Friend paying child maintenance has received letter from Social Welfare looking for more

[PaddyW]

As per above, my friend is already paying an agreed amount of maintenance (€80.00 pw) to his estranged wife for their son. He also has the child over 3-4 nights a week and contributes to clothes, food, shoes, food, toys etc. He received a letter from the Social Welfare saying that he must now pay €135.00 per week maintenance.

His weekly wage comes out to €650.00, after tax. He pays rent of roughly €160.00 per week, the usual household bills, petrol, insurance and puts money into a savings account for the child weekly also, which he wants to be used towards the child's education in the future.

Are Social Welfare being fair with this demand? This seems to have come about after the wife cut back her working week and applied for assistance from Social Welfare. In the letter they sent they say that he has the child 0 (zero) days per week, but this is untrue as he usually has the child from Friday night to Monday morning, as well as 1 or 2 other nights during the week. They also have not taken in to account the money he spends weekly on the child, apart from the maintenance.

I think he has it in his mind that he would pay an extra €15 - €20.00 extra to his wife per week, but that the €135.00 figure is pushing it a bit (from the social welfare side, his wife has not made any demands for anything extra)

How should he approach Social Welfare about this?

Thanks in advance for the advice.

 

[Waver]

If he has his child 3 to 4 nights per week every week by agreement he needs to write back giving evidence of this. He can also include a payslip and proof of rent.

At the moment as far as Social Protection are concerned they are being asked to support a child whose father does not take him over night he needs to correct that.

 

[Clara16]

sounds like they have only been given her side of the story from the wife and she is claiming she has the child full time. he needs to write back as Waver said and give his side of the story and even request meeting.

he needs to clearly state he has the chid 3/4 nights a week.

 

[Bronte]

puts money into a savings account for the child weekly also, which he wants to be used towards the child's education in the future.

.

Seems an odd thing to do when the child needs maintence now. As others have said, he needs to explain the real situaton to SW.

 

[Daffodils]

As far as I am aware any maintenance payments received would reduce any social welfare payments the wife would be entitled to so it's not in the interest of the wife to receive additional maintenance payments. However it will reduce the amount the tax payer is paying towards the maintenance of the child.

 

[PaddyW]

Seems an odd thing to do when the child needs maintence now. As others have said, he needs to explain the real situaton to SW.

Hi Bronte, appreciate what you are saying but the child wants for nothing. There has often been weeks where he has spent an extra €100.00 or more if the child needs anything. He would never leave the child short of anything at all.

 

[elcato]

Are social welfare allowed to decide what maintenance a father should pay ? I would have thought a court would need to decide that and only in the case of non-agreement between the parties.

 

[44brendan]

Are social welfare allowed to decide what maintenance a father should pay ?

SW are supposed to ensure that SW payouts are limited and that both parents contribute to the best of their financial ability. SW can bring errant parents to Court for not contributing. However, in this instance a Court has already made it's decision and SW would not be able to amend that decision without reversion to the Court.
From y own limited information based on involvement with a charity I don't believe that SW can off its own bat order a certain level of payment to be made.

 

[ppmeath]

This seems to have come about after the wife cut back her working week and applied for assistance from Social Welfare.

This is the relevant part of the post.

It absolutely happened when your friend decided to work less, earn less and then turn to the state to make up the shortfall.

It's not the state's duty to step in an fill this gap - it's both parents responsibility.

It has nothing to do with how many nights the child sees the other parent, visitation and maintenance are not the same thing.

 

[PaddyW]

Hi ppmeath, my friend works a full week, it is his estranged wife that cut back her hours. That is not his fault ! And I would agree that she should work more.

I know that they reached the amounts for maintenance etc. through mediation.

 

[ppmeath]

Hi Paddy,

Firstly if I can address something in your opening post:

"my friend is already paying an agreed amount of maintenance (€80.00 pw) to his estranged wife for their son"

A child is not a "thing" that you pay for. Your friend is not paying his estranged wife for anything, he is contributing to the costs of his child's upbringing, it's not based on what he chooses to buy, nor is it based on how many nights he has the child - it's not pay per view.

When your friend and his wife decided to have a child together, then this child was born with certain rights, one of those is to be brought up in the best standard achievable, as if both parents' remained together - that they are no longer together does not diminish the child's rights.

You friend works full time? And? I'm not sure I get your point here?

"it is his estranged wife that cut back her hours. That is not his fault ! And I would agree that she should work more."

Whose blaming anyone?

But if you think that its nothing to do with the father of the child, then why should it have something to do with the taxpayer?

Why did the mother reduce her hours?

Does the father have any part or role in childcare?

Is mum paying for childcare?

Is she struggling with childcare - 3/4 nights a week is great, but not so great if you're a full time mum trying to juggle childcare 5 days a week.

"His weekly wage comes out to €650.00, after tax. He pays rent of roughly €160.00 per week, the usual household bills, petrol, insurance and puts money into a savings account for the child weekly also, which he wants to be used towards the child's education in the future."

All irrelevant, is Mum earning 650 per week?

What is mums rent/mortgage?

Dad can live in a one room apartment, Mum needs two rooms.

Mum has "all the usual" bills too, higher because there are two people.

I don't mean to be bad Paddy, but your friends son and his welfare is the first obligation always.

 

[Seagull]

Dad can live in a one room apartment, Mum needs two rooms.

Except for this small detail, unless you expect either the father or child to sleep on the couch/floor

he usually has the child from Friday night to Monday morning, as well as 1 or 2 other nights during the week.

which also answers your question

Does the father have any part or role in childcare?

 

[PaddyW]

Hi Paddy,

Firstly if I can address something in your opening post:

"my friend is already paying an agreed amount of maintenance (€80.00 pw) to his estranged wife for their son"

A child is not a "thing" that you pay for. Your friend is not paying his estranged wife for anything, he is contributing to the costs of his child's upbringing, it's not based on what he chooses to buy, nor is it based on how many nights he has the child - it's not pay per view.

When your friend and his wife decided to have a child together, then this child was born with certain rights, one of those is to be brought up in the best standard achievable, as if both parents' remained together - that they are no longer together does not diminish the child's rights.

You friend works full time? And? I'm not sure I get your point here?

"it is his estranged wife that cut back her hours. That is not his fault ! And I would agree that she should work more."
You stated ""It absolutely happened when your friend decided to work less, earn less and then turn to the state to make up the shortfall." But my friend did not decide to work less, he works a full week.

Whose blaming anyone?
You did in your earlier post, incorrectly, see above

But if you think that its nothing to do with the father of the child, then why should it have something to do with the taxpayer?
I'm not saying that it's nothing to do with the father at all, you've missed the point I'm trying to make.

Why did the mother reduce her hours? I do not know to be honest, no real reason to reduce them. No problems with childcare as the child would always be looked after, free or charge.

Does the father have any part or role in childcare? Yes, he often minds the child , when she wants a night out or whenever she may need it.

Is mum paying for childcare? No, provided for already, free of charge

Is she struggling with childcare - 3/4 nights a week is great, but not so great if you're a full time mum trying to juggle childcare 5 days a week.

"His weekly wage comes out to €650.00, after tax. He pays rent of roughly €160.00 per week, the usual household bills, petrol, insurance and puts money into a savings account for the child weekly also, which he wants to be used towards the child's education in the future."

All irrelevant, is Mum earning 650 per week? I do not know what she earns

What is mums rent/mortgage? €250.00 per month

Dad can live in a one room apartment, Mum needs two rooms.

Mum has "all the usual" bills too, higher because there are two people.

I don't mean to be bad Paddy, but your friends son and his welfare is the first obligation always. My friend will never neglect the welfare of his son, that's not what is in question here. If his son needed all his money in the morning, he would gladly give it to him.

The main point of the post was whether or not SW could dictate what amount he should have to pay. The mother is quite happy with what she already receives from my friend, and as I said he has no qualms at all with providing anything his son could ever need. I just find it strange that SW can dictate what needs to be paid weekly. As Elcato and brendan44 pointed out above, I did not think SW were allowed to do this.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Paddy,

When you say that maintenance was agreed by mediation, did it ever go to court. Is there a court order in which maintenance payments are specified?

 

[ppmeath]

@Seagull:

"Except for this small detail, unless you expect either the father or child to sleep on the couch/floor".

No, Dad is male and child is male, both can share a room, Dad can want two bedrooms, but "needs" one.

Re Childcare, does Mum work Friday night to Monday morning? Does she work two nights a week? If she does then he contributes, if she works/ed Monday - Friday 9 - 5, then his time with his son is not childcare related, it's his time with his son.

"The main point of the post was whether or not SW could dictate what amount he should have to pay"

They are not dictating what he should pay, they are dictating what they should pay.

"The mother is quite happy with what she already receives from my friend"

The SW isn't happy though, because she turned to them instead of the father to fill a gap in her income that she created when she reduced her hours.

"I just find it strange that SW can dictate what needs to be paid weekly. As Elcato and brendan44 pointed out above, I did not think SW were allowed to do this."

They are not dictating, he can pay what was decided in mediation - but if mum reduced her hours and created a shortfall in her income and applied to the Social Welfare to make up that shortfall - then they are absolutely correct in referring this matter to the father of the child.

The SW didn't step in here and interfere with her payment, his maintenance or her job. The SW steps in when the other parent cannot or will not pay - if he can pay then he should pay, if mum wants to reduce her hours and voluntarily (for whatever reason) reduces her pay - then this isn't the business of the state - it's between her and the father.

By applying to the state, what she said in effect was "I don't have enough of an income to support myself and my child".

They responded by telling the father that he needs to make up the shortfall.

 

[dereko1969]

Paddy, have you actually seen the letter? This strikes me as very odd. I wouldn't have thought DSP could arbitrarily demand additional child maintenance, I would think the letter is much more nuanced than that.

 

[Sophrosyne]

I’d say that this was the letter he received.

ppmeath is correct. If the wife applied for an increase in the One-Parent Family Payment, the Social Protection Dept. can demand a contribution towards that increase from the husband.

The relevant legislation is contained in Part 12 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act, 2005.

The principle of this part (Liability to Maintain Family) is that the primary responsibility to maintain children lies with the parents rather than the State.

If one parent is receiving state aid, such as Deserted Wife’s Benefit, Deserted Wife’s Allowance, Lone Parent's Allowance or One-Parent Family Payment, the Social Protection Dept. is entitled to a contribution towards that aid from the other parent.

If receipt of these payments has not been taken into account in maintenance clauses of Family Law Court Orders or Separation Agreements, then the recipient must transfer any payments received to the Social Protection Dept.

This is an extract from the Social Protection Dept’s website.

“Maintenance Orders
Where a recipient of Deserted Wife's Benefit, Deserted Wife's Allowance, Lone Parent's Allowance or One-Parent Family Payment is receiving maintenance payments by way of a Family Law Court Order, (either a Family Law Maintenance Order or a Separation Agreement which has gone through the court and has a Maintenance clause in it) and those maintenance payments have not been assessed in deciding his/her rate of payment, then s/he is liable to transfer any payments received to the Minister for Social Protection, including any payments made in respect of children.

Under the legislation, where a One-Parent Family Payment recipient is required to transfer the maintenance payments to the Minister, the amount to be transferred shall be reduced by the housing costs actually incurred by the qualified parent, up to a maximum of €4,952.00 per annum.

Administrative practice ensures that recipients of Deserted Wife's Allowance or Benefit or Lone Parent's Allowance are similarly allowed retain the portion of the maintenance in respect of the mortgage or rent or the home improvement loan, for the term of the loan and up to a maximum of €95.20 per week or €4,952.00 per annum.

The payment of One-Parent Family Payment/Lone Parents Allowance/Deserted Wife's Benefit guarantees the person concerned a regular weekly income which he/she might not otherwise enjoy if solely dependent on maintenance payments.

The transfer of a maintenance order ensures this continuity of social welfare income and, at the same time, compliance with the "Liability to Maintain Family" provisions. Under the One-Parent Family Payment both personal and child maintenance are assessed as means; rent or mortgage repayments may be disregarded in assessing maintenance payments, up to a ceiling of €95.20 per week. The Department is required, under the legislation, to secure transfer of the maintenance order if payments under that order have not been assessed when deciding the claim.

Failure to comply with a request to transfer maintenance payments may result in reduction or termination of the One-Parent Family payment/Deserted Wife's Benefit/Lone Parents Allowance.”

 

[txirimiri]

If your friend has the child for half the week and is contributing at least half of purchasing the day to day needs of the child (clothes, books, school costs, activities etc), I'm unclear why he should be, and is, paying anything at all to the mother of the child. If she wants to go part time or stop working, why should he (or the state for that matter) have to support that choice? He needs to make Social Welfare aware immediately of how many nights a week the child stays with him, what costs he covers for the child and perhaps think of offering formally to the mother that the child can come and live with him full time, with access for the mother whenever she wants and her paying towards the cost of childcare while he is working, or providing it herself on the days she does not work. It seems to me that between the two parents, they are more than capable of providing for the child without additional state support but the mother is trying to have it both ways. He needs to forget about what traditional gender roles might dictate and look at the reality of the situation - if he is minding his child half the time and paying half or more of the child's costs, he should not be paying anyone anything. It would make much more sense for him to assume directly the full costs of the child's needs rather than pay the mother for her choice not to work ...

 

[ppmeath]

If your friend has the child for half the week and is contributing at least half of purchasing the day to day needs of the child (clothes, books, school costs, activities etc), I'm unclear why he should be, and is, paying anything at all to the mother of the child.

According the the OP, the maintenance was agreed in mediation so if one party is unhappy then the option to return to mediation is there, this is actually what Mum should have done before reducing her hours (and income).

We don't know why she did it, was it due to childcare costs, was it to spend more time with the child? We just don't know.

There is also no mention of any "extra" contributions towards "day to day needs" (clothes books, school costs, activities etc) in the OP.

These costs are not considered extra though, because these are some of the costs that would have been included when the amount of maintenance was calculated.

He needs to make Social Welfare aware immediately of how many nights a week the child stays with him, what costs he covers for the child and perhaps think of offering formally to the mother that the child can come and live with him full time, with access for the mother whenever she wants and her paying towards the cost of childcare while he is working,

It is irrelevant how many nights a week he has the child, maintenance and access are two entirely different issues, unless they are splitting childcare so that both can work.

I am also not sure why you think that the SW should be interested in what "costs" he as a parent incurs as a result of spending time with his own son?

On one hand you say

If she wants to go part time or stop working, why should he (or the state for that matter) have to support that choice?

While at the same time advising that the father that he should make the SW aware of the choices Dad makes if he, for example, bought the child a new top or a toy.

and perhaps think of offering formally to the mother that the child can come and live with him full time, with access for the mother whenever she wants and her paying towards the cost of childcare while he is working, or providing it herself on the days she does not work.

This is a question that I asked above, is Dad contributing to childcare when Mum is working, if not, then instead of offering child to move in with Dad, why doesn't he do as you suggest (if this is indeed the issue) and contribute to costs off childcare (if that is an issue)?

if he is minding his child half the time and paying half or more of the child's costs, he should not be paying anyone anything.

You don't "mind" your own children, if Dad spends half the time with his child (When mum is not working), then he's not "minding" the child - it's his child, not a neighbours down the road.

 

[PaddyW]

Sorry all, hadn't been on in a few days

No, I have not seen the letter. As per Sophrysene above, it sounds like that might be the type of letter he got.


If my friend had his way, he would still be living at home with the mom and child. It was her who initiated the split and all that has happened subsequently. He has no problem paying money to the mother towards the child at all, that's not really the issue. Nor is buying anything the child needs an issue for him. His child wants for nothing as he would not leave him be without anything (some seem to be missing that point)

PPmeath, re your last post, you may not have read some of the things I've posted earlier in the read. There are no childcare costs whatsoever. It is split between him, her and family members who mind the child free of charge.
You say 'There is also no mention of any "extra" contributions towards "day to day needs" (clothes books, school costs, activities etc) in the OP.', but as I said earlier, the child needs or wants for nothing. He would not leave his child go short of anything, ever.

The main issue is the way that Social Welfare have dealt with it. Part of the letter states that there may be legal proceedings, which sounds to be over the top a little.

At the end of the day, he gives more weekly (day to day needs etc.) then what the SW have said in the letter. Giving money towards the child, again, is not what's important here. It just seems almost a little heavy handed. Do they think he's an easy target due to wages?

I know that my niece's father has never paid 1 cent of maintenance to her mother, but he was never approached by SW about it.

Anyway, I think we can leave it there as the conversation is veering off the original points I was trying to enquire about.

Thanks for all your contributions, much appreciated.