LTD company and CSA

[Zoiderman]

True, but that wasn't the aspect of your post that I was referring to. Rather, its tone and its wording rather suggested that you were assuming that he was to blame for the breakup and that he'd just walked out on his family.

That wasn't my intention, and apologies if that's how it appeared. I was trying to state that being divorced, breaking up, didn't necessarily mean you absolved your obligations, moral and physical, to your children, as he appeared to be trying to pay the minimum that he could, rather than the minimum he should.

And no, never divorced and I feel for those that have been through that particular mill, and truly hope I never have to. However, I have always said to the wife, in periods of wavering, that no matter what did happen towards us, the kids should never be foresaken, nor should they be used. Of course, this is moot, given it could all change if one of us were to frolic gently in the fields with a somewhat younger model, but that's how I, possibly niavely, see it.

[BrilloPad]

I get that, and understand it is flawed, my argument was in the way it was put i.e. how much can I get away with payiny; I merely wanted to state that this was a flawed way of thinking, givn they are your kids.

I have no doubts the CSA is a flawed org, and being a man, know my nuts would no longer be mine were this to happen to me, I just thought the guys thinking was flawed from the getgo - How little can I pay even though they are my kids. That's the issue I had.

My issue comes that the CSA do not ensure the money is spent on the kids. A bit like the 1989 children act "the intersts of the child shall be paramount". But it assumed that the interests of the child and interests of the mother are the same.

Men like me who have sacrificied the last 10 years for their kids (my ex got the money, I got the kids) are treated like dirt.

[BrilloPad]

but that's how I, possibly niavely, see it.

And please carry on like that. You are far better off.

[Wary]

I get that, and understand it is flawed, my argument was in the way it was put i.e. how much can I get away with payiny; I merely wanted to state that this was a flawed way of thinking, givn they are your kids.

I have no doubts the CSA is a flawed org, and being a man, know my nuts would no longer be mine were this to happen to me, I just thought the guys thinking was flawed from the getgo - How little can I pay even though they are my kids. That's the issue I had.

Once again you're making wild assumptions about the Op's intentions/actions, and that his aim was to get away with paying as little as possible towards his kids.

He said "Anyone know the best way when threatened with the CSA despite continually making regular and generous payments."

How do you know he wasn't just trying to avoid being the victim of what you personally describe as a "flawed" system?

It is of paramount importance to me that my kids are well looked after. If I were divorced and my ex- had main custody, I'd want to pay her whatever is required to ensure they're well looked after, and that's it. Any excess, I'd want to be control of so that I know it is genuinely going to them and not to support her lifestyle. I'm not sure that I'd have faith that the CSA would work in that way, and this extra money that I could spend on them may well end up in her bank account instead to do with as she pleased.

This sounds like a perfectly reasonable and responsible approach. How do you know that this wasn't the Op's intention?

[Zoiderman]

Once again you're making wild assumptions about the Op's intentions/actions, and that his aim was to get away with paying as little as possible towards his kids.

He said "Anyone know the best way when threatened with the CSA despite continually making regular and generous payments."

How do you know he wasn't just trying to avoid being the victim of what you personally describe as a "flawed" system?

It is of paramount importance to me that my kids are well looked after. If I were divorced and my ex- had main custody, I'd want to pay her whatever is required to ensure they're well looked after, and that's it. Any excess, I'd want to be control of so that I know it is genuinely going to them and not to support her lifestyle. I'm not sure that I'd have faith that the CSA would work in that way, and this extra money that I could spend on them may well end up in her bank account instead to do with as she pleased.

This sounds like a perfectly reasonable and responsible approach. How do you know that this wasn't the Op's intention?

My wife has taken 8 years out of her life to raise 3 kids. Don't you think she deserves, or would deserve some support in her lifestyle?

That's what is being missed here too.

Anyway, it's moot. I don't think, where the kids are involved, people should be looking at reasonable, and other descriptors. They should be kept as they were kept before. That was my point made to JamJarST on my opening post on this thread and is how I feel. It appears you feel the same. My kids get the world from me, as does my wife. I wouldn't expect my kdis to suddenly have to deal with reasonable, because wifey and I no longer see eye to eye.

As an aside, my wife had to go to hospital for 2 weeks, and I have 3 young kids to look after, full time. I almost wept with Joy when she returned, as it was such hard work. 20 years of doing that, in other areas of work, would see them having honours awarded. Genuinely the hardest job you will ever do.

[Wary]

My wife has taken 8 years out of her life to raise 3 kids. Don't you think she deserves, or would deserve some support in her lifestyle?

That's what is being missed here too.

If one were to split amicably with their wife then maybe yes. If, however, she treated the husband like sh1t and then ran off with another bloke, for example, then maybe not. If the "flawed" CSA system ended up giving her a lavish lifestyle but left the ex-husband with a meagre existance, one could understand why it would stick in his craw, and this may actually leave the kids worse off as he couldn't afford to spend any money on them himself.

However, you've strayed from the main point which, as you also have inferred, is ensuring the kids are properly looked after. In particular, you've rather craftily ignored my main point, which is that you're making a wild assumption that the Op's motive was to pay as little as possible towards the upkeep of his kids, simply because he wanted to keep this outside of the "flawed" CSA system.

[Zoiderman]

If one were to split amicably with their wife then maybe yes. If, however, she treated the husband like sh1t and then ran off with another bloke, for example, then maybe not. If the "flawed" CSA system ended up giving her a lavish lifestyle but left the ex-husband with a meagre existance, one could understand why it would stick in his craw, and this may actually leave the kids worse off as he couldn't afford to spend any money on them himself.

However, you've strayed from the main point which, as you also have inferred, is ensuring the kids are properly looked after. In particular, you've rather craftily ignored my main point, which is that you're making a wild assumption that the Op's motive was to pay as little as possible towards the upkeep of his kids, simply because he wanted to keep this outside of the "flawed" CSA system.

Again wary, incorrect, again. I was suggesting a contributor to the thread was wrong, not the OP. I also maintain what I said was correct. What is reasonable, or what he could pay, is not the same as what they should pay. That's something I will always hold true.

Nice try though

[BrilloPad]

[Goatfell]

My wife has taken 8 years out of her life to raise 3 kids. Don't you think she deserves, or would deserve some support in her lifestyle?

Thankfully this is a professional forum...

You really completely misundertand the situation.
The CSA (the clue is in the name Child Support Agency) is there, ostensibly, to ensure that the children are supported, not to bolster the possibly lavish tastes of a parent.

The parent's lifestyle is catered for by the maintenance settlement.

Do not conflate the two under any circumstances. If you do, be prepared for some flak as it is a vey inflamatory subject.

[Wary]

Again wary, incorrect, again. I was suggesting a contributor to the thread was wrong, not the OP. I also maintain what I said was correct. What is reasonable, or what he could pay, is not the same as what they should pay. That's something I will always hold true.

Nice try though

If one looks at your contributions to this thread, it's obvious that your accusations are aimed at the Op. For example, you say about your first post "This was in response to the statement, effectively, asking with how little they could get away with paying." Who else could possibly have been construed as asking such a question in the first 9 posts?!?

What did you say - "Nice try though" ... you took the words right out of my mouth.

Zoiderman, you are the weakest link on this thread. Goodbye!