Father's child maintenance doubled

tigger123 · 30-01-2014 01:33PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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 Gould 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.

If one person in the relationship is the primary care giver, and makes sacrifices in their career (or foregoes their career altogether) in order to look after the kids on a full time basis, they are in effect giving up any possibility of earning a private pension. Its a sacrifice they make for the family unit which they should be compensated for if the relationship breaks down.

Teyla Emmagan · 30-01-2014 01:34PM

25% of her pensions seems a bit unfair to me. He's only been out of work since 2008, and we don't know how long he has been a full time carer. I would think he should only be compensated for the years he was unable to pay into his own pension (6 tops), which is not exactly 25% of a person's working life (45 years).

Now the 2 kids are in secondary school (presumably if the youngest is 13) then I think any full time parent should also be able to work, at least part time. Being self employed may give flexibility, but there's no stability in it. I dunno if that's the most logical choice for him so, and there will doubtless need to be start up capital sourced from somewhere. Where's that going to come from?

Interesting anyhoo.

Teyla Emmagan · 30-01-2014 01:37PM

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.

The shopping has to be done, the house has to be kept, food has to be cooked. As he said himself - you wouldn't question it if he were a woman. And he may not have been able to GET a job all things considered.

30-01-2014 01:41PM

blacklilly wrote: »

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.

That is six years without even a part time job. Six years. The recession wasn't that bad that somebody who was seeking work would not get even a part time job. Like, if he needed more money for his children. Why not get a part time job then?

K-9 · 30-01-2014 01:41PM

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.

As far as I'm aware this has been a regular enough thing in divorce settlements in Ireland since the law was introduced. The law might be a bit out dated and need reform in respect of pension stuff like that, but it is pretty egalitarian.

30-01-2014 01:43PM

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

The shopping has to be done, the house has to be kept, food has to be cooked. As he said himself - you wouldn't question it if he were a woman. And he may not have been able to GET a job all things considered.

I absolutely would question it if was a woman. I thought men and women were suppose to be equal. I just don't see how somebody who was self-employed (obviously had some sense of business acumen) could not get any work for six years.

blacklilly · 30-01-2014 01:44PM

Deleted User wrote: »

That is six years without even a part time job. Six years. The recession wasn't that bad that somebody who was seeking work would not get even a part time job. Like, if he needed more money for his children. Why not get a part time job then?

True the recession wasn't too bad at all, totally exaggerted.

K-9 · 30-01-2014 01:47PM

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

As long as the children are reasonably looked after during the month/week it shouldn't really matter if the mother/father has a night out.

bajer101 · 30-01-2014 01:55PM

Deleted User wrote: »

That is six years without even a part time job. Six years. The recession wasn't that bad that somebody who was seeking work would not get even a part time job. Like, if he needed more money for his children. Why not get a part time job then?

If this thread were about a stay at home mother being awarded maintenance, would the fact that she hadn't worked in six years be even raised? As I mentioned earlier, I'm a single Dad. I work full time, but I can easily imagine finding myself in a situation where I was unable to find work. I'm lucky in that I have a good skillset that is usually in demand.

I have worked in mainly contract roles for the last number of years, and I am usually able to find employment. But being a lone parent does restrict you in the jobs you can apply for - early last year I was out of work for almost four months, and found myself getting into a rut that I felt could easily have dragged on a lot longer. There are a lot of people in the country who are unemployed and can't find work, without the added handicap of being the sole carer of children.

wonderfullife · 30-01-2014 01:57PM

It's none of our business why he doesn't work.

He could have been looking for work. He could have been suffering from depression or a stress related issue. I would imagine if things were so bad for the children to ring the Guards to ask to be taken away from the mother, then it's a fair assumption that life wasn't peachy for the father with her either.

Anyway there's a whole variety of reasons why he might not have been working and none are particularly relevant.

ash23 · 30-01-2014 02:02PM

Asked by counsel for his ex-wife why he “chose not to work outside the home”, the man said the question was laughable. “You’re saying that because I’m a man and at home looking after my children; if I was a housewife you wouldn’t be saying that to me,” he said.

I don't think that this is an unfair question. If the children are now teenagers, then by new social welfare law, he would be expected to be out looking for work. One parent family allowance is no longer available for new applicants once their youngest is between 16 and 7 depending on when the claim began. It's being reduced to 7 by 2015.

I'm glad to see a father getting equal treatment for a change in the courts, don't get me wrong, but I do think his comment about being asked if he was looking for work is misguided.

suicide_circus · 30-01-2014 02:08PM

ash23 wrote: »

I don't think that this is an unfair question. If the children are now teenagers, then by new social welfare law, he would be expected to be out looking for work. One parent family allowance is no longer available for new applicants once their youngest is between 16 and 7 depending on when the claim began. It's being reduced to 7 by 2015.

I'm glad to see a father getting equal treatment for a change in the courts, don't get me wrong, but I do think his comment about being asked if he was looking for work is misguided.

not a hope in hell that question would have been posed if he were a woman

EyeSight · 30-01-2014 02:09PM

K-9 wrote: »

As long as the children are reasonably looked after during the month/week it shouldn't really matter if the mother/father has a night out.

It matters when they're using the child maintenance money. If there's money left over then maybe they are getting too much. Or they should get more for the child with it

ash23 · 30-01-2014 02:12PM

suicide_circus wrote: »

not a hope in hell that question would have been posed if he were a woman

You think? Just take a gander at any threads about single mothers and you'll see it's a pretty common question! And it's one I'd personally expect to be asked in a divorce settlement if the children were teenagers. I don't see a problem with it.

c68zapdsm5i1ru · 30-01-2014 02:13PM

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

The shopping has to be done, the house has to be kept, food has to be cooked. As he said himself - you wouldn't question it if he were a woman. And he may not have been able to GET a job all things considered.

I have to say if it was a woman I would question why, now that the children are teenagers, she wasn't trying to get a job. I would consider it unfair on the husband to be the sole provider when there is probably two lots of rent/mortgage to be paid and in this case I think it's unfair on the mother. Obviously he may not be able to get a job in the current climate, but he should be making every attempt to do so.

ash23 · 30-01-2014 02:14PM

EyeSight wrote: »

It matters when they're using the child maintenance money. If there's money left over then maybe they are getting too much. Or they should get more for the child with it

It's all going to the household income. If they spend their own money on food, clothes, rent, heating, ESB, school fees etc then what does it matter if they use the maintenance for a night out. As for them getting too much, should every non custodial parent give every extra penny they have towards the child also, aswell as maintenance. Should every parent turn down a night out to spend the money on their child even if the child has everything it needs?

K-9 · 30-01-2014 02:24PM

EyeSight wrote: »

It matters when they're using the child maintenance money. If there's money left over then maybe they are getting too much. Or they should get more for the child with it

So if it was spent out of their own income it doesn't matter as much?

I just don't get that way of thought. If the household income is say €2,500 a month including child maintenance and as long as the children are looked after well, I'd hardly begrudge a parent a couple of nights out.

clairefontaine · 30-01-2014 02:58PM

I know people get really excited when they see these cases, and they think justice is finally being served, but I would still hold the impression that family court is ultimately a crap shoot and whoever runs out of money first loses.

I don't think that will ever change tbh. That has always been the way, regardless of whatever ideological flavor of the month is.

Teyla Emmagan · 30-01-2014 03:02PM

Baylor Lazy Sternum wrote: »

I have to say if it was a woman I would question why, now that the children are teenagers, she wasn't trying to get a job. I would consider it unfair on the husband to be the sole provider when there is probably two lots of rent/mortgage to be paid and in this case I think it's unfair on the mother. Obviously he may not be able to get a job in the current climate, but he should be making every attempt to do so.

I agree that now they're teenagers he should be working. I said the same - my response was to someone who asked why he hadn't been working up to this. I think it's reasonable that he was home full time when the kids were in primary school though, particularly as a single parent.

uck51js9zml2yt · 30-01-2014 03:08PM

brothers wife had an affair and forced him out of the family home . she got 75% of the house, maintenance for the 2 kids and a cut of his pension when he retires.
he was forced to live in digs until he got enough cash to get his own house after having cleared the mortgage on the family home.
in short..he was shafted. her bf moved in as soon as he left.

30-01-2014 03:53PM

EyeSight wrote: »

It matters when they're using the child maintenance money. If there's money left over then maybe they are getting too much. Or they should get more for the child with it

So single parents aren't allowed new clothes or a night out?

Jesus wept.

That's it lads and lassies. If your partner leaves you holding the baby, you can kiss your life goodbye, no more fun for you, you don't deserve it.

cletus van damme · 30-01-2014 03:54PM

just on the pension thing.
you cannot give up access to your ex's pension.

when i was divored we wanted nothing more to do with each other - agreed to keep pensions separate but still have to agree to a .001% lien on the others pension.

dunno if that will actually work in practice or is it an admin thing..

py2006 · 30-01-2014 04:07PM

The fact that there is a thread on this subject says a lot. For YEARS men have been totally screwed over by the law in this country as mothers are often seen as the best child carers regardless of their background. Actually the background is usually irrelevant.

Lets hope this is will lead to many other cases like it and men get to see their kids and not have to pay their lives away to women.

sopretty · 30-01-2014 05:12PM

Why is the Dad being referred to as a 'carer' by posters on here? He's a parent, a father, a stay at home Dad, an unemployed man, unemployed father, whatever, but he is not a 'carer'.

EyeSight · 30-01-2014 05:26PM

Deleted User wrote: »

So single parents aren't allowed new clothes or a night out?

Jesus wept.

That's it lads and lassies. If your partner leaves you holding the baby, you can kiss your life goodbye, no more fun for you, you don't deserve it.

I'm not saying that. Just that it shouldn't come out of the childrens maintenance. I would assume when a figure is made for the maintenance amount, they only factor in what a child would need, not adding in figures for nights out.

30-01-2014 05:31PM

EyeSight wrote: »

I'm not saying that. Just that it shouldn't come out of the childrens maintenance. I would assume when a figure is made for the maintenance amount, they only factor in what a child would need, not adding in figures for nights out.

But as has been said, if the child is getting fed, clothed, school books, shoes, all the things that a child needs then which exact pile of money it comes out of makes absolutely no difference.

If the father spends every penny he gets on the kids, and then uses the cash that he gets on maintenance day to buy a shirt - how is that different to doing it the other way around?

30-01-2014 05:34PM

What I got form the article was his surprise at being treated well in court and that the judge understood his situation, the media and general discourses has led him to believer that men are always badly treated by the family courts, which is far from the truth.

I think there should be an expectation that once children are teenagers you work to support them and yourself and possible get some income support if you need it, male or female loan parent. I don't like the way he though he should not be asked how he intended to make a living and seem to presume a female loan parent would not be asked that. The bottom line as far as I am concerned is you work to support yourself and your family and social welfare is their in the form of family income supplement to support you in doing that.

EyeSight · 30-01-2014 05:59PM

Deleted User wrote: »

But as has been said, if the child is getting fed, clothed, school books, shoes, all the things that a child needs then which exact pile of money it comes out of makes absolutely no difference.

If the father spends every penny he gets on the kids, and then uses the cash that he gets on maintenance day to buy a shirt - how is that different to doing it the other way around?

Well if the maintenance is X amount and at least X amount(from whatever fund) is spent on the child, then it's fine. But if < X is spent on the child that's when I would disagree. The first post where this side bar came from was referring to some posters friends doing this.

P.S. I never said anything about not letting parents have nights out. I would never agree with that. I think some people went "daily mail" on my words :rolleyes:

McDermotX · 30-01-2014 06:46PM

Natalia Great Smile wrote: »

brothers wife had an affair and forced him out of the family home . she got 75% of the house, maintenance for the 2 kids and a cut of his pension when he retires.
he was forced to live in digs until he got enough cash to get his own house after having cleared the mortgage on the family home.
in short..he was shafted. her bf moved in as soon as he left.

Three sides to every story of course, but what a witch !

No Pants · 31-01-2014 08:12AM

EyeSight wrote: »

Well if the maintenance is X amount and at least X amount(from whatever fund) is spent on the child, then it's fine. But if < X is spent on the child that's when I would disagree. The first post where this side bar came from was referring to some posters friends doing this.

Does that count the money spent on getting to work to provide the various items for the child?

Father's child maintenance doubled

Comments