Question about maintenance

Annuncia

Hi all,
I'm hoping to get some unbiased opinions here. Thanks in advance for reading.

My child stays with me 2 nights a week, I take her out on weekends as well. To date I've been giving an amount of money that I've been told by many people is well over half. I don't know by how much it's over because my child's mother refuses to tell me what the costs are.

In discussing maintenance I said that fair is 50% of costs each. My child's mother's position is that I should continue to pay more because she's with me less, that it's standard that the primary caregiver receives additional maintenance, and that there is also the "cost of lost opportunity".

I didn't mind that I was giving over half at all, I'd even be happy to continue giving more than half if it didn't escalate as it has but now that it's become a thing I'm feeling somewhat threatened by the position being taken and language being used, so I wish to at least inform myself.

For context;
We weren't married and never lived together. My child's mother has just started working full time and earning more than me. My child's mother has refused to send any breakdown of costs. Money became the focal point of an argument and it was through this that it came into discussion.

I know that the courts look at expenditure and disposable income of both parents amongst other factors to make a judgement. I really don't want things to go that far, so I'm more hoping to get general views on what is typically seen as standard and fair.

Thanks again

racso1975

It would be a lot easier if you told us how much money you actually give on a weekly basis, how much she is looking for and what you think would be reasonable. Also the age of your child will also effect the amount of money that they receive i.e. creche age, primary school, secondary etc

Annuncia

racso1975 wrote: »

It would be a lot easier if you told us how much money you actually give on a weekly basis, how much she is looking for and what you think would be reasonable. Also the age of your child will also effect the amount of money that they receive i.e. creche age, primary school, secondary etc

Thanks for the reply. Well I didn't want it to be about amounts because everyone's situation is different - I was mainly wondering what's seen as fair when you have two parents earning - is fair 50% of costs (and by costs I mean all costs, incl. food, clothes, school, proportion of bills etc), or is the standard for the primary caregiver to get more because they have the child more and there's the "cost of lost opportunity".

Again I'm not trying to get out of giving money here, I want to inform myself on what's seen as standard and a fair arrangement.

In any case if it helps I have been giving €400/month and pay for some additional costs such as child minding after school on the days needed. My child is in primary school. When my child was in creche I also covered the creche fees.

racso1975

I presume the 400 a month is actually 100 a week. The only reason i say this is because if it's actually 400 a month then thats 92 a week. I know that sound pedantic but its the way its worked out.

I would say at 100 a week plus additional then you are paying a good amount. if you do not want to go to court you could try mediation though given you were never "together" in the first place you might not be able to avail of the free mediation offered through citizens information but might be worth checking out.

If its of any help. I pay 200 a week for 2 school going kids who also have after school

Dravokivich

Annuncia wrote: »

In any case if it helps I have been giving €400/month and pay for some additional costs such as child minding after school on the days needed. My child is in primary school. When my child was in creche I also covered the creche fees.

Is this on a court order?

I think it's rather unreasonable to expect you to cover the entire amount of the childcare costs.

I'm also not too keen on her comments:

"it's standard that the primary caregiver receives additional maintenance"

It has nothing to do with whom your child resides, but to support and contribute towards the costs of raising the child.

Annuncia

Dravokivich wrote: »

Is this on a court order?

I think it's rather unreasonable to expect you to cover the entire amount of the childcare costs.

Thanks for the reply. No it's not on a court order, things haven't gotten that far yet, hopefully they won't get that far.

I'm also not too keen on her comments:

"it's standard that the primary caregiver receives additional maintenance"

It has nothing to do with whom your child resides, but to support and contribute towards the costs of raising the child.

I would agree, I don't think it should be on a basis of one parent paying the other to look after the child.

The monetary support is to go towards any costs relating to the child rather than a compensatory payment for time spent. I know that plenty of people in my situation may have the funds to give plenty more than what covers costs and that's great and I wouldn't dismiss that at all, but when it's demanded and termed as compensation for the cost of lost opportunity, etc, it changes the dynamic a lot imo.

Big Bag of Chips

Technically, it is supposed to be half of the child's costs. That doesn't mean half of the bills. If for example only the two of them live in a house, you wouldn't be expected to pay half of her ESB bill. But you would be expected to pay half of your child's portion of the ESB bill.

Do you know what I mean?

Unless you were married then she cannot claim for spousal maintenance, as far as I'm aware. You might want to check that out that. And if she is trying to claim for it (and indeed spousal maintenance would be granted, then if she earns more than you, you might be entitled to claim it from her!)

You should pay what you can afford. If you can afford more, you should give more. Maybe not necessarily directly to the mother, but maybe into a savings account for the child. If you can't afford more then you can't pay it. It's as simple as that. €400 + extras per child per month sounds a lot. If that is your half, then the mother is also contributing €400 + extras to the child (and will also be in receipt of children's allowance, and certain tax allowances)?

There is a spreadsheet available on the solo.ie website which allows you to calculate the approximate monthly costs of the child and then work out what maintenance would be owed.

Dravokivich

Annuncia wrote: »

Thanks for the reply. No it's not on a court order, things haven't gotten that far yet, hopefully they won't get that far.

The court order can protect you, more than slap you. At the moment it sounds like she is laying a claim against you. You need to be in a more firm position.

Annuncia wrote: »

I would agree, I don't think it should be on a basis of one parent paying the other to look after the child.

The monetary support is to go towards any costs relating to the child rather than a compensatory payment for time spent. I know that plenty of people in my situation may have the funds to give plenty more than what covers costs and that's great and I wouldn't dismiss that at all, but when it's demanded and termed as compensation for the cost of lost opportunity, etc, it changes the dynamic a lot imo.

If this is the manner she comes to you, it sounds like she's attempting to undermine you to be honest. Before a judge she'll have a hard time justifying a loss of opportunity, while earning more than you.

njs030

400 per month is quite a lot when you take into account the mother matches that plus 140 child benefit = 940 a month for a child's expenses before taking into account tax rebate and so on.

That's a huge amount! I don't think my teenager costs that much tbh.

Annuncia

Big Bag of Chips wrote: »

Technically, it is supposed to be half of the child's costs. That doesn't mean half of the bills. If for example only the two of them live in a house, you wouldn't be expected to pay half of her ESB bill. But you would be expected to pay half of your child's portion of the ESB bill.

Do you know what I mean?

Yeah, I'm glad you said this because that's how I thought it should be myself. She brought up bills with the implication that I was expected to pay them or a good proportion of them, even though she lives with other adults.

Unless you were married then she cannot claim for spousal maintenance, as far as I'm aware. You might want to check that out that. And if she is trying to claim for it (and indeed spousal maintenance would be granted, then if she earns more than you, you might be entitled to claim it from her!)

Maintenance applies on a broader range than just married couples, but I do need to look into things in more detail.

You should pay what you can afford. If you can afford more, you should give more. Maybe not necessarily directly to the mother, but maybe into a savings account for the child. If you can't afford more then you can't pay it. It's as simple as that. €400 + extras per child per month sounds a lot. If that is your half, then the mother is also contributing €400 + extras to the child (and will also be in receipt of children's allowance, and certain tax allowances)?

She's indirectly confirmed that what I have been giving is more than half of costs, so she wouldn't be contributing the same amount as me no, her view is that I should pay more than half because she has our child more.

Big Bag of Chips

Well that could be a valid argument! If you are both paying exactly 50/50 expenses but she is taking more care of the child on a daily basis, then maybe yes, it could be argued that you should pay slightly more than she does. Often though the reality is that the maintenance paid doesn't really cover half the costs of raising a child as there are often extra incidental costs that don't get factored into maintenance. Of course each case is unique, depending on varying factors, maintenance paid, incomes of both parents etc...) Also, her life is more limited than yours if she is the primary carer. You can come and go pretty much as you please. She can't. She needs to organise childminding/babysitting if she needs to go anywhere etc.

I don't think you should be expected to pay substantially more than she does, but slightly more to make up for the fact that you don't have the child as much as she does could well be considered.

For example equal custody often means parents don't pay any maintenance because they share custody of the child 50/50, so each parent has their own (fairly equal) expenses with regards to the child.

Annuncia

Big Bag of Chips wrote: »

Well that could be a valid argument! If you are both paying exactly 50/50 expenses but she is taking more care of the child on a daily basis, then maybe yes, it could be argued that you should pay slightly more than she does. Often though the reality is that the maintenance paid doesn't really cover half the costs of raising a child as there are often extra incidental costs that don't get factored into maintenance. Of course each case is unique, depending on varying factors, maintenance paid, incomes of both parents etc...) Also, her life is more limited than yours if she is the primary carer. You can come and go pretty much as you please. She can't. She needs to organise childminding/babysitting if she needs to go anywhere etc.

I don't think you should be expected to pay substantially more than she does, but slightly more to make up for the fact that you don't have the child as much as she does could well be considered.

For example equal custody often means parents don't pay any maintenance because they share custody of the child 50/50, so each parent has their own (fairly equal) expenses with regards to the child.

Thanks, this is why I made the OP to see what would typically be seen as fair and standard in such cases.

There are of course incidentals, hidden costs and other bits and bobs. Besides, if it's over by whatever amount it's really no big deal. I wouldn't be as stingy as to demand an exact 50/50 split if there was a mutual understanding/recognition of what is fair and one side isn't accusing the other of falling short as has been the case with me even though I now know I was giving more than half all along. So right now I need to figure out what that base is and I think mediation is probably the best way.

There are also additional costs on my side - for example the only reason I have a car is for my child and at the request of the mother. I drive around 200km a week as I do all the collecting/dropping off, so insurance, tax, petrol are all costs there.

fwiw I rang a couple of advice lines and they both said that they had never heard the term "cost of lost opportunity" being used in relation to a child, they were a bit taken aback by it actually.

Big Bag of Chips

Annuncia wrote: »

There are also additional costs on my side - for example the only reason I have a car is for my child and at the request of the mother.

Fair enough, but you do have a child, and you do need to be able to get to them. So it's either a car or public transport. As for doing all the driving for collection and dropping home, that is something that can be discussed in mediation. You could suggest that you collect from the mam, and then the mam collects from you. Or you could arrange a middle meeting point. The problem with trying to organise that with someone who is unreasonable is that the middle point might get moved! Or you might be waiting there only to get a call to say they're not coming. So trying to arrange collection from each other is probably better.

You can only suggest mediation to your ex. She doesn't have to agree to it. If she refuses to engage with you, then you might have no option than to go to court. With or without her there. Obviously you are keeping a record of all money paid, and all requests for more/loss of opportunity etc? If mediation doesn't work out get yourself to a solicitor.

But do try to separate your child from your ex. Don't deny your child anything just because your ex is being a pain in the arse!