How much child maintenance do you pay?

v638sg7k1a92bx

My understanding is the maximum that can be enforced is €150 per week which is pittance IMO, but I had a conversation with a woman who receives the vastly sum of €15 per week!!! I have my doubts as to whether this is true but if it is, can anyone explain how someone can get away with €15 per week under a court order. She would be better not getting anything in that case because he gets to poke his nose in for his €15.

I know one person who has a 14 yo son and has paid nothing towards his child maintenance for 14 years and thinks that by giving the mother a few bob "cash" at Christmas that he is doing her a favour.

Isn't it time that a minimum level of child maintenance was introduced and actually enforced so that the state is not left to pick up the tab for delinquent fathers?

171170

The maximum that the District Court can order from either parent is €150 per week for each child. There is no limit in the Circuit/High Courts.

A parent can also seek a once-off lump sum up to a maximum of €15,000 through the District Court. Where a court orders that a lump sum be paid, the court can specify how this sum is to be used, which may include providing suitable accommodation for the child. A parent can seek a contribution from the other parent towards expenses related to the birth of a child, or funeral expenses if a dependent child dies. The maximum that can be awarded in the District Court in each of these circumstances is €2,000.

If you are worried that the other parent will not pay the maintenance it is possible to get an Attachment of Earnings Order. This means that the other parent’s employer can deduct the maintenance payments directly from their wages.

If the court decides that the parent cannot afford to pay maintenance it is possible to ask the judge to make an order for a nominal sum (even €5 per week). In this way if financial circumstances were to change in the future, it would be easier to apply for a variation order than to re-apply for maintenance. It also means that there is a Court Order naming the man as father, which could be important for birth registration or other purposes. Maintenance is payable from the date the application was made for a court order.

https://www.treoir.ie/information/child-maintenance-information/

v638sg7k1a92bx

171170 wrote: »

The maximum that the District Court can order from either parent is €150 per week for each child. There is no limit in the Circuit/High Courts.

A parent can also seek a once-off lump sum up to a maximum of €15,000 through the District Court. Where a court orders that a lump sum be paid, the court can specify how this sum is to be used, which may include providing suitable accommodation for the child. A parent can seek a contribution from the other parent towards expenses related to the birth of a child, or funeral expenses if a dependent child dies. The maximum that can be awarded in the District Court in each of these circumstances is €2,000.

If you are worried that the other parent will not pay the maintenance it is possible to get an Attachment of Earnings Order. This means that the other parent’s employer can deduct the maintenance payments directly from their wages.

If the court decides that the parent cannot afford to pay maintenance it is possible to ask the judge to make an order for a nominal sum (even €5 per week). In this way if financial circumstances were to change in the future, it would be easier to apply for a variation order than to re-apply for maintenance. It also means that there is a Court Order naming the man as father, which could be important for birth registration or other purposes. Maintenance is payable from the date the application was made for a court order.

https://www.treoir.ie/information/child-maintenance-information/

Spit it out, how much are you paying?

171170

Fisher High Side wrote: »

Spit it out, how much are you paying?

Fortunately for me, the DNA test proved that God the Father had lived up to his name!

ELM327

Why is there the presumption that the man must pay the woman child maintenance and not the other way round? Both parents created the child and should be jointly and severally liable for its cost.

v638sg7k1a92bx

171170 wrote: »

Fortunately for me, the DNA test proved that God the Father had lived up to his name!

Immaculate conception then. Looks like you dodged a bullet.

eviltwin

ELM327 wrote: »

Why is there the presumption that the man must pay the woman child maintenance and not the other way round? Both parents created the child and should be jointly and severally liable for its cost.

They are.

ELM327

ELM327 wrote: »

Why is there the presumption that the man must pay the woman child maintenance and not the other way round? Both parents created the child and should be jointly and severally liable for its cost.

Generally speaking after a break up the kids stay with the woman....in such cases the lady is hardly going to pay maintenance to the father.
The primary carer incurs the cost.... Both should share that cost.

dahat

€260 per month under non legal agreement between us. The child is now 20 & in college so that will continue until such time as he is finished.
Or at least that is what I understand the case to be.

v638sg7k1a92bx

dahat wrote: »

€260 per month under non legal agreement between us. The child is now 20 & in college so that will continue until such time as he is finished.
Or at least that is what I understand the case to be.

When did you break up?

aslanroars

I pay 280 a month .but my son stays with four days and night.plus half expensive.s .

dartboardio

ELM327 wrote: »

Why is there the presumption that the man must pay the woman child maintenance and not the other way round? Both parents created the child and should be jointly and severally liable for its cost.

where are you getting that presumption from?

any parent who has the child most of the time gets the maintenance. fair is fair. whether that is a single dad, or a single mum

Dravokivich

Bit of an odd way to shoot a thread up. We dont know why that parent is receiving 15euro a week. The judge is well aware you cant draw blood from a stone. They wont force the one paying maintenance, to do so with anymore than they could. What's the sense in that?

salmocab

Fisher High Side wrote: »

My understanding is the maximum that can be enforced is €150 per week which is pittance IMO, but I had a conversation with a woman who receives the vastly sum of €15 per week!!! I have my doubts as to whether this is true but if it is, can anyone explain how someone can get away with €15 per week under a court order. She would be better not getting anything in that case because he gets to poke his nose in for his €15.

I know one person who has a 14 yo son and has paid nothing towards his child maintenance for 14 years and thinks that by giving the mother a few bob "cash" at Christmas that he is doing her a favour.

Isn't it time that a minimum level of child maintenance was introduced and actually enforced so that the state is not left to pick up the tab for delinquent fathers?

You doubt someone only gets 15 a week but know someone that only throws a few quid at Christmas?.
There are cases where the other parent can’t afford it and looking for a minimum payment may be like getting blood from a stone. That said though the system is a mess.

One eyed Jack

Fisher High Side wrote: »

She would be better not getting anything in that case because he gets to poke his nose in for his €15.

A parent doesn’t get to “poke their nose in” for any amount of money, simply because neither access nor legal guardianship is predicated upon being able to provide financial support for the child or children involved.

Decisions regarding the welfare of children are made by the Courts in the best interests of children, not their parents. Cases which come before the Courts are decided on a case by case basis, so that’s why there isn’t either a minimum amount nor a maximum amount that can be written into legislation - it’s dependent upon the means and the circumstances of all parties involved in any particular case.

TheMilkyPirate

150e per week is pittance according to you? For one child?

That's 300e a week to raise a child? Madness.

v638sg7k1a92bx

Dravokivich wrote: »

Bit of an odd way to shoot a thread up. We dont know why that parent is receiving 15euro a week. The judge is well aware you cant draw blood from a stone. They wont force the one paying maintenance, to do so with anymore than they could. What's the sense in that?

Able-bodied young man in an low unemployment economy and €15pw? The price of a pack of fags!

dahat

Fisher High Side wrote: »

When did you break up?

16 years ago.

v638sg7k1a92bx

One eyed Jack wrote: »

A parent doesn’t get to “poke their nose in” for any amount of money, simply because neither access nor legal guardianship is predicated upon being able to provide financial support for the child or children involved.

Decisions regarding the welfare of children are made by the Courts in the best interests of children, not their parents. Cases which come before the Courts are decided on a case by case basis, so that’s why there isn’t either a minimum amount nor a maximum amount that can be written into legislation - it’s dependent upon the means and the circumstances of all parties involved in any particular case.

I'm not disputing that, but a little bit of common sense would go a long way. Does nobody else think that

What I mean by "poking their nose in" is that the mother would be better off receiving nothing than pursuing the father for €15 because some (many) fathers like to make life difficult for the mother by playing games around access, pick up and drop off times, parental alienation etc.
Point is that if a father is delinquent then he is less likely to cause problems for the mother because he's afraid that the non payment of maintenance will be used against them and so he keeps his head down. Even though the maintenance and access are two separate issues many people are under the impression they are connected.

v638sg7k1a92bx

dahat wrote: »

16 years ago.

Do you mind me asking what was the reason, were you married cohabiting?

salmocab

Fisher High Side wrote: »

I'm not disputing that, but a little bit of common sense would go a long way. Does nobody else think that

What I mean by "poking their nose in" is that the mother would be better off receiving nothing than pursuing the father for €15 because some (many) fathers like to make life difficult for the mother by playing games around access, pick up and drop off times, parental alienation etc.
Point is that if a father is delinquent then he is less likely to cause problems for the mother because he's afraid that the non payment of maintenance will be used against them and so he keeps his head down. Even though the maintenance and access are two separate issues many people are under the impression they are connected.

Plenty of mothers getting fair money also playing games stopping fathers ‘poke their noses in’.

Sleeper12

Fisher High Side wrote:

My understanding is the maximum that can be enforced is €150 per week which is pittance IMO, but I had a conversation with a woman who receives the vastly sum of €15 per week!!! I have my doubts as to whether this is true but if it is, can anyone explain how someone can get away with €15 per week under a court order. She would be better not getting anything in that case because he gets to poke his nose in for his €15.

An ex friend who was on the dole was court ordered to pay 10 euro per child per week. He has three children. He stopped the 10 as each of the first two turned 18. He was one of these idiots who believed that he was giving the money to the mother for herself. He could never grasp that this pittance was actually for his children

Cork Trucker

Fisher High Side wrote: »

My understanding is the maximum that can be enforced is €150 per week which is pittance IMO, but I had a conversation with a woman who receives the vastly sum of €15 per week!!! I have my doubts as to whether this is true but if it is, can anyone explain how someone can get away with €15 per week under a court order. She would be better not getting anything in that case because he gets to poke his nose in for his €15.

I know one person who has a 14 yo son and has paid nothing towards his child maintenance for 14 years and thinks that by giving the mother a few bob "cash" at Christmas that he is doing her a favour.

Isn't it time that a minimum level of child maintenance was introduced and actually enforced so that the state is not left to pick up the tab for delinquent fathers?

My brother is on the dole, paying €15 per week. It started out that he was paying his ex €50 into the hand, missed one week and she had a hissy fit, issued him with a maintenance summons and the judge ordered he pay €35 instead, her gamble backfired. Anyway, he shacked up with another bird a while later and had kids with her, this €35 now became 20, another few kids later €15, since that order was made he's had another child, so expect the €15 will come down more, all of this is court ordered i might add. Meanwhile the child caught in the middle of it all is alienated and this is on court ordered psychological assessment reports. He does "stick his nose in" as well, but from what i see he cares about the child but has a festering hatred for the ex, the mother in turn hides nothing and divulges her hatred of the father to the child.

One eyed Jack

Fisher High Side wrote: »

I'm not disputing that, but a little bit of common sense would go a long way. Does nobody else think that

What I mean by "poking their nose in" is that the mother would be better off receiving nothing than pursuing the father for €15 because some (many) fathers like to make life difficult for the mother by playing games around access, pick up and drop off times, parental alienation etc.
Point is that if a father is delinquent then he is less likely to cause problems for the mother because he's afraid that the non payment of maintenance will be used against them and so he keeps his head down. Even though the maintenance and access are two separate issues many people are under the impression they are connected.

The Courts aren’t under that impression though? That’s why even though €15 may well be the price of a pack of cigarettes, it’s also the price of a weeks hot meals for their child, which is the whole point of child maintenance.

I get what you mean that some men can indeed be a pain in the proverbial for the mothers of their children, but as Drav pointed out - you can’t get blood out of a stone, much less a whole lot above €5 as a means of having a parent take some responsibility in their children’s lives as they are equally compelled to do as parents, by law, in the interests of the child or children involved.

Trust me, I get where you’re coming from that there are some woeful deadbeat fathers out there that I used wish their children didn’t have to know of their existence, but that was never acting in the best interests of the child either - just because IMO they were an awful excuse for a human being, it shouldn’t preclude them from being a father to their children.

dahat

Fisher High Side wrote: »

Do you mind me asking what was the reason, were you married cohabiting?

Not married, cohabiting & just grew apart. There was no one else invovled though that didn't mean there wasn't any less stress during the process of break up & beyond.

Dravokivich

Fisher High Side wrote: »

Able-bodied young man in an low unemployment economy and €15pw? The price of a pack of fags!

Sorry for not being a high roller :rolleyes:

the_syco

Fisher High Side wrote: »

Able-bodied young man in an low unemployment economy and €15pw? The price of a pack of fags!

Rent, food, transportation, etc, on min wage can leave not much else to spend.

v638sg7k1a92bx

TheMilkyPirate wrote: »

150e per week is pittance according to you? For one child?

That's 300e a week to raise a child? Madness.

150e per week = is 150e per week. Where are you getting 300e per week from?

Where is the madness part?

v638sg7k1a92bx

the_syco wrote: »

Rent, food, transportation, etc, on min wage can leave not much else to spend.

But still have enough for the latest smartphone, pints at the weekend, pack of smokes everyday and a few flash jackets.

I don’t accept this woe is me minimum wage malarky. Unless you cannot physically work or some underlying serious medical condition, you’re on the minimum wage because you choose to be not because someone put you there which probably explains why they are single fathers on minimum wage in the first place.

Now we’ll wait for everyone to pile in with the story of the wonderful father who works in Tesco but society is keeping him down. You might have got away worth that in 2011 but not now.

v638sg7k1a92bx

Dravokivich wrote: »

Sorry for not being a high roller :rolleyes:

A pack of smokes per week, yes that’s really a high roller.

One eyed Jack

Fisher High Side wrote: »

But still have enough for the latest smartphone, pints at the weekend, pack of smokes everyday and a few flash jackets.

I don’t accept this woe is me minimum wage malarky. Unless you cannot physically work or some underlying serious medical condition, you’re on the minimum wage because you choose to be not because someone put you there which probably explains why they are single fathers on minimum wage in the first place.

You’re not being asked to accept anything though. Your initial post was concerned with introducing a minimum child maintenance payment, and when it was explained that access and maintenance aren’t related, now you’re arguing that fathers aren’t made to pay enough maintenance because they can still afford a certain lifestyle. The Courts take all these circumstances into consideration in making their decisions already. Nobody has to be personally answerable to you, in the same way as you’re not being asked to accept anything, neither does anyone have to accept anything you say.

The same reasoning you use to criticise fathers on minimum wage who aren’t in your opinion properly providing financially for their children, are equally applicable to mothers who aren’t providing properly financially for their children. It simply stands to reason that a person provides for their children according to their means in any given circumstances as determined by the Courts with the best interests of the child as their primary concern, regardless of their parents employment status. It’s their financial status will be considered - their ability to provide for their children according to their means.

Fisher High Side wrote: »

Now we’ll wait for everyone to pile in with the story of the wonderful father who works in Tesco but society is keeping him down. You might have got away worth that in 2011 but not now.

Again, because nobody is answerable to you personally, they don’t have to justify anything to you. You’re trying to make a point that fathers should be made to pay a minimum amount for their children, and while you personally aren’t willing to consider their means, the Courts do, so nobody is “getting away” with anything, neither in 2011 or now. That’s why you really don’t have a point worth entertaining tbh, because nobody here is under any obligation to furnish you with the details of their personal circumstances in order for you to pass judgment upon them. Nobody here has to bestow upon you an authority that you simply don’t have, the Courts already have that authority to make decisions so nobody needs to explain themselves to you or offer you personally any justifications whatsoever for their lifestyles.

Put simply - it’s none of your business what anyone else pays in maintenance for their children, and nobody is under any obligation to justify themselves to you personally.