Child maintenance advice

StepMama

My partner earns 500 euro net per week.
We have mortgage and normal bills plus a few loans. His latest loan was to pay for his solicitor to go to court for access.
His child's mother has since had 2 more daughters witjlh another man and they all live together as a family unit, she is on social welfare and her partner works.my partner currently pays 80 a week (plus half of any school related costs, after school activities, medical and dental etc) and she wants this increased to 100 and half of those things too
My partner wants it decreased to 50 weekly plus half of those things mentioned.
After all bills mortgage maintenance and loans are paid off he has less than 50 a week. We can't afford to start a family the way things are.
Just wondering can anyone give us an idea of what your experiences with maintenance in court was? Would 100 be the norm?
We are worried sick about money
We often send down shoes and clothes (she has loads here and doesn't get the use out of them sometimes she gets roesents etc of clothes and shoes so send them home with her) but mum says she doesn't need them and just needs money!
Any info or advice really appreciated

StepMama

Anyone?

corks finest

StepMama wrote: »

Anyone?

I went and spoke to my ex and agreed with joint custody,I have my son 5/ 7 days,she gets children's welfare etc,now after 13 yes we're 50/50 on bills concerning him,im twice her age,Irish,no woman etc for years,I concentrate on him only,after year's of strife she realised that by talking one on one ,no solicitors etc can we move on,my only real advice is make sure he has access to overnight stays ref his kids as much as possible,his ex will eventually relaise where his priorities lie,and should cop the fcuk on ref maintenance etc,mine did

Payton

Hi from what I know E80 per week is the norm as is paying half of school/activities. Regardless if she has more children your partner has a moral and legal obligation to pay for his child and by reducing that down to 50 is only putting fuel on the fire, especially if there is a court order in place.
Children are expensive and wait until they get older!!
I'm sure the loans he is paying off wont be there for ever but his child will be. Can you ask the loan companies to reduce the payments over a longer term.
As for the clothes dont send anymore down. The clothes you buy keep them at your house so when the child visits you they can wear them, wash the clothes they were sent in and put them on going home, no more resentment.

StepMama

Payton wrote: »

Hi from what I know E80 per week is the norm as is paying half of school/activities. Regardless if she has more children your partner has a moral and legal obligation to pay for his child and by reducing that down to 50 is only putting fuel on the fire, especially if there is a court order in place.
Children are expensive and wait until they get older!!
I'm sure the loans he is paying off wont be there for ever but his child will be. Can you ask the loan companies to reduce the payments over a longer term.
As for the clothes dont send anymore down. The clothes you buy keep them at your house so when the child visits you they can wear them, wash the clothes they were sent in and put them on going home, no more resentment.

There is no court order.
My post wasn't about wether he should pay for his child, he always has done and will do, I was asking is 100 euro per week plus half of everything likely to be awarded in court, we don't have that money to give over. Thankfully, after receiving legal advice we have been advised this is way above the average but thanks for your snotty reply anyway

Shelli2

You need to work out out much it takes to maintain the child and then he is liable for half of that.
There is a good worksheet on solo.ie that can help with working it out.

ElizaBennett

My child's dad pays 300e per month so that works out under 80 per week. We agreed that with a mediator. He also pays half for birthdays Xmas, back to school and holidays. I thibk it's actually impossible to work this out fairly and firmly believe I contribute more as I'm the one who's there when she asks for things - clothes, outings, sports gear etc etc. I pay for everything and anything every day and believe it's far more than 80 a week. But he loses out in other ways. Think it's a really tough one to work out.

ayux4rj6zql2ph

Child maintenance is a case of how long is a piece of string, my sister is going through the courts with her ex for my nephew, as he is on welfare she only gets €10 a week.

Fiona

My partner pays €150 a week for his three children and splits all of the school costs.

ChrissieH

Hi StepMama,

I'm new to this so I've just seen your thread but am in a slightly similar situation - my husband has a 10yo child with a woman he had a 1-night stand with, so they were never together and never had any sort of formal agreement until a couple of years ago when she sent him a summons out of the blue. Up til then, he'd paid various amounts of weekly maintenance as agreed by them over the years, and she would ask him for 50% towards all the extra stuff, which he just had to trust was legitimate (they live far away from us so he didn't know if anything to do with specific school / hobby expenses were accurate)
When they went to court, he'd been paying €50 a week for a few years, down from a previously higher amount (this was at her request because she wanted to qualify for social welfare payments) she was looking for a minimum of €100 a week. At the time, he was on a zero-hour contract so there were weeks when he literally made no money at all, and weeks where he'd bring home €500, but those weeks were rare.
We had to fill out a statement of means, we also got to see hers (this was all done via solicitor) and saw that she earned more than him and also got state assistance, as well as the maintenance he paid but in court, the judge wasn't one bit interested in any of this, he didn't even look at what my husband earned.
Thankfully he didn't award her €100 a week, because we just couldn't afford it, but he settled halfway by awarding her €75 a week, and stated that that money was to cover everything, so it actually did work out financially better for us in that the chid's mother now can't ask my husband for extra money to cover things that we have no proof of ever happening.

(I know there will be people saying that I shouldn't say "it worked out better for us" etc, that his child is his responsibility - I know all that, he never tried to get out of his responsibility, the fact of the matter is that unfortunately there are women out there who use their children as pawns and with my husband, from the time his daughter was a baby up til this court case, he was constantly told "if you don't give me this money, you can forget about seeing her this weekend" so I don't need to hear it!)

redeye101

ChrissieH wrote: »

Hi StepMama,

I'm new to this so I've just seen your thread but am in a slightly similar situation - my husband has a 10yo child with a woman he had a 1-night stand with, so they were never together and never had any sort of formal agreement until a couple of years ago when she sent him a summons out of the blue. Up til then, he'd paid various amounts of weekly maintenance as agreed by them over the years, and she would ask him for 50% towards all the extra stuff, which he just had to trust was legitimate (they live far away from us so he didn't know if anything to do with specific school / hobby expenses were accurate)
When they went to court, he'd been paying €50 a week for a few years, down from a previously higher amount (this was at her request because she wanted to qualify for social welfare payments) she was looking for a minimum of €100 a week. At the time, he was on a zero-hour contract so there were weeks when he literally made no money at all, and weeks where he'd bring home €500, but those weeks were rare.
We had to fill out a statement of means, we also got to see hers (this was all done via solicitor) and saw that she earned more than him and also got state assistance, as well as the maintenance he paid but in court, the judge wasn't one bit interested in any of this, he didn't even look at what my husband earned.
Thankfully he didn't award her €100 a week, because we just couldn't afford it, but he settled halfway by awarding her €75 a week, and stated that that money was to cover everything, so it actually did work out financially better for us in that the chid's mother now can't ask my husband for extra money to cover things that we have no proof of ever happening.

(I know there will be people saying that I shouldn't say "it worked out better for us" etc, that his child is his responsibility - I know all that, he never tried to get out of his responsibility, the fact of the matter is that unfortunately there are women out there who use their children as pawns and with my husband, from the time his daughter was a baby up til this court case, he was constantly told "if you don't give me this money, you can forget about seeing her this weekend" so I don't need to hear it!)

Hi ChrissieH,

Is there a mechanism to view the other persons’ ‘Statement of Means’ by application to court or was this by agreement by the solicitors beforehand?

Thanks!

ChrissieH

My husband was just sent the child's mother's statement of means by his solicitor before the case was heard. I presume the same applied at the other end. I don't know if this is the norm or if it was something pre-agreed between the 2 solicitors in this case.. they're both based in the same town as my step-child, as that's where the court case was held, so we don't even know the solicitor we had, it was just a case of Googling and hiring someone, there wasn't much contact between us so I don't know if things are done differently depending on the solicitors involved or what. It's all a mystery to me! :-D

ELM327

redeye101 wrote: »

Hi ChrissieH,

Is there a mechanism to view the other persons’ ‘Statement of Means’ by application to court or was this by agreement by the solicitors beforehand?

Thanks!

This happens as normal in a family court hearing, any documents sent to the court for consideration must be shared with the other side and their solicitor (usually via their solicitor) in advance of the hearing.


It happened in my case (partner has 2 children from prior relationship) that documents that were presented in court that had not been shared with us beforehand, were not considered by the judge.

redeye101

ELM327 wrote: »

This happens as normal in a family court hearing, any documents sent to the court for consideration must be shared with the other side and their solicitor (usually via their solicitor) in advance of the hearing.


It happened in my case (partner has 2 children from prior relationship) that documents that were presented in court that had not been shared with us beforehand, were not considered by the judge.

Does anyone know how long in advance before the case do these documents (statement of means) have to be shared with the other part/submitted?

bcklschaps

In the typical case of mother having custody and father getting kicked out, €50 a week per child in maintenance plus incidentals was the norm up until recently. Might have changed since to €60 or maybe even if €75.

Where father has custody (probably <1% of the time, I'd guess) I'm not sure how how it works. Undoubtedly the mother will pay a lot less than the father would be asked to pay. Equality me arse.

My advice, have your statement
of means done up and go to court, you'll unlikely work out any worse off anyway.

Ken.

bcklschaps wrote: »

In the typical case of mother having custody and father getting kicked out, €50 a week per child in maintenance plus incidentals was the norm up until recently. Might have changed since to €60 or maybe even if €75.

Where father has custody (probably <1% of the time, I'd guess) I'm not sure how how it works. Undoubtedly the mother will pay a lot less than the father would be asked to pay. Equality me arse.

My advice, have your statement
of means done up and go to court, you'll unlikely work out any worse off anyway.

The only father I know that got custody of the kids(4 girls) above the mother gets €25 per week per child from the mother. She is in a low paying job so that's probably the reason for the low amount.

LegacyUser

My ex husband has a full time job earning roughly €60,000 a year and looking to pay €35 maintenance a week for our son. Any advice very welcome as you can imagine my struggle

corks finest

Ken. wrote: »

The only father I know that got custody of the kids(4 girls) above the mother gets €25 per week per child from the mother. She is in a low paying job so that's probably the reason for the low amount.

You're correct ref low percentage of father's getting full custody, I went for it but ended up officially getting joint (ended up getting my son for 5 days of 7-our own unofficial agreement.
She was a non national at the time yet received legal aid - I'm Irish ended up representing myself as I hadn't a bean ( my son was just over 2 when this happened)
Courts at the time (16 yrs ago) were pretty one sided but now getting better, she received all child maintenance etc, at the end of the day it's the kid happiness that counts but if I had 4 to rear I'd have him/her up before a judge ASAP to get adequate maintenance e25 doesen't feed a kid these days

corks finest

Confusedjon04s wrote: »

My ex husband has a full time job earning roughly €60,000 a year and looking to pay €35 maintenance a week for our son. Any advice very welcome as you can imagine my struggle

That's bloody scandalous if it was me now(I'm male BTW)
Get all your bills in order ref your son.
Receipts for heating
Food
Clothing
Travel
School (Inc uniform, books etc)
Your car insurance, maintenance and tax etc)
Rent or mortgage
Get up in front of a judge with these and keep going until you get a decent weekly sum, e35 doesen't rear a child these days

snor

Does anyone know what maintenance would typically be awarded If someone is in receipt of social welfare and has minimal living Expense (living with family). Thank you.

corks finest

snor wrote: »

Does anyone know what maintenance would typically be awarded If someone is in receipt of social welfare and has minimal living Expense (living with family). Thank you.

Yes not much though AFAIK around e25 weekly

ELM327

corks finest wrote: »

That's bloody scandalous if it was me now(I'm male BTW)
Get all your bills in order ref your son.
Receipts for heating
Food
Clothing
Travel
School (Inc uniform, books etc)
Your car insurance, maintenance and tax etc)
Rent or mortgage
Get up in front of a judge with these and keep going until you get a decent weekly sum, e35 doesen't rear a child these days

It's not supposed to rear a child, it's supposed to pay 50% of the cost of the child. Certainly not things like funding the ex partner's mortgage.

corks finest

ELM327 wrote: »

It's not supposed to rear a child, it's supposed to pay 50% of the cost of the child. Certainly not things like funding the ex partner's mortgage.

It's the child's home whether rented or mortgage, obviously I didn't mean pay the whole thing but certainly a chunk towards it, it's his child and where do you think she's rearing him in the side of the road?

Child support, at its simplest, is meant to help with the “normal” expenses associated with raising a child. These normal expenses include food, shelter, transportation, clothing, and certain educational costs.

YellowLead

corks finest wrote: »

It's the child's home whether rented or mortgage, obviously I didn't mean pay the whole thing but certainly a chunk towards it, it's his child and where do you think she's rearing him in the side of the road?

Child support, at its simplest, is meant to help with the “normal” expenses associated with raising a child. These normal expenses include food, shelter, transportation, clothing, and certain educational costs.

We don’t know exactly what confused’s exact situation is - if the child is living with both parents half and half of the time for example.

corks finest

YellowLead wrote: »

We don’t know exactly what confused’s exact situation is - if the child is living with both parents half and half of the time for example.

True, but having went through the family court

it's a horrible experience but the bottom dollar is the child has to come first, and in the main I think this happens after all the stupid stuff stops I think most cop on and get their priorities in order,
it's still largely in favour of the woman bit getting more equitable, men get a bad rap but not all dodge their responsibilities

ELM327

corks finest wrote: »

It's the child's home whether rented or mortgage, obviously I didn't mean pay the whole thing but certainly a chunk towards it, it's his child and where do you think she's rearing him in the side of the road?

Child support, at its simplest, is meant to help with the “normal” expenses associated with raising a child. These normal expenses include food, shelter, transportation, clothing, and certain educational costs.

I have 2 stepkids, my partner's from a prior relationship. They share custody and as a result no one pays maintenance/support.



Due to some past health issues , the children did spend over a year living 100% with their father (who lives at home with his parents and thus no mortgage), and now with the home schooling the kids spend more time with us then with them. In either situation neither side would be expected to pay maintenance to the other. If you have a child or children you should be prepared to raise them 100%. What if your partner dies for instance?

HotMama89

I get 50 a week for one child and half of school costs nothing towards anything else father has custody one day a week has a full time job and no outgoings/car lives at home. This was an informal agreement and I could probably get more if I did go to court but I have a good job so can support myself so it’s just not worth the hassle but 50euro comes nowhere near the 50% of the costs of raising a child. I’d probably spend that alone feeding them for the 6 days I have them. I think the 75 your paying with half of all costs is very reasonable.

Meeoow

HotMama89 wrote: »

I get 50 a week for one child and half of school costs nothing towards anything else father has custody one day a week has a full time job and no outgoings/car lives at home. This was an informal agreement and I could probably get more if I did go to court but I have a good job so can support myself so it’s just not worth the hassle but 50euro comes nowhere near the 50% of the costs of raising a child. I’d probably spend that alone feeding them for the 6 days I have them. I think the 75 your paying with half of all costs is very reasonable.

Completely agree. People here saying that courts are skewed towards mothers is complete rubbish. Mothers mostly have custody of the children, and the pittance of maintenance and children's allowance doesn't nearly cover half the costs of children.
I asked my ex to share custody of our child and share costs equally. He said no, why should he?
I always worked full time and never got any social welfare, but I would have absolutely spent much more than half on our child than he ever contributed. I am happy to help her, but it really pisses me off to hear people say that courts favour mothers, as if we go out partying with the maintenance money. Chance would be a fine thing, a fine thing indeed.

corks finest

bcklschaps wrote: »

In the typical case of mother having custody and father getting kicked out, €50 a week per child in maintenance plus incidentals was the norm up until recently. Might have changed since to €60 or maybe even if €75.

Where father has custody (probably <1% of the time, I'd guess) I'm not sure how how it works. Undoubtedly the mother will pay a lot less than the father would be asked to pay. Equality me arse.

My advice, have your statement
of means done up and go to court, you'll unlikely work out any worse off anyway.

Before you go to court you have to have sworn affidavit of means etc so you need to have all your ducks on a row, some ppl screw their other half's which is horrible and drives some men to suicide as has happened within 6 miles of Cork City 2 days ago

corks finest

Meeoow wrote: »

Completely agree. People here saying that courts are skewed towards mothers is complete rubbish. Mothers mostly have custody of the children, and the pittance of maintenance and children's allowance doesn't nearly cover half the costs of children.
I asked my ex to share custody of our child and share costs equally. He said no, why should he?
I always worked full time and never got any social welfare, but I would have absolutely spent much more than half on our child than he ever contributed. She is over 18 now, but at college, and I asked him to help with her costs. He handed her an envelope with 250 euro in it. I am paying 5000 on her accommodation annually. I am happy to help her, but it really pisses me off to hear people say that courts favour mothers, as if we go out partying with the maintenance money. Chance would be a fine thing, a fine thing indeed.

Courts do favour the women ref property never yet heard of a man getting the house have you?

FYI I raised my kid without maintenance from anyone despite having him since he was 2 years old and for 5 days out of 7, shed been receiving children's allowance all that that time, and had the balls to look for my one eight share in my family home in Bishopstown, I knocked that on the head by proving on court that I ploughed it into his cu and bank for his college fees, pure greed dictates at times

Also I paid her college fees prior to our break up, she was earning as a beautician etc yet never offered to even give him holiday money when him and I went on holidays

It's taken 15 or 16 years for us to agree on bills shared but it's working

Meeoow

corks finest wrote: »

Courts do favour the women ref property never yet heard of a man getting the house have you?

Also I paid her college fees prior to our break up, she was earning as a beautician etc yet never offered to even give him holiday money when him and I went on holidays

It's taken 15 or 16 years for us to agree on bills shared but it's working

The primary care giver would surely keep the home, which is mostly the mother? Or would you like to see the kids kicked out?
I have my own house, as I work, as many women do now too. There seems to be a perception that women don't work, which is rubbish.
If you paid for her course when you were together, I don't really understand what that has to do with anything, that is on you. Did you claim tax back on the fees?
Well done that you have finally agreed on bills, better late than never.

1874

Meeoow wrote: »

The primary care giver would surely keep the home, which is mostly the mother? Or would you like to see the kids kicked out?
I have my own house, as I work, as many women do now too. There seems to be a perception that women don't work, which is rubbish.
If you paid for her course when you were together, I don't really understand what that has to do with anything, that is on you. Did you claim tax back on the fees?
Well done that you have finally agreed on bills, better late than never.

so you're saying a man should be kicked out of his own home without question, that's OK? I honestly think that is a very skewed and selfish view, just because children might move doesn't mean their lives will be upturned, imo they are more able to deal with changing situations and have the time to grow into things, a single male adult on the other hand has much more limited options.
What of a situation where the man bought his own home before he met a partner? should he, will he be forced from it? it really is a just a significantly biased view in favour of women and its an excuse to say the primary care giver SHOULD be allowed live in what was the family home, because Judges don't listen and the primary care giver is always deemed/assumed will be the woman. I know a guy who went into Court and the Judge would not even hear what he had to say, was not even allowed to speak. To the person that said they couldn't feed a child on 50 a week is ridiculous, I spend 100 per week max for food shopping for 2 adults and a child. Excluding reasons for violence, if someone just wants out, then as one poster mentioned, you just have to consider the other person might not always be there to give support, and accept that as their own responsibility, another poster said the father lives at home, and therefore has no costs, sounds like they mean at his parents, as if that's ideal, and it certainly wouldn't absolutely mean the guy has no costs.
I cannot see why costs cannot be estimated and then shared for known fixed costs, and utilize a CC for other childcare costs, and paid jointly at the end of the month. Just handing over x is no guarantee it will be spent wisely, I know my wife will not economise or hunt a bargain in shopping, just flat out buys what she thinks is needed.

HotMama89

I didn’t say I couldn’t feed them on 50 euro I said it probably costs me close to that to feed them. And yes I would consider someone who chooses to live at home because they don’t have to contribute along with company provided transport and phone etc as having very little to no costs as opposed to a father who has rent & utilities and a car to keep on the road.

Widdensushi

HotMama89 wrote: »

I didn’t say I couldn’t feed them on 50 euro I said it probably costs me close to that to feed them. And yes I would consider someone who chooses to live at home because they don’t have to contribute along with company provided transport and phone etc as having very little to no costs as opposed to a father who has rent & utilities and a car to keep on the road.

So if he was renting a property he should pay less maintenance? I presume his intention is not to live with his parents for the rest of his life?

HotMama89

I was replying to the person who said because someone lives at home doesn’t mean they have no costs I was just making a point in my case it does.

Meeoow

1874 wrote: »

so you're saying a man should be kicked out of his own home without question, that's OK? I honestly think that is a very skewed and selfish view, just because children might move doesn't mean their lives will be upturned, imo they are more able to deal with changing situations and have the time to grow into things, a single male adult on the other hand has much more limited options.
What of a situation where the man bought his own home before he met a partner? should he, will he be forced from it? it really is a just a significantly biased view in favour of women and its an excuse to say the primary care giver SHOULD be allowed live in what was the family home, because Judges don't listen and the primary care giver is always deemed/assumed will be the woman. I know a guy who went into Court and the Judge would not even hear what he had to say, was not even allowed to speak. To the person that said they couldn't feed a child on 50 a week is ridiculous, I spend 100 per week max for food shopping for 2 adults and a child. Excluding reasons for violence, if someone just wants out, then as one poster mentioned, you just have to consider the other person might not always be there to give support, and accept that as their own responsibility, another poster said the father lives at home, and therefore has no costs, sounds like they mean at his parents, as if that's ideal, and it certainly wouldn't absolutely mean the guy has no costs.
I cannot see why costs cannot be estimated and then shared for known fixed costs, and utilize a CC for other childcare costs, and paid jointly at the end of the month. Just handing over x is no guarantee it will be spent wisely, I know my wife will not economise or hunt a bargain in shopping, just flat out buys what she thinks is needed.

Why doesn't the father have primary care of the children in that case. If they own the house, they can provide a more stable home.

1874

Meeoow wrote: »

Why doesn't the father have primary care of the children in that case. If they own the house, they can provide a more stable home.

Because they will almost never be given primary care, that is almost without exception granted to the mother, and because they are very likely to have their home taken away from them.

Meeoow

1874 wrote: »

Because they will almost never be given primary care, that is almost without exception granted to the mother, and because they are very likely to have their home taken away from them.

OK so

Electric Sheep

I would not think about having a child with someone who can barely support the one he or she already has.

Electric Sheep

Meeoow wrote: »

Why doesn't the father have primary care of the children in that case. If they own the house, they can provide a more stable home.

Fathers rarely seek primary care of the children, though it's often used as a threat. Those who actually do seek it quite often get it.

statto25

Electric Sheep wrote: »

Fathers rarely seek primary care of the children, though it's often used as a threat. Those who actually do seek it quite often get it.

If a father seeks and gets primary care then its because the mother is seen to not be able to provide a stable home. Most fathers dont contest as they know well they haven't a chance in front of a judge

1874

Electric Sheep wrote: »

Fathers rarely seek primary care of the children, though it's often used as a threat. Those who actually do seek it quite often get it.

I find that highly unlikely, do you have facts to show how many fathers apply for primary care and how many are successful, otherwise I'd say it's known to be the mother who predominantly gets care and is allowed to reside in the house that was lived in, Im looking to see what percent or number are of those where the father actually owned the property prior to a relationship.

Electric Sheep

1874 wrote: »

I find that highly unlikely, do you have facts to show how many fathers apply for primary care and how many are successful, otherwise I'd say it's known to be the mother who predominantly gets care and is allowed to reside in the house that was lived in, Im looking to see what percent or number are of those where the father actually owned the property prior to a relationship.

Got it. You are concerned with ownership of the house, not custody of the kids.

1874

Electric Sheep wrote: »

Got it. You are concerned with ownership of the house, not custody of the kids.

No, thats how you put your slant on it, rather than answer the actual question I asked. I spoke of custody and ownership and both are almost completely without fail granted to the mother.
Its funny how you try put that slant on my post though when I mentioned primary care in the post you quoted and you just ignored that!

I would say, ownership is one concern that women enforce. I came across an article by a solicitor (it was stating they were a high profile among divorcees), the solicitor, also female had stated about her most recent client," All she wanted was the family home" it made out after that statement that it was somewhere for her to raise her kids, as if the statement, that all she wanted was the family home was no big deal.


I do think its significant if one person just decided they want out, but the owner, ie the person who paid for of a substantial asset is the one who has to leave, regardless if that was a man or a woman. Having said that how many scenarios do you think exist where the man gets custody or to stay in the family home, especially if he owned it before she turned up, and what would the flip side of that be if ownership was reversed?


Custody doesnt get a look in. Ownership is what most women want, and they can take it. because the law is on their side and they do take it, Ive seen examples of it myself with a close family member.

1874

ELM327 wrote: »

It's not supposed to rear a child, it's supposed to pay 50% of the cost of the child. Certainly not things like funding the ex partner's mortgage.

Exactly, if one person wants out, then I dont see why the other person should take responsibility for the costs of the adult?? I agree they should take care of a share of the costs of their child, but as should the person who has primary care.
Id be happy to have primary care, but really, in any case, unless there is some issue of violence or neglect, there should be no reason why both parents cant get equal joint custody, blanket giving that to the mother is ridiculous, it diminishes the fathers right and role as a parent and it doesnt say or intend to mean anything good, it is just a reason to take him out of the equation other than as a financial provider.

HotMama89 wrote: »

I get 50 a week for one child and half of school costs nothing towards anything else father has custody one day a week has a full time job and no outgoings/car lives at home. This was an informal agreement and I could probably get more if I did go to court but I have a good job so can support myself so it’s just not worth the hassle but 50euro comes nowhere near the 50% of the costs of raising a child. I’d probably spend that alone feeding them for the 6 days I have them. I think the 75 your paying with half of all costs is very reasonable.

I cant tell if its one child or a few, you get 50 per child or 50 for one, you say child and mention that as plural and singular. Plus you get half of school costs? I dont see how that isnt reasonable, the father works fulltime and only has access one day a week? thats tough going imo, could you see your children 1 day a week??
You admit already you have a good job,



I think 50 for food for one child per week is more than adequate, thats half my outgoings for food for a family of 3, not much luxuries but not even purchasing in Lidl/Aldi anymore, not that I consider that a fault.

HotMama89 wrote: »

I didn’t say I couldn’t feed them on 50 euro I said it probably costs me close to that to feed them. And yes I would consider someone who chooses to live at home because they don’t have to contribute along with company provided transport and phone etc as having very little to no costs as opposed to a father who has rent & utilities and a car to keep on the road.

You more or less did, you stated

I’d probably spend that alone feeding them for the 6 days I have them, again plural, but the more children, there is a certain economy in buying food for more that it works out cheaper, I do the shopping predominantly in my house, so it just does, I know it.
What you're saying, is if you add 50 euro per child, plus their fathers, thats 100 per week, that that is not enough to feed them, let alone everything else?? I dont agree, thats 400 per month to feed 1 child,

50 might not be enough if you arent contributing, and to be fair, Im counting other costs, are you paying for those.
What other ongoing repetitive cost are you talking about? certain things once purchased last and dont necessarily need to be replaced soon, like clothes.
To make an accurate assessment you would need to say how many kids the 50/child occurs, Im not asking you and you dont have to say, but it would make it easier to understand where you're coming from.


Also, there is not zero cost to
"And yes I would consider someone who chooses to live at home because they don’t have to contribute along with company provided transport and phone etc as having very little to no costs"

depending on how many children you both have, 50/child adds up, you make it seem like they have a choice to live elsewhere, it sounds like the fatherlives at his parents, do you think a 30 or 40 something or whatever age the father is, wants to live away from his children to be with their parents at that age, there is no end or way out of that.
They may or may not contribute, but that is not a realistic scenario, if there were no parents around or nearby, then they would have to pay out a lot. Company transport comes with its own costs, BIK, and it may not always be available, likewise having a work phone, doesnt mean you dont have to have your own. Mostly because you have completely disregarded the health cost, anyone who says there is no emotional strain on a parent not to be with their children doesnt know what they are talking about, would you?

HotMama89

I have one child and get 50 euro for said child me or the father have no other children. The one day a week is by fathers choice. I pay all other costs school drop off and collection everyday done by me driving there, medical insurance dental and doctor xmas present costs, & holidays, majority of clothing costs, phone credit disney plus subscriptions down to the shampoo along with housing and utilities etc. So when you add all that up along with feeding child for the week then no I don't think it comes close to 50% of those costs.

You could also say there's an emotional strain on raising a child by yourself 6 days a week too with no support.

I'm not saying any amount is right or wrong everyones circumstances are different. I gave my opinion that 50 euro wasn't enough for my situation.

Housefree

Electric Sheep wrote: »

Fathers rarely seek primary care of the children, though it's often used as a threat. Those who actually do seek it quite often get it.

This is total BS, I have known father's who had a hard time getting the children from alcoholic & drug addict mothers

snor

Housefree wrote: »

This is total BS, I have known father's who had a hard time getting the children from alcoholic & drug addict mothers

My ex Has never taken the 2 day access he fought so hard to get. He has seen his children for a total of 11 hours in the past 12 months.

1874

HotMama89 wrote: »

I have one child and get 50 euro for said child me or the father have no other children. The one day a week is by fathers choice. I pay all other costs school drop off and collection everyday done by me driving there, medical insurance dental and doctor xmas present costs, & holidays, majority of clothing costs, phone credit disney plus subscriptions down to the shampoo along with housing and utilities etc. So when you add all that up along with feeding child for the week then no I don't think it comes close to 50% of those costs.

You could also say there's an emotional strain on raising a child by yourself 6 days a week too with no support.

I'm not saying any amount is right or wrong everyones circumstances are different. I gave my opinion that 50 euro wasn't enough for my situation.

I dont know why you referred to one child as "them" in the plural 4 times?
Aside from which, I wouldnt consider phone credit, Disney subscription or holidays essentials, nice maybe. I would say its necessary to keep track of costs and see what they are, you dont think it comes close to 50%, you should find out, but you already said he pays half of school costs, whatever is involved there.

but 50 euro from each parent is 433 euro per month (plus 50% of school costs on top of that), I'd be astonished if that doesnt cover costs for a month for one child, unless you have some expensive bills for something in particular. IMO a lot depends on budgeting, I dont buy cheaper food or other things, but if I had to I would. As you say, one day a week is by the fathers choice, how much other time is there? I need a day to recover from my weeks work, for someone working mon-fri, there is only one day left to see their child if they need to/have to do anything else. I dont know what the person is on, but I cant imagine they have much left if they opt to live with their parents, either way, you mentioned you have a good job, for me I wouldnt be counting the petrol costs to drop off and collect from school in any tally, or why you mention utilities? what share would you expect from that? I know people that are very poor at managing finances/bills/even running the heating. Imo breakups arent good for anyone with children, but it looks like getting together with anyone, if you have children, and it ends, always goes bad for men.

snor wrote: »

My ex Has never taken the 2 day access he fought so hard to get. He has seen his children for a total of 11 hours in the past 12 months.

One man isn't the rule for every man out there, thats just representative of your case/example, Im sure we dont hear about the many men who make the effort.

Lorrainec24

My fiance earns 35000 a year and pays 100e a week on child maintenance as well as paying for half of the child medical bills and half of the health insurance for the child. I feel this is an awful lot of money and worried we won't be able to afford to start a family of our own.

Separated parents are both liable for their child's costs.

If the non-custodial parent is contributing €50 a week then the custodial parent should be contributing the same from their own pocket (in theory).

I think a lot of separated parents forget to add in the value of Child Benefit and if receiving it, the single parent tax credit into maintenance calculations. These are monies paid by the State to help the parents (both of them) in the support of their children, so should not be counted as soley the mothers income, but income to offset the child's costs.

So, for the sake of argument, the mother has custody, 6 days out of 7.

She is receiving:

€50 Dad, €35 Child Benefit, €30 Tax Credit = €115.00

Thats €115 per week in income, that the mother gets paid directly to her for support of the child before she touches one cent of her own money.

Suddenly makes it look a bit different, doesn't it? Add in €50 from Mum from her own pocket (the equivalent of what Dad is contributing) and thats €165 towards the support of one child for six days.

That should be more than sufficient, unless there are very high childcare rates driving up costs, or something.