Unmarried fathers

G

gideon152

Registered User
Messages
10
Hi all just wanted to get some feedback on what you think about The Unmarried Fathers of Ireland group who are threatening to cause travel chaos tomorrow with a blockade of the M50 motorway around Dublin in protest at the jailing of a man who allegedly didn't pay his child maintenance.
As being umarried fathers being vilified?

Sammy.
 
I think fathers, whether married or unmarried, get a rough deal when it comes to the law. However, I don't believe this to be the case when it comes to child maintenance. You can grumble that you don't want to make repayments on a TV because it's in her house not yours, so you don't get to watch it. When it comes to a child however, they need financial support no matter what the circumstances. Most fathers, I'm sure, do this out of love, some out of duty and the rest, if they refuse to pay, must be forced to do so.

I'm not au fait with the particulars of the above, but unless he's living in a cardboard box in O'Connell Street........
 
Is this the Irish branch of those UK loonies that caused disruption to transport in London?
 
The Sunday Tribune reports that the man is earning €2k per month and has been jailed for not complying with a court order to pay €1,800 per month maintenance to his ex-wife for 3 children. He is not the biological father to 2 of the kids.

On the face of it, he has good reason to be aggrieved.
 
The facts reported are very limited to say the least; two of the children may not be biologically his but if he adopted them (as often happens) then he is responsible for their maintenance.

Maintenance is based on both parties income and expenditure; affidavits have to be completed and sworn in court. I find it most unlikely that on a net income of €2000 per month a judge could order a payment of €1800 per month. €150 per week per child is the maximum amount that can be awarded in a district court.

As is often the case - I'm certain there is much more to this than has been reported.
 
Would it not be better that the father pays the food bills/clothes bills etc for the child rather than hand the partner "cash"?. Should the mothers social welfare payments plus children's allowance be taken in to consideration?
 
Kildrought said:
The facts reported are very limited to say the least; two of the children may not be biologically his but if he adopted them (as often happens) then he is responsible for their maintenance.
Click to expand...
Can you adopt a kid if you aren't married? I didn't think so!

For years we've been fed the line that men are 'deadbeats' who won't pay for their kids - the common statistic being bandied around was something like 30% bothered to make payments.
Just a few weeks ago the newspapers reported that new government statistics had emerged showing that more like 75% of separated men make child support contributions. It all came down to an 'error' in how the previous statistics were compiled - basically, those who weren't paying by Court Order didn't count because voluntary contributions didn't exist on the official radar.

My separated male friends are generally given a rough deal. Several of them have lost all contact with their kids, thanks to vindictive ex-wives.
 
Sunday Tribune report refers to "his ex-wife" which would, not unreasonably, lead one to suppose that they were married. Two of the children, although not biologically his could have been adopted and he is therefore responsible for their support.

However as I've already said the report is quite limited.

In regards to the Govt stats reported on, again what is frequently left out is that the figures are only compiled in regards to those parents who are in receipt of One Parent Family Allowance from Social Welfare. Outside the SW net, child maintenance payments are neither taxable nor can they be offset for tax, Family Law judgements are in camera so no valid way exists that payments can be tracked.

As spousal support can be off-set for tax, couples can opt for higher spousal support and lower child maintenance; which again skews the figures.

Also just because a court order exists for payments, that doesn't mean that payments are actually being made; in many cases primary carers give up attempting to get maintenance a) the costs involved can be high and b) arrears greater than 6 months cannot be reclaimed.

On a final note, for every separated male friend that you produce as 'getting a rough deal', I'm pretty sure I can produce a female friend that is also 'getting a rough deal'.

One of the few things you can be absolutely certain of in relation to marital separation is that no matter what you think you know about a couple - you will never get the full story.
 
Sorry Kildrought, but I just don't accept your last comments.

The only women who are possibly 'getting a rough time' are those who were married to men with no money in the first place - or men who have skipped the country - and I mean skipped VERY FAR AWAY.

Any woman (esp one with kids) who is married to a man with some assetts or a decent job will have absolutely ZERO difficulty in getting as much as she needs of his income and assetts.
If not - she's been badly advised by her lawyer.

Some of the recent multi-million settlements in the UK are an illustration of that.

And they wonder why marriage is 'going out of fashion'.
 
Kildrought said:
Sunday Tribune report refers to "his ex-wife" which would, not unreasonably, lead one to suppose that they were married. Two of the children, although not biologically his could have been adopted and he is therefore responsible for their support.
Click to expand...

Or the wife simply named her husband as father on the birth certs without his consent and now he is being persued for his so called kids.
 
bond-007 said:
Or the wife simply named her husband as father on the birth certs without his consent and now he is being persued for his so called kids.
Click to expand...

This is easily verified by a blood test. As to the assets in a marriage, these are jointly owned.
 
If you were married and gave birth to a child during the marriage, the legal assumption was that your husband was the father of the child. It was therefore quite possible, in the past to name your husband on the birth certificate and his signature was not required.

This is no longer the case (though I don't recall off the top of my head the exact date this changed some one can look it up if they want to).

If paternity is questioned a DNA test will establish that and a court will make an order for compliance should that be required.

meccano, I spend a lot of time voluntarily helping people with issues surrounding separation, divorce, maintenance etc., so my comments are based on mine and other's experience.

While high-value settlements get the press (and you need to be aware that the UK system differs from ours), the fact is that day in day out, Irish parents spend their time in an almost Kafka-esque existence with the Family Law system and they are not getting or paying millions.

I would also disagree that marriage is "going out of fashion", but that's another thread.
 
If what you're saying is that the lawyers are the only winners - I won't argue with that.
 
RainyDay said:
The Sunday Tribune reports that the man is earning €2k per month and has been jailed for not complying with a court order to pay €1,800 per month maintenance to his ex-wife for 3 children. He is not the biological father to 2 of the kids.

On the face of it, he has good reason to be aggrieved.
Click to expand...

Yea I read that too. Presumably when he married her he took over responsiblility for her other two children. So legally the other two children are now treated as if they were his own. However I think in future men will become very wary about entering into such relationships and will be especially reluctant to formalise them with marriage. In the long run marriage and stable environments for children are the losers. Women know that if a marriage breaks up they will not lose out financially and in many cases will gain. Therefore there is little incentive to keep marriages intact when they come into difficulty. There is probably more incentive for men to hold the marriage together as they end up being the big losers. The law will have to be rebalanced on this issue for everybodies sake.
 
Women know that if a marriage breaks up they will not lose out financially and in many cases will gain. Therefore there is little incentive to keep marriages intact when they come into difficulty. There is probably more incentive for men to hold the marriage together as they end up being the big losers. The law will have to be rebalanced on this issue for everybodies sake.
Click to expand...

This is a very one-dimensional look at marriage and presumes that women enter marriage with some sort of ulterior motive or plan for marriage breakup. The fallout of a breakup is more than monetory and there are no winners in the breakdown of a marriage.
 
fobs said:
This is a very one-dimensional look at marriage and presumes that women enter marriage with some sort of ulterior motive or plan for marriage breakup. The fallout of a breakup is more than monetory and there are no winners in the breakdown of a marriage.
Click to expand...

yea i agree it is a bit one dimensional and I was looking at it from the fathers side. However I still think the law is unbalanced on this issue and very much falls down on the side of the woman. Even if the three children were naturally his the verdict would still be very unfair. It granted her 1800 euro per month even though the father earns just 2000. Obviously no account was taken of his ability to pay.
 
I wonder if he didn't bother sending in his income details or bothered to show up? If he didn't then the court would grant whatever the mother was looking for by default.
 
I agree bond-007 that there must be more to this case than we are being told as don't think any judge would award 1800 ot of a 2000 euro salary.
Of the cases I know it has been a substantally less % of income awarded.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top