The High Court set maintenance at €3,000 a month for a respondent and her twin daughters after considering an application by the children’s father to reduce his payments under an earlier divorce order. The court apportioned €750 to the respondent and €1,125 to each child, with CPI adjustments from 1 June 2012.
The applicant said his net income had fallen after changes to his pay and increased government levies. The judge assessed his expected net income for 2011 at no less than €70,157, including an assumed €7,500 net bonus. The judgment noted that he had €58,000 in savings and had previously received larger bonuses.
The judge found the respondent had no savings or other funds, had reduced her spending, and was struggling to meet mortgage commitments. She had been required, following injunction proceedings, to live with the children in Dublin. The court said the order had enabled the applicant to take an active role in parenting, but left the respondent raising the children without family support in the city. Her parents and siblings lived in Cork, where she said she would prefer to live and could receive childcare help.
The court rejected the applicant’s submission that the respondent could relieve the financial pressure by working part-time or full-time. It cited the children’s short school hours, childcare costs, lack of backup when they were ill, and the respondent’s limited recent work experience. It also rejected the respondent’s suggestion that the applicant take in a lodger or give up pension contributions.
The judge concluded that some amelioration of the maintenance was warranted, while acknowledging it would cause the respondent financial hardship. The judgment does not specify the previous payment amount being replaced in its operative paragraph; it states that the appropriate current payment was €3,000 per month.
The applicant was also ordered to provide the respondent, by 14 January 2012 and on the same date each following year, with his previous year’s wage slips, P60, details and proof of any tax-avoidance payment, bonus information, and an employer statement confirming specified earnings and bonus details. The judgment said the disclosures would allow the respondent to monitor his income and seek to renegotiate maintenance if his salary rose above the level underlying the order.