How much child maintenance do you pay?

neonsofa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don’t think anyone is disputing that, that’s just a fact. But the whole point of maintenance is that parents are legally obligated to provide for their children according to their means, and whether it’s €15 or €150 makes no difference in terms of providing for the child’s welfare.

I think what the poster is getting at (and i could be wrong, so correct me if i am!) is that the primary carer will have to provide for the child's welfare regardless of means. The cashier won't make allowances based on means/circumstance for the weekly shop etc. And for those who are below a certain amount, they will qualify for state subsidies, but those who fall above those thresholds (which aren't actually that high considering the amount it costs just to cover childcare in order to earn the wage in the first place)- those working on one wage but just above all thresholds for support, can't say "shopping/rent/childcare is above my means so go easy on me" yet they are still responsible for providing for the child.

Dravokivich

neonsofa wrote: »

I think what the poster is getting at (and i could be wrong, so correct me if i am!) is that the primary carer will have to provide for the child's welfare regardless of means. The cashier won't make allowances based on means/circumstance for the weekly shop etc. And for those who are below a certain amount, they will qualify for state subsidies, but those who fall above those thresholds (which aren't actually that high considering the amount it costs just to cover childcare in order to earn the wage in the first place)- those working on one wage but just above all thresholds for support, can't say "shopping/rent/childcare is above my means so go easy on me" yet they are still responsible for providing for the child.

That doesn't change what another person can REALISTICALLY pay. This gets reviewed in court via an affidavit known as a "statement of means." Tickers can argue ideologically all they want, there is a strong legal process in place already to determine the amount and assign who receives maintenance.

neonsofa

Dravokivich wrote: »

That doesn't change what another person can REALISTICALLY pay. This gets reviewed in court via an affidavit known as a "statement of means." Tickers can argue ideologically all they want, there is a strong legal process in place already to determine the amount and assign who receives maintenance.

Oh i know how it all works, (i also know how people can hide their cash in hand income to get out of paying what they realistically should pay too), I was just explaining what i think the person meant since the other poster didn't seem to be understanding what they were getting at.

One eyed Jack

neonsofa wrote: »

I think what the poster is getting at (and i could be wrong, so correct me if i am!) is that the primary carer will have to provide for the child's welfare regardless of means. The cashier won't make allowances based on means/circumstance for the weekly shop etc. And for those who are below a certain amount, they will qualify for state subsidies, but those who fall above those thresholds (which aren't actually that high considering the amount it costs just to cover childcare in order to earn the wage in the first place)- those working on one wage but just above all thresholds for support, can't say "shopping/rent/childcare is above my means so go easy on me" yet they are still responsible for providing for the child.

That seems to be exactly what they’re getting at, but it’s just not true that anyone is obligated by law to provide for their children regardless of their means, and fathers can’t be held to that standard either. So Ticklers can argue that fathers should be obligated to pay a fixed minimum amount of maintenance for their children, but they’re ignoring the fact that the Courts already take these things into consideration.

Ticklers can argue all they want that fathers should get a better paying job in order to meet this minimum amount and save the State having to provide assistance, but that’s a completely separate issue from the issue of Court ordered maintenance.

The comparison to the legal obligations of a shop to their customers was weak. Retailers aren’t obligated by law to provide for their customers, but some retailers fulfil their social responsibilities by offering unsold food to charities to distribute among the homeless for example.

khalessi

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That seems to be exactly what they’re getting at, but it’s just not true that anyone is obligated by law to provide for their children regardless of their means, and fathers can’t be held to that standard either. So Ticklers can argue that fathers should be obligated to pay a fixed minimum amount of maintenance for their children, but they’re ignoring the fact that the Courts already take these things into consideration.

Ticklers can argue all they want that fathers should get a better paying job in order to meet this minimum amount and save the State having to provide assistance, but that’s a completely separate issue from the issue of Court ordered maintenance.

The comparison to the legal obligations of a shop to their customers was weak. Retailers aren’t obligated by law to provide for their customers, but some retailers fulfil their social responsibilities by offering unsold food to charities to distribute among the homeless for example.

The onus should not be left to the main custody parent though as people have been known to deliberately lose jobs so as not to provide. It does say a min for people on unemployment to pay abot 55/60e

One eyed Jack

khalessi wrote: »

The onus should not be left to the main custody parent though as people have been known to deliberately lose jobs so as not to provide. It does say a min for people on unemployment to pay abot 55/60e

The onus to maintain their children isn’t just left to the parent with primary custody though, but it’s just a fact that the Courts cannot demand a parent provide for their children beyond their means. If someone purposely leaves their job to avoid paying maintenance well that’s just stupid, frankly, but there’s nothing the Courts can do about that.

Macdarack

eviltwin wrote: »

That would just about cover after school care for my 10 year old. Kids aren't cheap.

What would the other 200 be spent on?

jonnogael

After 50 years of marriage I'm still paying it.:D

AulWan

I was awarded court ordered maintenance of 25 quid per week (paid via an attachment order) for my first child from the age of 1 to the age of 8. At that point, the father sought a variance claiming inability to pay due to personal loans and financing he had taken out to pay for his new car, for his wedding (circa 40k) and to furnish his new house. I was single, working full time and earning a junior admin wage at the time, and barely scraping by, paying full housing costs etc. The Judge reduced the court order to zero. The father never paid another cent again. The child is now in their twenties.

Not much bothers me, but delinquent parents really chafe my thighs.