Maintenance Order which has an extra of Educational costs

L

Lone Star

Registered User
Messages
325
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.
 
Last edited:
I very much doubt that 75% of a childs knickers and socks would pay for a trip to Disneyland.
 
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...….
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
Last edited:
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
 
€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??
 
"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.
 
"€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.
 
".. 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?
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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?
Click to expand...
no he just went with the crying of the woman
 
  • Like
Reactions: POC
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top