nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

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.

[Deleted User]

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.

0ph0rce0

80 a week here, have the child 3 days a week.

Also pay for everything if it's needed, well I always try, be it medical, dental, school, after school activities, clothes etc... Christmas I don't let her spend a penny.

Most of the time she insists of paying half so not going to argue with that.

I see people say pay half for Birthdays???? What's that about, do lads not buy their kids a birthday present and just say, sure I give you 50 a week. Pretty low that.

Tried to get me to pay half a mortgage though. That was nipped right in the bud, No chance am I paying half a mortgage while she and another lad pay half each between them and I don't even live there. Get the boat she was told.

1874

0ph0rce0 wrote: »

80 a week here, have the child 3 days a week.

Also pay for everything if it's needed, well I always try, be it medical, dental, school, after school activities, clothes etc... Christmas I don't let her spend a penny.

Most of the time she insists of paying half so not going to argue with that.

I see people say pay half for Birthdays???? What's that about, do lads not buy their kids a birthday present and just say, sure I give you 50 a week. Pretty low that.

Tried to get me to pay half a mortgage though. That was nipped right in the bud, No chance am I paying half a mortgage while she and another lad pay half each between them and I don't even live there. Get the boat she was told.

The first bolded comment might depend on how much money someone has, might not be much if anything left, but I think most people mother or father would do their best. Having said that, it depends on what it is half of and for, some birthday expenses like a party might be ok to go half but a gift maybe,maybe not. The Parents might not want to get tied down into getting double of everything and potentially set a child up to expect gifts all the time let alone 2. Time spent with one or both parents doing things is better than gifts imo.

In regard to paying half the mortgage, your opinion makes sense to me, especially given there is someone else living there, that seems fair and reasonable, although Im not sure how you wrangled it?

I dont know why there cant be a credit card account, with cards kept by both parents, specifically for childcare costs, establish approximately how much childcare costs are and for what and pay off/in convenient amounts so any debt from usage doesnt build up. Both parents pay for a 50% share monthly, if there are additional necessary costs, just split it 50:50 at the end of the month and pay it off, but no additional large expenses that are not essential or not discussed first.

StringerBell

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.

Try as I might I was unable to get primary care of my children. I have them 50/50 and that was tough enough, regardless of gender it's disgusting to use kids as a tool between two adults.

Housefree

StringerBell wrote: »

Try as I might I was unable to get primary care of my children. I have them 50/50 and that was tough enough, regardless of gender it's disgusting to use kids as a tool between two adults.

Do you have to pay anything when you have 50/50

YellowLead

Housefree wrote: »

Do you have to pay anything when you have 50/50

Not for children (if you are splitting the big bills too like crèche or grinds etc) but if there was a marriage or cohabitation situation then you might have to pay some upkeep of the other person

1874

YellowLead wrote: »

Not for children (if you are splitting the big bills too like crèche or grinds etc) but if there was a marriage or cohabitation situation then you might have to pay some upkeep of the other person

And if the other person works and earns more? imo I think its one reason why Im not challenged so heavily, in that the other person in my case earns a lot more than me, I see no reason why i would try garner her wages or them mine just because they earn more than me.
Id be keen for 50:50 care in so much as it is practical, my work hours wont always allow for that, Its my intent to contribute 50% to my childs needs, but not another persons.

YellowLead

1874 wrote: »

And if the other person works and earns more? imo I think its one reason why Im not challenged so heavily, in that the other person in my case earns a lot more than me, I see no reason why i would try garner her wages or them mine just because they earn more than me.
Id be keen for 50:50 care in so much as it is practical, my work hours wont always allow for that, Its my intent to contribute 50% to my childs needs, but not another persons.

I don’t know if you are married or not or how long you were living with your partner. If you aren’t married and she earns more then you don’t need to support her, she would have to prove financial dependence on you to get anything for herself.
And fair play to you for not looking for money for yourself from her, I wouldn’t either if my ex earned more, I don’t get that kind of greed. It’s a pride thing too!
I do a 50 50 split with my ex and our son so no maintenance applies - we split the bills for grinds etc. Though I buy all his clothes and pay his pocket money, but it’s fine.

Bobby2004

Recently separated and I have an informal agreement with my ex wife.

I pay €175 every 2 weeks plus in the future half of educational, dental, birthdays etc.

I'm paid fortnightly. I earn about €960.

I had to move home. My wife owned the house before we married and i'm making no claim towards it. I'm not in anyway in a position to get a mortgage for a number of years until my salary increases.

I'm prob paying on the high side but my child's welfare come first even tho feels like I'm getting a raw deal.

My wife also earns €200 to €300 more then me.

My son is only 2. I'm just hoping there won't be an increase in the future.

Just thinking down the line when I need to apply for a mortgage to have a home for me and my son would a reduction be normal in them circumstances?

When he starting secondary school he goin be there most of the day. Dont want to short change my wife but I also want a home someday as wel. €175 is prob as high as I can go. If there an increase sought I don't kno what to do.

statto25

Bobby2004 wrote: »

Recently separated and I have an informal agreement with my ex wife.

I pay €175 every 2 weeks plus in the future half of educational, dental, birthdays etc.

I'm paid fortnightly. I earn about €960.

I had to move home. My wife owned the house before we married and i'm making no claim towards it. I'm not in anyway in a position to get a mortgage for a number of years until my salary increases.

I'm prob paying on the high side but my child's welfare come first even tho feels like I'm getting a raw deal.

My wife also earns €200 to €300 more then me.

My son is only 2. I'm just hoping there won't be an increase in the future.

Just thinking down the line when I need to apply for a mortgage to have a home for me and my son would a reduction be normal in them circumstances?

When he starting secondary school he goin be there most of the day. Dont want to short change my wife but I also want a home someday as wel. €175 is prob as high as I can go. If there an increase sought I don't kno what to do.

€350 per month for a 2 year old? That sounds way too high to me. What is that figure based on?

Bobby2004

He in creche 3 days a week and my wife's mother looks after him while we both at work. My wife is matching what I pay and most of that goes to my mother in law. She's minding our son most of the time. Don't want anymore fights or scraps or anything to go through court but it does feel I'm getting shafted a bit.

Actually works out €380 a month. I get paid fortnightly so 26 paydays in the year. When you divide over 12 months it's like €379.