# Maintenance Order which has an extra of Educational costs



## Lone Star (30 Sep 2019)

Asking for a friend.- He was in the Circuit Court this year; The Judge increased the monthly payment by 20% - despite him having less money now as he and his new partner have a new baby. The order also included a secondary element to include separate payments for Education costs and medical costs- he has to pay 3/4 she has to pay 1/4 - she recently invoiced him for the child's socks and underpants - saying they are an education costs as the child wears them to school. In the same week his ex also announced she was taking their child to Disneyland with a few other mothers!! He has little left by way of savings to pay a solicitor now, as circuit court cost him several thousand. The ex and he earn pretty much the same salary....another friend has said to him - those items are not uniform - don't pay it and toughen up basically. Thoughts welcome.


----------



## Thirsty (1 Oct 2019)

I very much doubt that 75% of a childs knickers and socks would pay for a trip to Disneyland.


----------



## Lone Star (1 Oct 2019)

I may have badly phrased my post - it was late last night when I posted.                                                                                                                           She claims for everything and then pleads in court she has no money/under declares income etc- then once she has her new order in place - it's spend spend spend. This woman bought a house last year for 400kplus in cash...….


----------



## luckystar (1 Oct 2019)

It's all relative. What is the € amount of maintenance? 
I do think it's a shame extra costs weren't applied as a 50/50.


----------



## Lone Star (1 Oct 2019)

luckystar - it's just over 200 a week. Both on reasonable salaries - you wouldn't mind if she was honest. The child's total costs are 240 a week say. So essentially  she contributes 20 % a week at most.... He bought a small house after they broke up  (in the local area they lived in before they spilt up he's English and changed his life plans to have the child she wanted before she got too old) specifically to be close and to house the child during access (he pays a big mortgage - she then bought for cash in a pricier town...…) If she was putting in 200 you wouldn't mind as much - but It doesn't cost 400 a week (20,800 a year plus med/educ expenses) to raise one child in a non-fee paying school - imagine if you had three at that price!! We certainly don't spend that on our crew. Yeah it's a pity alright that the Judge didn't go 50:50 - she's bringing him to the doctors and all sorts now at the drop of a hat since the new order was perfected. When I heard about the invoice for socks n jocks - I was disgusted for him.  Anyhow! that's life.


----------



## Thirsty (1 Oct 2019)

Child maintenance is based on both parents income.

It is not based on the "costs" of the child.

Edit to add: there's a lot of detailed personal information in your post - are you certain your friend is happy to have it shared in public?


----------



## Lone Star (1 Oct 2019)

I can whittle down the info if he's not happy with it. 

If it was based on both parents income she'd be paying half or more than half rather than looking to punish some chap and get a 'free child'.  Costs have to come into it - he's not being raised as little Lord Fauntleroy


----------



## luckystar (1 Oct 2019)

€200 per week is definitely on the high end of the scale. Not sure or child's age - is there childcare costs? 
I'd def be suggesting he applies for a variance order. How much access is there? Could he go for 50% access and split the extra costs 50/50??


----------



## Thirsty (1 Oct 2019)

"Costs have to come into it"

Regardless of what you may believe should be the case, the legal position (rightly in my view) is that child maintenance is based on both parents income & outgoings.

If the parents were still married to each other their children would have the benefit of the family income; and if/when family income rises, that benefit would increase accordingly (and yes the reverse is also true).

In truth, most parents wish to do their very best for their children, and if they were still married  I'm pretty sure neither of them would begrudge the child new knickers or a trip to Disneyland.


----------



## Thirsty (1 Oct 2019)

"€200 per week is definitely on the high end of the scale. "

High end of whose scale? How do you know what % of net income this is?

If I got my child reared to adulthood, to include food, clothing, activities, birthday parties,  housing, 24 hour childcare and holidays for €200 a week, I'd consider it a bargain.


----------



## Thirsty (1 Oct 2019)

".. looking to punish some chap.."

I understood you to say in your OP that the child maintenance was court ordered? 
So are you suggesting that the judge at this hearing was pursuing some vendetta?


----------



## luckystar (1 Oct 2019)

Thirsty said:


> "€200 per week is definitely on the high end of the scale. "
> 
> High end of whose scale? How do you know what % of net income this is?
> 
> If I got my child reared to adulthood, to include food, clothing, activities, birthday parties,  housing, 24 hour childcare and holidays for €200 a week, I'd consider it a bargain.



Yeah but surely the mother contributes too so it costs €400 per week to raise a child?! That's excessive - in anyone's book surely!

In my book maintenance should be reflective of the actual costs (including holidays!) and divided by % based on income.


----------



## Lone Star (1 Oct 2019)

The housing is extra (the maintenance order was not for housing)- he pays for his place with a large enough mortgage and she bought hers for cash.....
There is NO childcare - zero - nada - zilch. She is getting a free child. I have seen the figures. 
Thirsty - I hear you - but the fact is the maintenance order given is not based on outgoings - if it were - she'd pay half. It's based on the woman cries - the woman gets. As for loving family - she has the child in fear of what he can and can't do - he is made do a plethora of activities - 4 of which he has no interest in - all she wants to do is spend someone elses money to inflict pain (That's the bare fact of the matter). The father's paying 200 - she's paying 40 if that....why should he pay the bulk when his income and hers are the same and his outgoings are more??? If he needs to change is car he hasn't a penny to do so. Variance was advised but poor sod has no chance of paying for it after the latest case she took he's skint. Poor sod rarely goes out and I know what he drives - we're talking a car reg in single figures. He should have had the snip the minute that woman looked at him. Look I can't say much more or it will be too much info. All I can say is if I had to pay over 63K a year plus medical and education for our three kids I'd be working 16 hours a day. Judges and maths do not go. A maths teacher would have made a different order. I reckon it will take it will take 20 or 30 years before we wake up and see changes coming in family law and the money machine that are the legals and the manipulation of the women. At least his new woman is a looker and he can keep the light on! If she was honest he wouldn't mind, but the lies and false statements on affidavit were taking the mick. Read of one case recently where a chap took a case re perjury in family law case to the Gardaí - they are investigating it. My mate is burnt out at this stage.


----------



## Lone Star (1 Oct 2019)

Thirsty said:


> ".. looking to punish some chap.."
> 
> I understood you to say in your OP that the child maintenance was court ordered?
> So are you suggesting that the judge at this hearing was pursuing some vendetta?


no he just went with the crying of the woman


----------



## Lone Star (1 Oct 2019)

Thirsty I have a sense that you're going to keep at this like a dog with a bone. She cries - she lies - he pays - that's it in a nutshell.  The woman bought a bigger house for cash. No mortgage - cash!  The ex will be stuck in a two bed house  for god knows how long. Their income is the same - or possibly she earns more as she is known to under declare her actual extra income......I'll leave it at that. That's the truth of it.


----------



## Thirsty (1 Oct 2019)

At the risk of sounding rude, I actually couldn't read or follow most of your post.

However, in regards to this item
"..maintenance order given is not based on outgoings "

You are quite right - child maintenance in this country is based on both parents income and outgoings (all outgoings, not limited to child related costs).

We have a judicial system and for all its failings (and there are many), as of now if parents are unable to agree on child maintenance then a judge has to make a decision.

These are not stupid people, they've seen far more cases than you or I, and I'll be 100% certain that they have more information on your friends situation than you have.


----------



## Lone Star (1 Oct 2019)

Based on the figures at hand and If I were stung for the same amount and my wife paid her fair share - our 3 kids would cost 1.5 million until the age of 23 plus on top of that our mortgages, medical, braces, education and school trips abroad.  Yip - cheap at twice the price. Good day Sir - I wanted advice for a mate being stung by a scam artist of an ex that's all.


----------



## Thirsty (2 Oct 2019)

The only advice I can give you is that it might be easier for both parties to agree on an annual estimated figure for educational costs rather than intermittent requests.

And try not to get emotionally involved if you can.


----------



## Bronte (2 Oct 2019)

Lone Star said:


> The housing is extra (the maintenance order was not for housing)- he pays for his place with a large enough mortgage and she bought hers for cash.....
> There is NO childcare - zero - nada - zilch. She is getting a free child. I have seen the figures.
> Thirsty - I hear you - but the fact is the maintenance order given is not based on outgoings - if it were - she'd pay half. It's based on the woman cries - the woman gets. As for loving family - she has the child in fear of what he can and can't do - he is made do a plethora of activities - 4 of which he has no interest in - all she wants to do is spend someone elses money to inflict pain (That's the bare fact of the matter). The father's paying 200 - she's paying 40 if that....why should he pay the bulk when his income and hers are the same and his outgoings are more??? If he needs to change is car he hasn't a penny to do so. Variance was advised but poor sod has no chance of paying for it after the latest case she took he's skint. Poor sod rarely goes out and I know what he drives - we're talking a car reg in single figures. He should have had the snip the minute that woman looked at him. Look I can't say much more or it will be too much info. All I can say is if I had to pay over 63K a year plus medical and education for our three kids I'd be working 16 hours a day. Judges and maths do not go. A maths teacher would have made a different order. I reckon it will take it will take 20 or 30 years before we wake up and see changes coming in family law and the money machine that are the legals and the manipulation of the women. At least his new woman is a looker and he can keep the light on! If she was honest he wouldn't mind, but the lies and false statements on affidavit were taking the mick. Read of one case recently where a chap took a case re perjury in family law case to the Gardaí - they are investigating it. My mate is burnt out at this stage.


I find this a shocking post.  From what I've gleaned the wife was good with her money and is living mortgage free. Good on her. The dad is paying a large mortgage. Presumably this houses his new partner and baby?  Is the new partner not helping with the mortgage?

Doesn't a judge look at the total housing income of all parties to each household. So his new partners income is also relevant, something you omittd. Or is he paying the mortgage, paying for his new child, paying housing, food utilities for new partner and new child.  How much does that all cost him?

Unless you come on here with proper figures for everybody it is impossible to judge whether 200 a week is a lot.  That's like 10 K a year.


----------



## Bronte (2 Oct 2019)

Lone Star said:


> Thirsty I have a sense that you're going to keep at this like a dog with a bone. She cries - she lies - he pays - that's it in a nutshell.  The woman bought a bigger house for cash. No mortgage - cash!  The ex will be stuck in a two bed house  for god knows how long. Their income is the same - or possibly she earns more as she is known to under declare her actual extra income......I'll leave it at that. That's the truth of it.


Where did she get the cash from?

You haven't shown anywhere that she lied.  

And your friend is pretty stupid to have another child if he couldn't afford one.  So maybe you should have posted that he should have the snip before landing in more hot water with partner 2 who might end up in the 2 bed with the child.  

And I'd bet anything all the income of Wife 1 is spent on the house and child.


----------



## Bronte (2 Oct 2019)

Thirsty said:


> Child maintenance is based on both parents income.
> 
> It is not based on the "costs" of the child.



Someone sounds mighly jealous to me. Disney trips, house bought in cash, bigger house versus 2 bed, in pricer town.  I'd guess that's at the root of this.


----------



## Thirsty (2 Oct 2019)

Why are you quoting me!?


----------



## Thirsty (2 Oct 2019)

"There is NO childcare"

So the child is left alone to wash, dress, get themself to school, do homework, cook meals, shopping, go to dentist etc., with no adult care or supervision?


----------



## MangoJoe (2 Oct 2019)

* All of the below should be read bearing in mind that we have a 3rd party account of one side of an emotionally fraught story..... *

With the above borne in mind and just commenting on the 'evidence' to date.... I am surprised at some of the responses on here.

Fair is fair.

This relationship dissolved for whatever reason.

Now shouldn't both of the separated parties just be able to go on and live happy, content and fulfilling lives???

Yet we have posters saying the Father involved shouldn't be having more children while simultaneously handing out money to the Mother who has 400K cash to buy houses, jets of to Disneyland on a whim etc but at the same time misrepresents underwear as educational expenses?

Regardless of whether its the male or female protagonist here - Whatever..... this whole discussion should revolve around practicalities and making sure the child is adequately provided for.

Certainly neither party should endure undue and unjust financial strains while the other profits handsomely.


----------



## Thirsty (2 Oct 2019)

"...making sure the child is adequately provided for."

And in making the court order, it would seem to me that that is what the judge in question was seeking to do.


----------



## Lone Star (2 Oct 2019)

Ah look people - this is getting out of hand. He could afford another child at the time. The ex came after him AFTER the new sibling arrived. he always wanted a family - the new partner and her income was not asked for as far as I know - she owns her own home. The new partner earns half his income and pays 50/50 because from what I gather - she is decent. Bronte - we know the ex lied - you just need to take that as a given and treat my post as such. Cash came from a sale of one of her houses, and partly from a squirreled away inheritances. She also has another house and land. The income of ex 'girlfriend' is not spent on the house as she bought for cash. Lads - if you knew this man - you'd change your mind. I can't give all the figures out publicly - but I know this chap and he's as straight as they come and one positive is that the siblings are mad about each other - so that's one good thing for them in the future when the parents dead and gone.  Thirsty that's a good idea to agree annual educational estimates - I can't see her agreeing to it though. She refused for years to share the child's clothes - he would be dropped off at the fathers in a t-shirt and jeans, no jackets, no sports gear - he'd then have to go off and buy uniforms, helmets, hockey sticks, everything on the double, even school books/bag etc


----------



## Lone Star (2 Oct 2019)

MangoJoe, Child well looked after, and a balanced young lad - your last line cinches what I was very badly trying to say!


----------



## Bronte (2 Oct 2019)

Thirsty said:


> Why are you quoting me!?


I was being rhetorical.  I agree with you.


----------



## Bronte (2 Oct 2019)

MangoJoe said:


> Yet we have posters saying the Father involved shouldn't be having more children while simultaneously handing out money to the Mother who has 400K cash to buy houses, jets of to Disneyland on a whim etc but at the same time misrepresents underwear as educational expenses?



That was because the OP told us how wonderful the Father is and how awful the mother is.  

But I agree with you, what is important is the needs of the children (both) first and then of the adults and as amicable as possible.


----------



## Bronte (2 Oct 2019)

Lone Star said:


> Ah look people - this is getting out of hand. He could afford another child at the time. The ex came after him AFTER the new sibling arrived. he always wanted a family - the new partner and her income was not asked for as far as I know - she owns her own home. The new partner earns half his income and pays 50/50 because from what I gather - she is decent. Bronte - we know the ex lied - you just need to take that as a given and treat my post as such. Cash came from a sale of one of her houses, and partly from a squirreled away inheritances. She also has another house and land. The income of ex 'girlfriend' is not spent on the house as she bought for cash. Lads - if you knew this man - you'd change your mind. I can't give all the figures out publicly - but I know this chap and he's as straight as they come and one positive is that the siblings are mad about each other - so that's one good thing for them in the future when the parents dead and gone.  Thirsty that's a good idea to agree annual educational estimates - I can't see her agreeing to it though. She refused for years to share the child's clothes - he would be dropped off at the fathers in a t-shirt and jeans, no jackets, no sports gear - he'd then have to go off and buy uniforms, helmets, hockey sticks, everything on the double, even school books/bag etc



How is the inheritance 'squirrelled' away.  

A) So Wife 1 has a house worth 400K with zero mortgage. She has another house and land.  She has an income equal to the father.  Was all that disclosed in court?

B) Father owns a house, with a mortage. His income is equal to his ex, plus there is another half income there.  

You could give us rough figures to work out without divulging anything that might identify. 

Your last paragraph if true, and I don't doubt you, she is a piece of work.


----------



## Lone Star (2 Oct 2019)

Bronte I'll have to PM you the info. Judge nor solicitors wanted to know anything about the new partner's income (They're not married yet) - only relevant aspect considered was We'll call him Ed - was Ed's outgoings for the new child. I've seen the last paragraph in action - one weekend we were all heading off to a sports camp event we'll call it  - my son's similar age - the child arrived close to bare!


----------



## Thirsty (2 Oct 2019)

Thirsty said:


> "There is NO childcare"
> 
> So the child is left alone to wash, dress, get themself to school, do homework, cook meals, shopping, go to dentist etc., with no adult care or supervision?


@Lone Star How can you 'like' that post?

This is getting sillier by the minute.

Of course the new partner's income isn't considered  - you can't be dating someone and discover the next month that you are considered to have a financial responsibility for their child.

Here's the thing - the law can only do so much.  Parenting is down to parents and they can make a good job of it or a lousy job of it; but no amount of law can make it happen.

At the end of the day, it's all just stuff - and when you die all your 'stuff' will likely end up in the local charity shop or landfill.

People matter, children matter, stuff doesn't matter.


----------



## Lone Star (2 Oct 2019)

Bronte, just read your earlier post - No jealousy at all - he's glad to be rid of her. The father is happy that she finally bought a decent house. He bought a house straight away for the son and himself after the split. Thirsty - No childcare as in no paid babysitter or childminder (the mother and father obvs look after him) Mother leaves him alone in the house though.


----------



## Lone Star (2 Oct 2019)

I have no idea why I hit like - call it a senior moment on the phone pad. 
Look as Mango Joe put it - Certainly neither party should endure undue and unjust financial strains while the other profits handsomely.
That is the thrust of the whole thing. I have to get back to work. ​


----------



## Thirsty (2 Oct 2019)

Lone Star said:


> The mother and father obvs look after him


exactly - that's childcare, and its 24 hour childcare. Even if the child is old enough to be left alone for a time, the resident parent is still responsible.


----------



## Sunny (2 Oct 2019)

Bizarre thread. From what I have seen both sides in every separation always think they got the worse end of the stick when it comes to these arrangements. I presume your friend has legal advice? And what was that advice? If he feels that strongly, there is nothing stoping him from going back to court for an adjustment order. Let him make the claims of hidden income etc there. Yes it will cost money but if what you say is true, then it will save him the long term. 

Having said that, sending a receipt for socks is just petty if she is earning a decent wage.


----------



## Bronte (2 Oct 2019)

Lone Star said:


> Bronte I'll have to PM you the info. Judge nor solicitors wanted to know anything about the new partner's income (They're not married yet) - only relevant aspect considered was We'll call him Ed - was Ed's outgoings for the new child. I've seen the last paragraph in action - one weekend we were all heading off to a sports camp event we'll call it  - my son's similar age - the child arrived close to bare!


You can pm me the figures if you want.  And what figures the judge based it on. But it would be beneficial to others if we could understand how the courts are working these things out.  

And I'm sure the judge must have looked at all Ed's outgoings. otherwise how could he decide how much he can afford.


----------



## Bronte (2 Oct 2019)

Thirsty said:


> @Lone Star How can you 'like' that post?
> 
> This is getting sillier by the minute.
> 
> Of course the new partner's income isn't considered  - you can't be dating someone and discover the next month that you are considered to have a financial responsibility for their child.



I've been out of Ireland a while but I understood the judges need to look at all the income coming in and out. Here there is a second child which impacts on Ed's ability to pay.  This is not about dating.  There is a steady living together with child relationship.


----------



## Bronte (2 Oct 2019)

Lone Star said:


> Bronte, just read your earlier post - No jealousy at all - he's glad to be rid of her. The father is happy that she finally bought a decent house. He bought a house straight away for the son and himself after the split. Thirsty - No childcare as in no paid babysitter or childminder (the mother and father obvs look after him) Mother leaves him alone in the house though.


When my husband travelled extensively for business there was no paid babysitter or childminder.  So clearly he as joint parent was doing an equal share of the looking after while he was in the US or China.  And it was just as cost free as my equal childminding.  

What house did they live in before the split?


----------



## Thirsty (2 Oct 2019)

Hm.. I thought it was the mother's partner lone star was referring to?

Either way, I've had enough.


----------



## cremeegg (2 Oct 2019)

Lone Star said:


> At least his new woman is a looker and he can keep the light on!



There is another thread about calling out sexism, and I considered some posts there overly sensitive to remarks perceived as sexist, but the above is sexist to the point of being absurd.


----------



## Thirsty (4 Oct 2019)

It's ignorant and offensive (to both partners), not sexist.


----------



## Johnny12345 (Wednesday at 12:41 PM)

Sorry for dragging up and old thread however some simple legal definitions can resolve the OP's issues. This is about peoples opinion. The question is looking for legal clarification:

"*Education expenses* are tuition and fees required for the enrollment or attendance of a student at an eligible educational institution, and expenses for fees, books, supplies, and equipment required for courses of instruction at an eligible educational institution".

"*Child maintenance* is money paid by the paying parent to the receiving parent towards their child’s everyday living". 

Therefore socks and underpants are not educational expenses and are covered by the child maintenance he is paying every week.


----------

