Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
MORE THAN 16,000 lone parents are to benefit from what government are calling “landmark reforms” to the state’s child maintenance system.
The reforms will mean a single parent will no longer be required to go to court to seek child maintenance and the payments will be excluded from the social welfare means test.
Lone parents will also no longer be required to provide evidence that they have made effort to request payment from the non-resident parent first, when claiming the one parent family payment or the jobseeker’s transitional payment.
Minister for Social Protection Heather Humphreys today said the reforms aim to reduce stress on behalf of lone parents while also reducing the burden on the courts system to get the cases resolved.
The changes, announced by the minister today, also detail that the Department of Social Protection will no longer seek to recoup claim costs from the non-resident parent.
These reforms will open up the system to even more lone parents, while those who already receive payments will see an increase. The total cost of the reforms will amount to €10 million per year.
Humphreys today said she used to witness lone parent households receive their payment some weeks, while other weeks it was missed.
She said that the the person that “suffers most in that situation is the child. And I don’t want to see that happen”.
The department, however, maintained that these changes do not replace or supersede the responsibility of parents to maintain their own children.
These reforms were based on recommendations that were included in an earlier report the child maintenance review group, published in November 2022.
As previously reported by The Journal, the report noted that in Ireland child maintenance is seen largely as a personal, parental obligation and therefore a matter of private family law.
“There is no state agency with responsibility for child maintenance payments and pursuit of maintenance is left up to the claiming parent on behalf of their child,” it said.
A previous survey by One Family in 2016 on shared parenting found that the most common financial problem identified by respondents was non-existent or insufficient child maintenance payments.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Another classic government move. Congratulating themselves for something that has been in place in most other countries for decades and should have been introduced here long before now.
@Tony Doran: That’s all they’re good for. Patting themselves on the back.
@Tony Doran: still a GOOD THING!!!! A lot of pressure removed from single parents who may have an ‘errant’ ex partner ( vo- parent). If the cure for cancer was found today….fellas like you would say what wasn’t it found years ago??
@Tony Doran: The government do something you agree with and you still lambast them. They can’t win either way
@Tony Doran: At least it is done now,
@Mick Duvanny: something that should have been completed decades ago. Hence another TD who did feck all while in the position.
@Mick Duvanny: ya must be a GE coming up soon. Like this would make me forget.
Something that is in place in other countries is that a parent that doesn’t pay maintenance can go to prison as it is a criminal offence. McEntee is currently changing this and it will be become a criminal offence not a civil obligation.
@Áine G: where’s the uproar for the father’s rights? Oh that’s right there is none. Paid maintenance without fail, see my son when it suits her.
@orb7eckn: take her to court! You have just as much right to see your child as she has demanding maintenance.
@Mary M: Of course, but life isn’t so simple. Your child then takes a view that I have done that. It’s a situation where fathers need to thread carefully. For example I’m not his legal guardian, it’s quite a simple solution but needs signature from the mother, if anything happened her and heaven forbid anything happened my child I could not make a medical decision. Similar on when she wants to go off abroad, she just goes, not the case for fathers. They have an opportunity to fix all of this but it’s not in vogue
@orb7eckn: I paid maintenance weekly until he finished his leaving and my fella lived with me every second week.
@Mary M: If only it was as simple as you suggest. At the end of the day, you’re still relying on the Parties involved; whoever is the Child’s Custodian, “Túsla”, or the Courts to cooperate, with whatever Order is made. What good is a Court Order, if it can simply be ignored???
The Court issues an Order, and the Child’s Custodian, or “Túsla” ignore the Order, then the Case is back, in Court, to have the Court issue another Order, which is then ignored, and that cycle continues.
How many Cases are about mainly Fathers just looking, for their Rights, or looking for an already existing Order to be enforced?
@orb7eckn: The Mother’s Consent isn’t the only way that you can be your Child’s Guardian, as I’m sure you’re aware. The Court can grant you that Right, or it can happen, with you marrying the Mother, or within the last few Years, you two living together, for some time. But it goes back to what I said, to Mary M, unless there’s the cooperation, it doesn’t matter.
@Áine G: a friend of mines monther was a raging alcoholic. Used to leave the 12 year old in charge while she went out for days. Took the father 8 years to finally get custody and that was only because the schools got involved as they kids were sent in dirty and hungry. It was heartbreaking to see, he worked two jobs to pay his own bills, and the mothers bills who’d then go out and spend it all on beer and god knows what else. The point being the courts generally always side with the mother no matter what.
It’s an absurd payment.
How about pursuing these so called absent fathers?
Half of them are living with their kids on the sly anyway.
@Paul: As well as the Mothers that don’t have their Children, living with them.
@Paul: this is exactly what they are doing.
The old magic money tree again, I can smell an election!!
@Michael o connor: this isn’t giving anyone more money. It’s actually chasing the absent father to repay the state for helping support the child. So it’s getting money, not giving it away.
Another social welfare bill for workers to pay for wayward irresponsible behaviour.
Just keep lumping it on.
Ultimately we all do in increments in taxes to pay for it
@Max Cooper: Government-provided insurance is called social insurance. However, when individuals are insured against negative outcomes they may not try as hard to avoid those negative outcomes. We call this moral hazard.
@Max Cooper: people are not understanding this. Maybe it’s it the wording of the article. Currently a single parent on One Parent Family Payment gets approx €50 per child depending on the child’s age. There is a requirement that the parent seeks maintenance from the absent parent. This is not enforced and hasn’t been for years for various reasons. Nothing changes for the parent looking after the kids, they still get the same amount of money they always got, it’s not an extra payment. But now the state can chase the absent father making them repay the government for paying for the child. It can be done by taking part of their social welfare payment or by an attachment of earnings if they’re working. The recoups money for the state.
This is a good move so long as the money that’s deducted from the former partner is put to good use like saved up and put towards school books uniforms not false nails eyelashes hair extensions tattoos or such like. Another thing that needs to be changed is the weekly fuel allowance money getting handed out in cash it should be paid out in a universal fuel voucher that way it will be used to heat a house. I’m with a charity and in my particular area we spend over €3k per month on providing fuel for clients 45% of those receive fuel allowance from the state.
@Nemethon: it’s just sad to see these funds being used so incorrectly.
@Nemethon: the money that is recouped from the father goes to the government.
@Nemethon: I’m sure the charity that you work for would love the fact that you’re deciding for their clients what they should and shouldn’t spend their money on.
To nemathon re your point on fuel allowance being paid in vouchers. A really good idea Why not send your experience in to Department of Social welfare . Might be push back from those saying they cannot sho around etc. don’t accept that. It’s a racket and getting worse. Too much free money, the Ukrainians showed this up by their actions. Cop oon taxpayers
Poor old tax payer picks up the bill for incompetent parents
Nemethon yawn……
@Fifi Ryan: why the yawn? He speaks the truth.
have your say