I received the following letter from Beth Alexander regarding the latest in court rulings against her - that seem to have no basis in reality or commonsense.
Another court order. More extortion. More terror. Intended to cripple me, this time financially. To ruin my Chag they sent me another child maintenance order. The Appeal Court (where Konstanze Thau works) have increased my child maintenance payments. The Social Services applied (in my children's names) to increase my payments from 110 per month to 150 per month, then to 165 per child per month. The Appeal Court have granted this. I must now pay 330 Euro / month backdated to June 2012.
I argued this was impossible on a basic part time teacher's salary (I cannot work full time because of the Tuesday visits) plus 300 per month in visiting costs! The court stated that the father earns 3,500 Euro per month as a doctor (far more than I could ever earn as a part time teacher) but this does not reduce my maintenance obligations.
I argued that I cannot even afford basic living costs after visiting costs (300 Euro per month) and maintenance (330 Euro per month) is deducted. However they simple have rejected my arguments. I have repeatedly applied to the court to change my Tuesday visiting day to allow me weekends so that I can hold down a full time job to cover the exorbitant payments but the judge ignored every application.
The Social Services in the father's district have made no attempt at neutrality or fairness. The first week after the father was awarded custody, they made an outrageous and totally unrealistic application that I should pay 1,116 Euros per month in child maintenance, based on an alleged earning potential of 4,000 Euros!! This is more than the father ever earned as a full time doctor working night shifts and weekends! I had been a full time mother for 2 years. They even argued that I should work as a cleaning lady if I couldn't find a job to match my qualifications in order to meet my maintenance obligations. They then argued my parents should have to pay the maintenance for the children if I can't - there is no legal basis whatsoever to such an argument. It is pure malice.
I have to pay 50 Euro / visit to see my children and 330 Euro / month in maintenance yet am denied any meaningful role in my children's lives.
Translated excerpts from the latest decision:
According to statement 8 Ob 651/90 from Beth, the parent who has to pay maintenance is living at the existence minimum. But she is not allowed to use this as an argument, although the "Senat" (the judges) stated that partial or even complete freedom from payment of maintenance might be possible if the parent who is taking care of the child earns considerably more than the other parent and what the latter earns is hardly relevant. This could be the case if the parent caring for the child in fact covered 100% of the child's needs and only a minimal amount could be "extorted" (obtained) from the other parent (Beth).The decision in this case, however, went against the mother and it's stated that "The fact that the parent caring for the child earns much more than the other parent is not allowed to lead to a reduction in the amount of maintenance to be paid by the latter." It seems that in theory the argument re the two very different incomes is valid, yet not in practice.
Nach dem der Entscheidung 8 Ob 651/90 zugrunde liegenden Sachverhalt hatte der geldunterhaltspflichtige Elternteil nur ein Einkommen "um das Existenzminimum". Der 8. Senat führte zunächst aus, dass sich der Unterhaltsschuldner nicht auf eine dem (damals noch anzuwendenden) § 5 LPfG Belastbarkeitsgrenze berufen dürfe, hielt aber (mit dem Hinweis, dass es eine Frage des Einzelfalls darstelle) eine teilweise oder sogar gänzliche Befreiung von der Alimentationspflicht für denkbar, wenn der betreuende Elternteil über ein beträchtlich höheres Einkommen verfüge, sodass die dem anderen Teil zumutbare Alimentierung im Vergleich dazu bei lebensnaher Betrachtung aller Umstände nicht mehr ins Gewicht falle.