If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact [email protected]

Divorcing PPR and child maintenance



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Ezeoul

    I responded to your posts because you were advising the OP to "destroy" his ex-wife and "go to war" on her.

    You wanted him to tell his young children in detail about their mother's wrongdoing, no matter how harmful this might be to them. You wanted him to give up his job and default on the mortgage so the house would be repossessed - which ironically would destroy his credit rating, not hers. .

    Basically, your posts are a lesson in what NOT to do in a divorce proceeding. None of that is good or helpful advice, no matter how outraged you are on his behalf.

    Now, I'm done responding to you.

  • Registered Users Posts: 475 ✭✭delusiondestroyer

    Utterly incorrect and deliberately misquoted and taken out of context.

    Good, because your advice is terrible its going to see him crippled financially and essentially make him a slave to his ex-wife for years. Im sure his kids will thank you in years to come once they've witnessed him struggle year in year out and living at his parents house.

    Keep believing you know it all tho!

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,584 ✭✭✭

  • Registered Users Posts: 475 ✭✭delusiondestroyer

    Think you replied on the wrong account dude lmao and you call other people mental xD

  • Registered Users Posts: 49,767 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover

    What would have happened if he had kicked her out of the family home because of her actions? The OP seems to me to have been far too lenient in his dealings with his unfaithful wife. He's now suffering because of her indiscretions and leaving the house seems to have been a huge mistake.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Ezeoul

    She could simply have returned, and probably would have, with a Protection Order taken out against him. (First step towards a barring order).

    Not a very smart road to go down.

    Leaving the house was undeniably a mistake, but I understand he did so to preserve his mental health, which is understandable. He can still move back in.

  • Registered Users Posts: 49,767 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover

    I'd bet that if and when he returns to live in the house she'll then seek the Protection Order or Barring Order to get him out again.

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Ezeoul

    Yes, in all likelihood she probably would.

    But he has already ruled out returning.

    Returning would also mean the end of her OPFP payment, which means he would be back on the hook for more expenses.

  • Registered Users Posts: 21 Hammerhead1

    Has anyone out there any similar divorce stories particularly around the mortgage .

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,209 ✭✭✭jj880

    Not saying this is what happened here at all but I believe in general people should be very very careful about who they choose to spend their lives with.

    This may be obvious to a lot of people but it definitely isnt to all.

    Ive seen plenty of horror shows in my town where lads have gotten women pregnant when drunk or have hit the age of 30, panicked and ended up with a complete wrongun. Always ends in tears as they havent spent enough time getting to know the person to catch the red flags.

    Number 1 common denominators are serious alcohol dependency and Daddy issues. If you notice either of these before having kids, getting married or buying property then turn, run as fast as your legs can carry you and never look back.

    Of course the inverse is true for women seeking potential partners but based on the excellent information in this thread its much more in the mans interest to be sure about a future partner unless they want to end up desolate without a bean to their name!

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Ezeoul

    Nobody does well out of a divorce.

    But if we're going to get gender specific, there is a cautionary tale for women here, too.

    No woman should ever, EVER, give up her independence, sacrifice her own career, or put all her financial security in the hands of a man.

    I have met so many women in their late thirties or forties who trustingly, foolishly, gave up their own careers, sacrificed their own career progression and future earning potential to stay home and raise the children and support their husband's career progression, only to be traded in for a younger model, when she was no longer exciting enough or dynamic enough for her husband.

    And then she is faced with the same crap as has been flung around this thread - "she never contributed". "She should go back to work full time and pay 50:50" (after years out of the workforce, and basically starting again having to retrain, and with reduced earning capacity).

    The OP may be paying more of the costs for his family at the moment, but at least his ex-wife is in employment.

    It would actually be a lot worse for him, if she wasn't.

  • Registered Users Posts: 21 Hammerhead1

    This all makes sense except I cannot rent a place for less than 2k a month closer to 2500. I only earn 3500 and 1500 is gone from this . I’m in a good fixed rate I’m not sure I can go interest only and would doing so effect my ability to raise a mortgage in the (hopefully near ) future

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,209 ✭✭✭jj880

    All fair points.

    I find the "if she didn't work it would be worse for him" idea a bit redundant though. Same goes the other way. You can always point to a worse situation and tell someone to be grateful for their current raw deal.

    It seems to be an all or nothing e.g. "stop saying home parenting is worth nothing". Im not saying that at least.

    Im asking is the law fair in this country? Is there a fair split going on here? This man is nearly bust with whats happening here. I find it very heavily weighted in one persons favour.

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,245 ✭✭✭XsApollo

    Unless your current house is sold, you probably can’t afford a new mortgage.

    the mortgage is your debt, not your ex’s regardless of wether she gets to stay in the house. And unless she buys you out or the house is sold it’s still your debt.

    also any terms that come out of the divorce in regards to money, such as maintenance mortgage, will all affect your capacity to repay a mortgage.

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Ezeoul

    I don't think the law is as unfair or as biased towards women, as some make it out to be.

    And it would be worse for the OP if his ex-wife wasn't working. He would be liable for spousal maintenance too, if she wasn't.

    And in fairness, after expenses the OP still has more than half of his income left most months.

    It will all come down to what the court decides about the property division.

  • Registered Users Posts: 248 ✭✭Feets

    Why dont you go for custody...then the other problems become hers? Women dont automatically get custody.

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,209 ✭✭✭jj880

    So are we conceding its a bit biased towards women?

    If he didnt work she'd be paying the mortgage unless she wants to sell up. I.e. she'd be worse off. Like I said redundant.

    See his post above. He cant even cover rent. Shes clearing nearly 3k a month. Wheres the "In fairness" in that?

    I agree on the property division but that's a while away yet. Not much use to him at the moment couch surfing at his parents.

  • Registered Users Posts: 475 ✭✭delusiondestroyer

    Nobody does well out of a divorce.... lol

    Would you like to retract that statement? lol Jeff Bezos wife did alright...the list goes on lol

    There can be no denying that divorce in this country is heavily biased against men, its a fact and there are statistics to prove it.

    But its not about that its the cheater in the thing that is the issue, be them man or woman they should be heavily punished there is no need for it, you could simply end a relationship and alls fair then, but cheating is cowardly and calculated.

    The damage these cheaters willingly cause and the damage left in there wake goes unpunished she willingly shattered her kids family life in an instant and that can never be repaired and worst of all in alot of cases they gain financially out of it, which is completely wrong.

    If a woman choses to stay at home and then cheats she has no right to cry about anything or be entitled to anything from the man.. she willingly destroyed her own relationship in the worst way possible and should be held accountable for her decision both socially and financially.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 475 ✭✭delusiondestroyer

    Realistically you would be doing well in todays climate to get a house with the full 3.5k, with the way prices are gone depending on where your living but you'd be talking another 1k on a mortgage atleast depending on deposit and the price of the house. it wouldnt leave alot of wiggle room for other bills.

    Do everything in your power to not have to support her and pay for the house or your going to be crippled financially. You'll barely have a life if you have to pay those costs man and even for your kids to have a place to go when they come to you, she's the one that deserves these problems not you.

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Ezeoul

    No, I'm not conceeding that at all. I've seen it go both ways in court, sometimes the women get shafted, sometimes the men do. It hugely depends on the humour of the Judge on the day.

    Try getting enforcement of child maintenance when someone decides they're not going to pay. The orders aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

    I could post literally hundreds of accounts of women left to raise children with no support from the fathers - or maybe €20 per week, if they're lucky.

    What do you think the OPs ex wife is spending her income on?

    Do you think the few hundred a month over the amount of the mortgage the OP is giving her would be enough to run a household for five for a month so that her own income isn't touched? (OP, this is not a slight against you, I know you are doing your best).

    Only one adult moved out. Food, utilities, transport costs, etc, etc, etc won't have changed that much, and still have to be paid for.

    If you think it does cover everything, then please teach me your ways.

    Post edited by Ezeoul on

  • Registered Users Posts: 475 ✭✭delusiondestroyer

    Shes not spending 2700 on the kids a month anyway unless there rocking Gucci and eating caviar and gold for breakfast. And with no mortgage... she'd want to have one hell of a ESB bill to cover to spend it.

    I could show you cases where women weaponize there kids and deny the men access to them fully backed by the law, its common knowledge that the courts are heavily biased towards woman to state otherwise is nonsense.

    "Depends on the humour of the judge" spare me....

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,209 ✭✭✭jj880

    You did concede it though.

    I don't think the law is as unfair or as biased towards women, as some make it out to be.

    I'll ask again. Is it fair right now that OP cant even cover rent?

    Im not sure what good it would do to speculate on what his ex wife spends her money on. We have all the relevant figures right here in this thread.

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Ezeoul

    No I didn't.

    You're asking me what's fair - let me ask you this.

    How to you propose to make a combined income that used to support one household, magically stretch to support two?

    And no, we actually don't have the relevant figures. We know how much she has coming in (and it is quite a bit less than the OP does). We don't know what the weekly outgoings are.

    There will still be food, utilities and all the other bills associated with running a home to pay.

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,209 ✭✭✭jj880

    Yes you did.

    Refusing to answer again. "In fairness" I dont think I'll be answering any of your questions if you wont answer mine.

    Now, I'm done responding to you.

    I think it's time for me to be done responding to you.

  • Registered Users Posts: 56 ✭✭rowantree18

    Yes. Friend's sister - 3 kids. Divorced. She stayed in the house with the kids until youngest 23 as was in Uni. That child was 2 when they split - so 21 years he's had to wait to get his 50% of house and it doesn't happen automatically overnight, you have to go to court over it again etc. Now it's hassle as 2 of the kids still live at home and haven't the type of income for rent/buy. So he'd be making his kids homeless:ish (I assume they'd figure something out eventually).

    The problem in Ireland is that 1 semi-d doesn't equal 2 flats....

  • Registered Users Posts: 56 ✭✭rowantree18

    OP - if you've a pension try to ring-fence it if possible - they're up for grabs in divorce

  • Registered Users Posts: 21 Hammerhead1

    Did he have to pay the mortgage post divorce?

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Ezeoul

    That's fine by me.

    Not giving you the answer you want, is not refusing to answer. I did give you an answer.

    "In fairness" is also a phrase I use quite often.

    It doesn't mean I am literally confirming whether a situation is "equal" or not.

    I also used it when reminding the OP to include the value of the SPCCC in his calculations.

    But what I do find curious here, is when I said "I'm done responding to you" it was to another poster. Not you. 🤔