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

Father's child maintenance doubled

blacklilly

Although we don't know the full details of the custody agreement, this is an unusual case that will be looked upon favourably by all fathers fighting for equal rights and access rights to their children. I acknowledge that the father in this case was married to the childrens mother which leaves him in a stronger position then a single father.
There are so many stories of "bad fathers" and fathers who do not care, it's great to read about a ruling of this type.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/stay-at-home-father-s-child-maintenance-doubled-1.1672739

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Dravokivich

I can understand the reasons for maintenance and how the sale of the house should be arranged. But I don't see why the father should have a cut of her pension.

[Deleted User]

Sounds good to me. If the father had given them a horrific time for three years, he'd have no chance of even seein them again.

[Deleted User]

Deleted User wrote: »

Sounds good to me. If the father had given them a horrific time for three years, he'd have no chance of even seein them again.

She doesn't see them, her only contact is through letters, according to the article.

Nice to see the courts work the other direction fairly. Hopefully it's the start of a more equitable situation for fathers who are primary carers.

smallerthanyou

Dravokivich wrote: »

I can understand the reasons for maintenance and how the sale of the house should be arranged. But I don't see why the father should have a cut of her pension.

I thought exact same. He previously ran a business and intends running one now and there may have been some of his working life before the kids depending on the age when having the kids so why can't he provide for his own pension? Maybe a few percent to account for the time he was at home but 25per cent seems punitive.
everything else seems fair.

tigger123

smallerthanyou wrote: »

I thought exact same. He previously ran a business and intends running one now and there may have been some of his working life before the kids depending on the age when having the kids so why can't he provide for his own pension? Maybe a few percent to account for the time he was at home but 25per cent seems punitive.
everything else seems fair.

Would a woman not have access to a mans pension if the roles were reversed? Genuine question, ie, she was deemed by the courts as the primary care giver and he was paying maintenance.

Lollipops23

Great to see the courts not automatically side with the mother (especially as she doesn't sound like she was the most stable).

At a loss to see why he'll get 25% of her pension though...he didn't give up his entire career to mind the kids.

blacklilly

tigger123 wrote: »

Would a woman not have access to a mans pension if the roles were reversed? Genuine question, ie, she was deemed by the courts as the primary care giver and he was paying maintenance.

This is what I don't know tbh and why I haven't commented on it. I would preseume there is some logic to it. Maybe someone else knows?

[Deleted User]

Lollipops23 wrote: »

Great to see the courts not automatically side with the mother (especially as she doesn't sound like she was the most stable).

At a loss to see why he'll get 25% of her pension though...he didn't give up his entire career to mind the kids.

He did give up a chunk of it though, if he gave it up entirely it might have been a 50% award.

I think the pension allocation is fair. He's put the kids first for so long any pension he takes out now will never catch up on those years.

rambutman

tigger123 wrote: »

Would a woman not have access to a mans pension if the roles were reversed? Genuine question, ie, she was deemed by the courts as the primary care giver and he was paying maintenance.

Yes is the answer.......this is a big factor in maintenance settlements. I suppose the thinking being if the pension was being paid through their "together" life - then this is money they would have been spending/saving together.

No Pants

It doesn't give any details about the pension. There might have been more in the case, but it's just not reported.

tigger123

No Pants wrote: »

It doesn't give any details about the pension. There might have been more in the case, but it's just not reported.

??? It says in the article that he should be awarded 25% of her pension ???

Awful situation, feel sorry for the kids, especially when things are that dysfunctional.

Yellowblackbird

She's the only family member that can pay into a pension. The rest are subsisting.

Cee-Jay-Cee

Dravokivich wrote: »

I can understand the reasons for maintenance and how the sale of the house should be arranged. But I don't see why the father should have a cut of her pension.

Because if it were the other way about she would have a cut of his.

2Mad2BeMad

I know child maintenance in some cases are all good and the mothers actually spend the money that is given on the children

but I know plenty of woman who have children, when they get their maintenance off the fathers , its spent on a night out or spent on clothes , when it should be spent on the child

blacklilly

tigger123 wrote: »

??? It says in the article that he should be awarded 25% of her pension ???

Awful situation, feel sorry for the kids, especially when things are that dysfunctional.

Hold on, we only know every few details not exactly fair to say that their situation is "that dysfunctional". The children involved seem to have a solid father in their lives who is suppoting them.

nicowa

I don't understand being a stay-at-home parent of teenageers though. Even if the youngest is 13 surely they'd be ok for the hour it takes him to get home from work?

And yes I would say this to a woman too.

In a SAHMum and I wouldn't see myself doing that. What do you see yourself doing at home the whole time? I'd be gone bananas!

But I am happy he's got custody if his remarks about the kids time with their mum is any way correct. I don't see what a mother gets automatic custody whatever her parenting skills almost.

bajer101

Things do seem to be changing. I am a single father with sole custody of my daughter and I was awarded maintenance in the District Court a couple of weeks ago. The Judge didn't seem to be taken aback by the application and I found him to be very amenable. He advised me that I could apply for up to €150 per week and he also advised me of other awards he could make - such as back to school expenses. In the end I only asked for €50 per week, but he backdated it to when I submitted the application to the Court, which was last October. My ex didn't turn up in court, so I did have an easy time of it, but I just felt that the experience was more "normal" than I was expecting. Even though I have had sole custody for two and half years now, I only recently decided to apply for maintenance as I was originally just happy to get custody.

justsomebloke

Lollipops23 wrote: »

Great to see the courts not automatically side with the mother (especially as she doesn't sound like she was the most stable).

They did though. According to the article the kids had spent over 3 years of 'hell' with the mother and they actually had to ring the Gardai asking to be removed.

So the woman had to go to extremes for the father to be given the rights a mother would have atomically been given

tigger123

blacklilly wrote: »

Hold on, we only know every few details not exactly fair to say that their situation is "that dysfunctional". The children involved seem to have a solid father in their lives who is suppoting them.

Should have been clearer, I meant dysfunctional in so far as their mother is only communicating with them through letters, after the family unit has broken down, which to me is dysfunctional. There's a lot hurt there, for whatever reason.

nicowa

2Mad2BeMad wrote: »

I know child maintenance in some cases are all good and the mothers actually spend the money that is given on the children

but I know plenty of woman who have children, when they get their maintenance off the fathers , its spent on a night out or spent on clothes , when it should be spent on the child

You say that, but she's spending money she would use to socialise on the kids. If she wasn't getting the maintenance then she would have no social life but the kids wouldn't be suffering. But she is. And if he's earning enough to pay maintenance then she can get back some element of her life. It's a "would you begrudge her a night out" kind of a thing. As long as the kids are taken care of then all is good.

blacklilly

tigger123 wrote: »

Should have been clearer, I meant dysfunctional in so far as their mother is only communicating with them through letters, after the family unit has broken down, which to me is dysfunctional. There's a lot hurt there, for whatever reason.

Ok granted, however with seperation/divorce hurt is to an extent inevitable. What's important is that the childrens primary career, in this case their father is supported equitably.

tigger123

blacklilly wrote: »

Ok granted, however with seperation/divorce hurt is to an extent inevitable. What's important is that the childrens primary career, in this case their father is supported equitably.

Hurt is inevitable, but the extent of which and how the parents choose to behave in the aftermath of the divorce can dictate how damaging the process can be for the children.

I have no issue at all with full support being given to the father as primary giver. I think its a fantastic step forward tbh.

No Pants

tigger123 wrote: »

??? It says in the article that he should be awarded 25% of her pension ???

Awful situation, feel sorry for the kids, especially when things are that dysfunctional.

I mean it doesn't give an explanation of how the decision was reached.

bodice ripper

I am just going to skip 15 pages into this thread:

Life is so unfair for (enter gender here)! Whatabout this person (enter gender here)? Patriachy, glass ceiling, PC brigade, double standards, misconception, Daily Fail, welfare cheats, mental health! HELP HELP I AM BEING OPPRESSED!

[Deleted User]

Seems a cop out to not have worked since 2008. He has teenage children. It must be so hard doing nothing all day while his children are in school.

xXxkorixXx

as a woman i am delighted to see this. the children are the priority after all. i would also love to see what them hypocrite feminists think about it

[Deleted User]

Mod

bodice ripper wrote: »

I am just going to skip 15 pages into this thread:

Life is so unfair for (enter gender here)! Whatabout this person (enter gender here)? Patriachy, glass ceiling, PC brigade, double standards, misconception, Daily Fail, welfare cheats, mental health! HELP HELP I AM BEING OPPRESSED!

If you don't wish to partake in the thread that's fine, but leave the needless inflammatory posts out of it please.

xXxkorixXx wrote: »

I would also love to see what them hypocrite feminists think about it

Same goes for this kind of thing, it only serves to wind people up and there's no need for it.

blacklilly

Deleted User wrote: »

Seems a cop out to not have worked since 2008. He has teenage children. It must be so hard doing nothing all day while his children are in school.

I would hesitate a guess that he may have previously worked in construction or a construction related disapline as it states that he was previously employed, following on from this I would guess that his business was hit by the recession and therfore he has been unemployeed since.

hatrickpatrick

tigger123 wrote: »

Would a woman not have access to a mans pension if the roles were reversed? Genuine question, ie, she was deemed by the courts as the primary care giver and he was paying maintenance.

She would, but that would be totally wrong as well.
Correcting this by applying that wrong reverse as well is entirely the wrong direction to be going in, and I say that as someone who is outspoken in favour of men's rights.

To give you an analogy, the double standard with regard to violence against men vs women is wrong, but we don't correct that by making violence against women more accepted, we correct it by making violence against men equally reviled and equally punished.
The concept of "the lifestyle to which he/she is accustomed" is fundamentally wrong to begin with. Such things should focus on who dumped who and why - if I'm being supported by my wife and I choose to dump her without something like her abuse or infidelity to justify it, why should I be entitled to continue livig off her? Her resources are a side effect of being in a relationship with her, not the main aspect for it. Same applies in reverse.

Thoie

Deleted User wrote: »

Seems a cop out to not have worked since 2008. He has teenage children. It must be so hard doing nothing all day while his children are in school.

First off, the children may not have been teenagers in 2008. Children are not at school 365 days a year. I see a lot of parents (where both are working) desperately trying to pack their kids off to granny's, summer camp, tiddlywinks conventions, etc. during the school holidays. If he doesn't have family near by who can help, then trying to afford all those things, even when working, may not be feasible.

Most stay at home parents will tell you there are plenty of things to be doing during the day. Sure, maybe they get to spend an hour drinking coffee with a neighbour in the afternoon, but most of us who work also get to spend some time during the day drinking coffee with other adults.