We asking telling me to pay more maintenance.

2Mad2BeMad

Hi everyone,

Broke up with my ex about 7 months ago.
She's been claiming loan parents since.
I give her 50e a week as well as take my child overnight 3nights a week.
I feed him buy him clothes when needed.

Today I received a letter from the social welfare telling me to pay 50euro more a week.

I can't afford to pay 100euro a week.

I earn only 450euro after tax every week 350euro off that is on bills/loans/car/rent/food.
50 euro then is maintenance which means I'm left with 50 for savings.

I tried explaining this on the phone to them but there like robots. They take none of that into account.
I will be left with nothing. How am I meant to save anything for Christmas presents or birthdays or even holidays.
Anyone ever had this issue?

They told me they will take legal action if I don't pay it.

Is there any point in me working I literally have no money for myself on payday of I pay this.

splinter65

They take a certain amount of “that” into account.
They know you need to pay rent and utilities and run a car and eat.
The problem is that your child must be your financial priority same as it is for parents who are living with their kids.
The child’s parents are responsible for the financial maintenance of the child, not SW.
If you can’t manage then you should go to MABS.
They will help you to work out a budget and if you stick to it you’ll be fine.

rawn

100e pw maintenance seems extremely high given your take home pay. Ask to speak to someone who can show you the breakdown of the means test.

Stanford

Who set the €50 a week in the first place?

ELM327

Considering you have the child 3/7 of the week, 100 seems too high. Arguably since 3/7 is nearly 50:50 anyway there should be no maintenance.

Owryan

Not sure if SW can tell you how to spend your money. What they are trying to do is to minimise the amount of assistance they need to pay out.

If you have an agreement to pay €50 a week then it's a matter for yourself and the child's mother.

Hitman3000

2Mad2BeMad wrote:

They told me they will take legal action if I don't pay it.

Let it go legal. Gather all your financial information bills etc, a judge can be more reasonable. I've had a friend in a similar situation .

Stanford

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Let it go legal. Gather all your financial information bills etc, a judge can be more reasonable. I've had a friend in a similar situation .

Who is going to pay the OP's legal costs?

Hitman3000

Stanford wrote:

Who is going to pay the OP's legal costs?

What costs? It is possible to go to court without a solicitor.

ELM327

Stanford wrote: »

Who is going to pay the OP's legal costs?

Family court, more often than not people represent themselves.

Stanford

Hitman3000 wrote: »

What costs? It is possible to go to court without a solicitor.

It is but certainly advisable as the spouse will almost certainly get free legal aid!!

Owryan

Stanford wrote: »

It is but certainly advisable as the spouse will almost certainly get free legal aid!!

Except it's DSP not his spouse taking him to court

Hitman3000

Stanford wrote:

It is but certainly advisable as the spouse will almost certainly get free legal aid!!

As may the OP. Frankly SW seems to want to get blood from a stone.

Stanford

ELM327 wrote: »

Family court, more often than not people represent themselves.

Yes and are usually very sorry they did if the Applicant has legal representation

thebull85

There is no way you can be forced to pay 100 euro a week. Fight it.

Inviere

How are you paying the current€50, cash/informal agreement? Are the SW aware you're already paying €50? €100 seems very high all things considered. Where are they pulling that amount from? Family Court all the way for this one

Stanford

thebull85 wrote: »

There is no way you can be forced to pay 100 euro a week. Fight it.

Lets establish some facts here, OP can you please clarify if your partner and you were married and if there is now a Court seperation or divorce in place?

cnoc

The OP doesn't seem to be answering any question!

Stanford

Owryan wrote: »

Except it's DSP not his spouse taking him to court

What is his contractual arrangement with DSP that allows them to issue Court Proceedings?

Stanford

cnoc wrote: »

The OP doesn't seem to be answering any question!

He seems to have raised the issue and then gone offline, why are we even bothering?

ELM327

Stanford wrote: »

Yes and are usually very sorry they did if the Applicant has legal representation

I know directly (and attended as support, although I did not enter the actual courtroom as these cases are held in camera) of someone close to me who "won" defending herself against the applicant who had a solicitor.


When I was waiting in the waiting room amongst everyone else who had a court case that day, a large number of people did not appear to have representation and walked into the courtroom alone.


Of course if you are entitled to FLA then you would be mad not to take it!

keyboard_cat

Just don’t rock up to court to tell them how you cannot afford to support your child in that brand new golf op

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057886418/

2Mad2BeMad

I am currently in work lads. So I'm sorry for the delayed replies. Wasn't expecting so many either.

Me and the ex were not married we were with each other only 2 years before she fell pregnant.

Our child was ill for the first few months of his life and we had arguments. I paid nearly private for everything to help him be seen quicker.
He's slot more health now he's allergic to milk and suffers from silent reflux.
I spent most of my savings on private appointments for my son.

It's the reason we broke up.
I don't hate her but I certainly don't live her.

There's no resentment towards each other. So she happily agreed 50 a week was enough.
I give it to her in cash.
Now the social sent me a letter calculating my weekly wage telling me I should be able to afford another 50 euro on top of what I'm paying now.
And that 50 euro will be cut from Her loan parents.

So she's getting annoyed at me now cause she's losing money and so will I.
While the social has 50e less to give out every week.

They take no bills into account only rent that's it. No phone bill no petrol for car no monthly insurance no weekly food no electricity bill

MAJJ

Stanford wrote: »

He seems to have raised the issue and then gone offline, why are we even bothering?

He only posted one hour ago, probably busy working for his family

Stanford

So there is no formal legal Separation or Divorce in place and you have an unwritten agreement with your ex-partner to pay her €50/week?

splinter65

Owryan wrote: »

Not sure if SW can tell you how to spend your money. What they are trying to do is to minimise the amount of assistance they need to pay out.

If you have an agreement to pay €50 a week then it's a matter for yourself and the child's mother.

If the mother of the child stops claiming OPFP then absolutely, SW can’t tell him “how to spend his money”.
In the meantime, there’s no reason why the State should be financially maintaining this mans child except for only €50.
Can you explain why you think that the state SHOULD feed clothe and house the child?

Stanford

splinter65 wrote: »

If the mother of the child stops claiming OPFP then absolutely, SW can’t tell him “how to spend his money”.
In the meantime, there’s no reason why the State should be financially maintaining this mans child except for only €50.
Can you explain why you think that the state SHOULD feed clothe and house the child?

That is an entirely a seperate issue

dahat

I had similar a few years back and refused to pay more than i was at the time, €60.

If the SW wish to approve her claim for Loan Parents then that is their business, they pay the benefit not you so my advice is to refuse.

Also, i would pay your maintenance via bank transfer each week as you then have proof of payment in case it's needed in years to come.

2Mad2BeMad

keyboard_cat wrote: »

Just don’t rock up to court to tell them how you cannot afford to support your child in that brand new golf op

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057886418/

I could afford that at the time of purchasing we were together then and she was working .
Different story now. Btw I hvnt received my golf I cancelled it last month. Thanks for your concern though

splinter65

2Mad2BeMad wrote: »

I am currently in work lads. So I'm sorry for the delayed replies. Wasn't expecting so many either.

Me and the ex were not married we were with each other only 2 years before she fell pregnant.

Our child was ill for the first few months of his life and we had arguments. I paid nearly private for everything to help him be seen quicker.
He's slot more health now he's allergic to milk and suffers from silent reflux.
I spent most of my savings on private appointments for my son.

It's the reason we broke up.
I don't hate her but I certainly don't live her.

There's no resentment towards each other. So she happily agreed 50 a week was enough.
I give it to her in cash.
Now the social sent me a letter calculating my weekly wage telling me I should be able to afford another 50 euro on top of what I'm paying now.
And that 50 euro will be cut from Her loan parents.

So she's getting annoyed at me now cause she's losing money and so will I.
While the social has 50e less to give out every week.

They take no bills into account only rent that's it. No phone bill no petrol for car no monthly insurance no weekly food no electricity bill

By “the social” you do realize you mean the taxpayer? Where do you think her OPFP money comes from ?
You’ll have to pare back on your outgoings and pay at least €75, because they are going to cut her OPFP anyway, and she and your son are going to be short.

2Mad2BeMad

Stanford wrote: »

So there is no formal legal Separation or Divorce in place and you have an unwritten agreement with your ex-partner to pay her €50/week?

No we were only bf/gf so we were not Legally together. Sw have not asked for documents of separation.

I think I must go to court I feel a judge would be on my side regarding my financial situation

Hitman3000

2Mad2BeMad wrote:

So she's getting annoyed at me now cause she's losing money and so will I. While the social has 50e less to give out every week.

She's not very good at maths is she? She's not losing just a different source for the 50 euro. You instead of the state.

dahat

The issue here is not the welfare of your child but that the SW feel that you should pay more, it's purely a cost saving issue.

2Mad2BeMad

Hitman3000 wrote: »

She's not very good at maths is she? She's not losing just a different source for the 50 euro. You instead of the state.

I tried explaining that to her but she gets annoyed easily and there's no talking to her.

splinter65

dahat wrote: »

I had similar a few years back and refused to pay more than i was at the time, €60.

If the SW wish to approve her claim for Loan Parents then that is their business, they pay the benefit not you so my advice is to refuse.

Also, i would pay your maintenance via bank transfer each week as you then have proof of payment in case it's needed in years to come.

Her claim will have been reduced by €100 per week because he is going to be paying €100. You can be approved for OPFP and not get the maximum.

splinter65

2Mad2BeMad wrote: »

I could afford that at the time of purchasing we were together then and she was working .
Different story now. Btw I hvnt received my golf I cancelled it last month. Thanks for your concern though

Why has she stopped working?

2Mad2BeMad

splinter65 wrote: »

By “the social” you do realize you mean the taxpayer? Where do you think her OPFP money comes from ?
You’ll have to pare back on your outgoings and pay at least €75, because they are going to cut her OPFP anyway, and she and your son are going to be short.

I've been a tax payer since turning 18. What the state are asking me to do could risk me turning homeless and losing my job along with mental health issues from stress alone.
So don't lecture me on where it comes from
I pay my taxes every week I contribute as much as any other working person

Owryan

Stanford wrote: »

What is his contractual arrangement with DSP that allows them to issue Court Proceedings?

None I would imagine but the op said they were threatening legal action. Imo it's an empty threat to get him to pay more and them less.

dahat

splinter65 wrote: »

Her claim will have been reduced by €100 per week because he is going to be paying €100. You can be approved for OPFP and not get the maximum.

If the OP is paying an amount that is adequate given he takes the child, gets clothes etc then i would (and did) dig my heels in.

I was told that only cash payments are relevant so anything i bought like clothes etc did not count towards welfare of the child, they were only interested in what cash i was giving and how much more they could get from me towards the Loan parent payment.

The Loan Parent payment is extra beyond maintenance so the OP should not be chased to contribute extra purely because she has applied for the assistance.

dahat

Owryan wrote: »

None I would imagine but the op said they were threatening legal action. Imo it's an empty threat to get him to pay more and them less.

They threatened me with the same and after some heated discussions i told them to take the legal route with me as i wasn't paying anymore.

13 years later i'm still waiting.....

splinter65

Stanford wrote: »

That is an entirely a seperate issue

No it’s not. It’s the very issue at hand. The child has 2 parents. Both parents are equally responsible for the financial maintenance of the child. The State has the right and actually has a duty to pass the financial maintenance right back onto the parents.
That’s as plain as the nose on your face.

2Mad2BeMad

splinter65 wrote: »

Why has she stopped working?

No one to mind our son. He's on a waiting list for creche since May and a spot MIGHT be available in late August.

Owryan

splinter65 wrote: »

If the mother of the child stops claiming OPFP then absolutely, SW can’t tell him “how to spend his money”.
In the meantime, there’s no reason why the State should be financially maintaining this mans child except for only €50.
Can you explain why you think that the state SHOULD feed clothe and house the child?

If he can only afford 50 then what is he to do, maybe he can save money by stopping taking his child.

He pays 50 a week, has his child 3 nights a week, he contributes towards extra expenses. By any means he is doing plenty. I would imagine that if he could pay more he would without being threatened with legal action.

Stanford

It might be worthwhile having an informal chat with an Advisor at your local Citizens Information Centre

splinter65

dahat wrote: »

If the OP is paying an amount that is adequate given he takes the child, gets clothes etc then i would (and did) dig my heels in.

I was told that only cash payments are relevant so anything i bought like clothes etc did not count towards welfare of the child, they were only interested in what cash i was giving and how much more they could get from me towards the Loan parent payment.

The Loan Parent payment is extra beyond maintenance so the OP should not be chased to contribute extra purely because she has applied for the assistance.

First of all it’s not “loan” parent. It’s One Parent Family Payment.
Secondly it’s not extra beyond maintenance I don’t know where you got that idea.
Here’s what CIC says about maintenance
Income from maintenance
All income from maintenance is assessed as means. This includes maintenance for you and maintenance to you for any of your children. If you are getting maintenance from more than one person, all the payments are added together and the total is assessed as means. However, only half of your income from maintenance will be deducted from your OFP. If you have housing costs, your rent or mortgage repayment up to a maximum of €95.23 per week can be offset against maintenance payments. Half the balance is then assessed as means. You must provide proof of rent or mortgage payments. You can get more information on how maintenance is assessed as means.
If the OP and his ex are agreed then that he is paying enough considering that he takes his son 3 nights and feeds and clothes him then she won’t mind her OPFP being reduced by €100

MarkR

Only the OP knows where the money goes. If he truely can't afford it, he tell them that, and they can deal with it as they do. If things are that tight, then I would also suggest contactings MABS to see about organising your finances. Your an unexpected bill away from being broke, and with a child to support, you need to normalise your finances.

Just to be clear, I'm not knocking you. You seem to be doing the best for your child, but for your own sake, maybe get some outside help.

splinter65

Owryan wrote: »

If he can only afford 50 then what is he to do, maybe he can save money by stopping taking his child.

He pays 50 a week, has his child 3 nights a week, he contributes towards extra expenses. By any means he is doing plenty. I would imagine that if he could pay more he would without being threatened with legal action.

According to the OP he can’t afford any more. He doesn’t get to make that desicion.
If his ex hadn’t agreed to the €50 and had taken him to court she would have been awarded at least €75.
There’s no reason for the taxpayer to supplement the OPs lifestyle choices.

ELM327

splinter65 wrote: »

According to the OP he can’t afford any more. He doesn’t get to make that desicion.
If his ex hadn’t agreed to the €50 and had taken him to court she would have been awarded at least €75.
There’s no reason for the taxpayer to supplement the OPs lifestyle choices.

I'm sorry but this is rubbish.
If he has the child 3 nights and she 4, is one night per week valued at €100?
What could a child want one night per week that costs €100?


He pays for 3 nights with him and she pays for 3 nights with her, that cancels out, so there's only 1 night extra that he needs to fund.

splinter65

ELM327 wrote: »

I'm sorry but this is rubbish.
If he has the child 3 nights and she 4, is one night per week valued at €100?
What could a child want one night per week that costs €100?


He pays for 3 nights with him and she pays for 3 nights with her, that cancels out, so there's only 1 night extra that he needs to fund.

Agreed. So if he has the child for 3 whole nights then she really only needs around the €130 she’s going to get now from SW for the other 4 days + the €50 he was giving her anyway. Fair enough. What’s the problem then?

2Mad2BeMad

Just to be clear as well as far as I know my exs only income is the opfp. She lives with her parents now who also help provide for the child(obviously).

If I could pay more I would but I can't. For example my next car service is going to cost me over 900euro. I know this because my rear brake pad and discs are nearly completely worn. As well as the altinator is also on its way out Plus the cost of the service.
Ill have to save that 50euro that the social want me to give them for nearly 18weeks just to pay that. That's without birthdays coming up as well as Christmas.

I don't understand why there on the hunt for me for an extra 50euro when there's people out there taking thousands off them every year

ELM327

2Mad2BeMad wrote: »

Just to be clear as well as far as I know my exs only income is the opfp. She lives with her parents now who also help provide for the child(obviously).

If I could pay more I would but I can't. For example my next car service is going to cost me over 900euro. I know this because my rear brake pad and discs are nearly completely worn. As well as the altinator is also on its way out Plus the cost of the service.
Ill have to save that 50euro that the social want me to give them for nearly 18weeks just to pay that. That's without birthdays coming up as well as Christmas.

I don't understand why there on the hunt for me for an extra 50euro when there's people out there taking thousands off them every year

There isnt a hunt - IMO you have nearly 50% of custody and as such should not have to pay any maintenance.
And your ex should not be getting OPF allowance as she does not have sole custody.