for any source of asset to satisfy the arrears. Your car could certainly be at risk. Be prepared to convince the court if you need it for work ( ie to maintain current payments )

As for the comments above about the child still needing to eat - while correct, the child would be no different from any other child whose parents lose work/income and some belt tightening would be necessary until circumstances come back to where they were.

Samuel T. Cogley

barman linen wrote: »

Maintenance is usually a function of available resources and expenses - on both parents.

If the OP loses work/income and a court order was in place then it is immediately out of date as his resources changed. It usually takes some time to get to court to vary an order and during this time his legal obligation continues to build - based on the previous circumstances.

It may be worse if he didn't try to vary the order. In my experience the courts look to satisfy the order by any means possible before varying.

While I don't know your current resources I would expect the Judge to look for any source of asset to satisfy the arrears. Your car could certainly be at risk. Be prepared to convince the court if you need it for work ( ie to maintain current payments )

As for the comments above about the child still needing to eat - while correct, the child would be no different from any other child whose parents lose work/income and some belt tightening would be necessary until circumstances come back to where they were.

I understand where you're coming from and these cases should be looked at in detail. I also completely take your point that these things can take time - though no fault of the parents in many cases.

However I simply don't think it's stupid to have measure in place that reduces the ability of people to enjoy life, while they're not supporting their children and are genuinely able. In fact measures like suspending driver licences seems much more sensible than some of the alternatives.

Samuel T. Cogley

listermint wrote: »

Hardly... It's because of attitudes like yours...


Which is why America's 3 strike rule is so dam effective. Oh wait.....

The three strike rule is in relation to prison, a punishment I've actively advocated against in this thread.

konraado

You're right, but im talking about my category C and CE truck licence. Those usially are for getting a better job . Thanks

Samuel T. Cogley

konraado wrote: »

You're right, but im talking about my category C and CE truck licence. Those usially are for getting a better job . Thanks

Those would be clear exceptions to any sensible law on the subject.

goz83

Suspending licenses would be a stupid idea. If the aim is to make life miserable for someone not paying maintenance, well then I would hate to live in any country imposing such rules. Take away a license and opportunity is lost. Take away license and make it very difficult and impractical for the father to see his child/children. We need more rights for men...not less. Plenty of women still collect childrens allowance and don't pay maintenance even when their ex boyfriend/husband is the primary carer.

Samuel T. Cogley

goz83 wrote: »

Suspending licenses would be a stupid idea. If the aim is to make life miserable for someone not paying maintenance, well then I would hate to live in any country imposing such rules. Take away a license and opportunity is lost. Take away license and make it very difficult and impractical for the father to see his child/children. We need more rights for men...not less. Plenty of women still collect childrens allowance and don't pay maintenance even when their ex boyfriend/husband is the primary carer.

I know it seems like it sometimes, but can only men get drivers licenses?