Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie 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 hello@boards.ie

Should non custodial parents be sent to jail for failing to pay child support

24567

Comments

  • #32
    banie01
    Registered Users Posts: 16,426 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    I think you are mistaken. There isn't a separate offence of "not paying court-ordered maintenance", for which people get tried and convicted. They're simply committed for non-compliance with a court order (to pay maintenance).

    That's what I thought I had explained?
    Apologies if I laid it out incorrectly.

    Yes the "offence" commited is breach of a court order.
    No, there is not an offence of "not paying".

    I had thought that jail was on the foot of breach of the order, as a contempt proceeding?
    And payment purged the contempt?


  • #33
    ILoveYourVibes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,176 ✭✭✭✭ILoveYourVibes


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    I think you are mistaken. There isn't a separate offence of "not paying court-ordered maintenance", for which people get tried and convicted. They're simply committed for non-compliance with a court order (to pay maintenance). And according to the newspaper report linked in post #10, this happens fairly rarely. (Which is what you'd expect, since committal to prison will not often be the most effective way to enforce payment obligations, as already pointed out by others in this thread.)

    Also the court route is bound to be prohibitively expensive for many.


  • #34
    spurious
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 27,102 CMod ✭✭✭✭spurious


    At a minimum make sure a non-paying parent cannot use the child to claim HAP and other benefits.


  • #35
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,009 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    banie01 wrote: »
    That's what I thought I had explained?
    Apologies if I laid it out incorrectly.

    Yes the "offence" commited is breach of a court order.
    No, there is not an offence of "not paying".

    I had thought that jail was on the foot of breach of the order, as a contempt proceeding?
    And payment purged the contempt?
    Yes, pretty much. And, per the newsaper report, this only happens to a handful of people every year.


  • #36
    ILoveYourVibes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,176 ✭✭✭✭ILoveYourVibes


    I would think if Freisar isn't willing for non custodial parents to pay without seeing their children he would at least say thank you for us who do I mean we never see them!


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    ILoveYourVibes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,176 ✭✭✭✭ILoveYourVibes


    spurious wrote: »
    At a minimum make sure a non-paying parent cannot use the child to claim HAP and other benefits.

    I hadn't even thought of that.
    I wonder how much this costs the state.

    Obviously the answer is to teach and support young men to be good fathers.


  • #38
    kirving
    Registered Users Posts: 5,869 ✭✭✭kirving


    Loveinapril wrote: »
    They are not paying maintenance to see their child, they are paying maintenance because their child exists and needs shelter, food and clothes.

    Correct.

    But on the other hand, a 50:50 split in terms of access, and hence patenting responsibilities, would in theory leave no maintenance to be paid either way.

    It's very easy in many people's minds for maintenance and access to be judged together, because while legally speaking they're not related, in practice, they are.


  • #39
    banie01
    Registered Users Posts: 16,426 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Yes, pretty much. And, per the newsaper report, this only happens to a handful of people every year.

    Thanks Peregrinus.

    Yes, I know it's quite rare.
    I was addressing a point made by another poster that we already jailed parents for non-payment.

    My intended thrust was to show that we actually didn't, it was more a contempt issue than criminalisation of a debtor.


  • #40
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,009 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Kevin Irving wrote: »
    Correct.

    But on the other hand, a 50:50 split in terms of access, and hence patenting responsibilities, would in theory leave no maintenance to be paid either way.

    It's very easy in many people's minds for maintenance and access to be judged together, because while legally speaking they're not related, in practice, they are.
    I think you're thinking of a 50:50 split in terms of custody would leave no maintenance due either way.

    But:

    50:50 custody isn't necessarily in the best interests of the children. It can be disruptive, for example, to have to change home every week, and in the middle of the school week. (Unless the kids stay in the one house and the parents move in and out, but that presents its own problems.)

    And even where 50:50 custody is a good idea and is practicable and is actually operated, it still wouldn't necessarily mean that no maintenance was due, since one parent might have a good deal of money and the other very little, and things like the costs of school fees, holidays, etc, etc have to take account of what each parent can pay.


  • #41
    ILoveYourVibes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,176 ✭✭✭✭ILoveYourVibes


    Kevin Irving wrote: »
    Correct.

    But on the other hand, a 50:50 split in terms of access, and hence patenting responsibilities, would in theory leave no maintenance to be paid either way.

    It's very easy in many people's minds for maintenance and access to be judged together, because while legally speaking they're not related, in practice, they are.




    If a child could live one week with Dad and one with mom that would be ideal. However its considered disruptive for the child.

    Could they even go to the same school? Some non custodial parents live far away.

    I think the only way it could really work would be if the parents both stayed in the same house. And if they can manage that then i doubt they are the types of parents we are talking about.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Kimsang
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,170 ✭✭✭Kimsang


    ILoveYourVibes wrote: »
    I hadn't even thought of that.
    I wonder how much this costs the state.

    Obviously the answer is to teach and support young men to be good fathers.

    The answer could also be to teach women to be better wives...

    I liked how this thread started as 'non custodial parent' , but now we are moving into dangerous stereotypical territory.

    I mean its very easy for a woman to leave her husband(partner) with their kids and get a state sponsored house and income. Her family and friends will all help and support her. She will win in court.

    For a man to do this, he will lose access to his kids in most cases, will be treated as a degenerate by society, will lose most court battles and may be forced to pay support.

    This is the reality of the situation.

    IMO we have disincentivized men to be good fathers, and replaced them with the state.


  • #43
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 17,837 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    In the US it seems to be dead beat mothers get social housing, deadbeat dads go to prison

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • #44
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,009 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    silverharp wrote: »
    In the US it seems to be dead beat mothers get social housing, deadbeat dads go to prison
    "Deadbeat dads" generally refers to fathers who neither live with their children nor provide financial support.

    Are you saying that the US provides social housing to mothers who neither live with their children nor provide financial support? If not, what do you mean by "deadbeat mothers"?


  • #45
    ILoveYourVibes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,176 ✭✭✭✭ILoveYourVibes


    Kimsang wrote: »
    The answer could also be to teach women to be better wives...

    I liked how this thread started as 'non custodial parent' , but now we are moving into dangerous stereotypical territory.

    I mean its very easy for a woman to leave her husband(partner) with their kids and get a state sponsored house and income. Her family and friends will all help and support her. She will win in court.

    For a man to do this, he will lose access to his kids in most cases, will be treated as a degenerate by society, will lose most court battles and may be forced to pay support.

    This is the reality of the situation.

    IMO we have disincentivized men to be good fathers, and replaced them with the state.


    In the real world men do not wish to be left holding the baby.

    Of course women should be the best wives and mothers they can be.



    Keeping a family loving strong and together, setting the tone of the home etc is obviously very important.

    A lot of this has obviously been a woman's role. Keeping home life together.

    Appreciating those skills in society is important.

    Interestingly we don't really appreciate or respect femininity. We don't respect softness etc.

    Women don't want to be as sensitive anymore. They want to be strong like men. Confident like men.

    Because men of course have been so successful at ruling the world.

    Gentleness, empathy, sensitivity, caring, sweetness, compassion, tolerance, nurturance, deference, and succorance are traits that have traditionally been cited as feminine. They are usually key to holding a family together and setting the right tone to a home. But ironically they are the traits least respected in society. And often things people inc women are told are valueless in today's harsh world.

    I however disagree i think they are very valuable. And should be brought MORE into the world not less.

    Women should be MORE feminine. And shine that light right into the darkest places. Even the business world.

    The world should be MORE feminine and more yeilding not less.

    I agree with what you have which i have put in bold in your quote.But you would have to be very easy to disincentivize if you are honest.

    So in short we should teach the world to respect the feminine more. So women will no longer strive to be men to gain respect.

    So yes we SHOULD teach women to be better wives.

    But consider this perhaps if the world respected feminine traits they would still be around.

    That has nothing to do with men vrs women. Its simply kindness and sweetness are not revered in the world aggression is. It's why they are dying out.

    In fact we worship aggression and competitiveness too much. Women are constantly being told be to less caring less emotional less sensitive.

    That's not feminism. Its the patriarchy taking over the feminine mind.


  • #46
    ILoveYourVibes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,176 ✭✭✭✭ILoveYourVibes


    silverharp wrote: »
    In the US it seems to be dead beat mothers get social housing, deadbeat dads go to prison
    If she were deadbeat her kids would be in care.


  • #47
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,221 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    Why do people think that jail is the answer? Especially in a case like this?


  • #48
    ILoveYourVibes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,176 ✭✭✭✭ILoveYourVibes


    Kailey Hissing Cellist wrote: »
    Why do people think that jail is the answer? Especially in a case like this?


    I don't. I am the OP. However i asked because its happened.

    It was an opener for a general conversation.


  • #49
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,009 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Kailey Hissing Cellist wrote: »
    Why do people think that jail is the answer? Especially in a case like this?
    Very few people, in this thread at any rate, have expressed the view that jail is the answer. On the contrary, most people who have expressed a view have pointed out that it isn't.


  • #50
    Electric Sheep
    Registered Users Posts: 2,102 ✭✭✭Electric Sheep


    machiavellianme wrote: »
    Does the father get any access at all? If not, then why should they pay? I'm aware of cases where the father hasn't seen his children in 2 years (missing communions, Christmas, birthdays, everything) as the court keeps setting a new date and the mother seems to be able to spout whatever lies she likes, yet he is expected to pay every month.
    Does he pay?


  • #51
    ILoveYourVibes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,176 ✭✭✭✭ILoveYourVibes


    We need a therapy for post separation families.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    some parents will try to avoid paying their responsibilities and some parents will use their children as weapons to hurt their former partners


  • #53
    meeeeh
    Registered Users Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    It's completely pointless to imprison people for these type of offences. Instead welfare or revenue should sit onto portion of their income and make sure fines and maintenance are paid. Same goes for fines for motoring offences and similar.


  • #54
    Kimsang
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,170 ✭✭✭Kimsang


    ILoveYourVibes wrote: »
    In the real world men do not wish to be left holding the baby.

    Of course women should be the best wives and mothers they can be.



    Keeping a family loving strong and together, setting the tone of the home etc is obviously very important.

    A lot of this has obviously been a woman's role. Keeping home life together.

    Appreciating those skills in society is important.

    Interestingly we don't really appreciate or respect femininity. We don't respect softness etc.

    Women don't want to be as sensitive anymore. They want to be strong like men. Confident like men.

    Because men of course have been so successful at ruling the world.

    Gentleness, empathy, sensitivity, caring, sweetness, compassion, tolerance, nurturance, deference, and succorance are traits that have traditionally been cited as feminine. They are usually key to holding a family together and setting the right tone to a home. But ironically they are the traits least respected in society. And often things people inc women are told are valueless in today's harsh world.

    I however disagree i think they are very valuable. And should be brought MORE into the world not less.

    Women should be MORE feminine. And shine that light right into the darkest places. Even the business world.

    The world should be MORE feminine and more yeilding not less.

    I agree with what you have which i have put in bold in your quote.But you would have to be very easy to disincentivize if you are honest.

    So in short we should teach the world to respect the feminine more. So women will no longer strive to be men to gain respect.

    So yes we SHOULD teach women to be better wives.

    I agree with you feminine traits should be adored and complemented.
    But I disagree with their importance, I think they are already the values that society holds up the highest.

    I have a big problem with what you've written in bold.
    I could also make the statement; "in the real world, women don't want their former partners to have custody of children, and will fight tooth and nail and be successful in court if they are so inclined".

    It was the women's movement of the 19th century that moved custody from the father to the mother. Before then, fathers happily took custody of their children, it was the feminist movement that fought against this...

    I guarantee today if you make custody laws more equal, men would step up and take responsibility. Why would you though, if you know you will only lose in court and lose most of your assets.

    The 'deadbeat' dad is a troupe all too familiar in todays culture. All they're good for is welfare checks and being the butt of all jokes. How about a little respect for good men instead of always the wamans...



  • #55
    Electric Sheep
    Registered Users Posts: 2,102 ✭✭✭Electric Sheep


    *In the US it seems to be dead beat mothers get social housing, deadbeat dads go to prison*
    You have never lived in the US have you?


  • #56
    ILoveYourVibes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,176 ✭✭✭✭ILoveYourVibes


    What about removing some of the shame from being a 'deadbeat dad' and helping them connect ??

    We need to become aware as a society of how to keep families post separation together but together in a different way.

    Encouraging both sides to support each other and be less selfish.


  • #57
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,221 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    Kimsang wrote: »
    Us child-less are already footing the bills for child households.

    :rolleyes: Way to sensationalize. Child-less households are not footing the bills for child households. Such nonsense.


    ILoveYourVibes wrote: »
    I don't. I am the OP. However i asked because its happened.

    It was an opener for a general conversation.

    I didn't say you, or anybody else in this thread, said that non payers should go to jail, but people are in jail for non payment so somebody think's it's a solution. They are incorrect.


  • #58
    ILoveYourVibes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,176 ✭✭✭✭ILoveYourVibes


    Kimsang wrote: »

    I guarantee today if you make custody laws more equal, men would step up and take responsibility. Why would you though, if you know you will only lose in court and lose most of your assets.


    I would want to try and give you the chance and help you all i can . :)


  • #59
    Kimsang
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,170 ✭✭✭Kimsang


    ILoveYourVibes wrote: »
    I would want to try and give you the chance and help you all i can . :)

    I think that's not only disingenuous, but quite disrespectful to all father's fighting for custody of their children right now. Think about it if the shoe was on the other foot, women couldn't get custody of their children, and were told they didn't want it... just think about that.


  • #60
    Kimsang
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,170 ✭✭✭Kimsang


    Kailey Hissing Cellist wrote: »
    :rolleyes: Way to sensationalize. Child-less households are not footing the bills for child households. Such nonsense.





    I didn't say you, or anybody else in this thread, said that non payers should go to jail, but people are in jail for non payment so somebody think's it's a solution. They are incorrect.

    Do you know how taxes work? Do you know where the money comes from for social housing? Do you know where the money comes from for Child payments?
    Funny that you call a fact nonsense without citing any information.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    ILoveYourVibes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,176 ✭✭✭✭ILoveYourVibes


    Kimsang wrote: »
    I think that's not only disingenuous, but quite disrespectful to all father's fighting for custody of their children right now. Think about it if the shoe was on the other foot, women couldn't get custody of their children, and were told they didn't want it... just think about that.

    I just said i want to help you/them all i can??? :confused:

    I meant it.

    No pleasing some people.


Advertisement