Divorcee's £600,000 plea of poverty

[BrilloPad]

I know it's a personal question, but I was wondering what you guys pay per month for your kids? PM me if you don't want to reply here. Or tell me to get lost if you don't want to answer. But I can't help but think that a household running 2 successful businesses, with no mortgage at all, there's absolutely NO WAY that they spend all the money from my hubby on the kids. She gets the child benefits, all that, so I just can't see it.

She also asks him to go halves whenever there's a school trip\holiday - by getting the kid to ring Dad and ask him. Bang out of order in my book - the maintenance he pays should cover that easily, but when the kid calls, he can't very well say no, can he? Or is that me being unreasonable? I don't know....

Lot of earlier posts confused things. Generally people rely on the CSA for maintenance(either via CSA or voluntarily). Court can only order if both agree.

Is there 1 child? Then your husband should pay 15% of take home.

I agree about rocking the boat - access far more important than money.

BTW thanks for posting this publicly - most just PM me(and presumably PM others). You will get advice from others - and all replies may help other people too. Once again women show the way forward.

[ruth11]

I very nearly didn't post it publicly and may well take it down again later, but there's next to no chance my hubby will read it, and even less chance of his ex wife reading it, so should be ok!

There are 2 kids, the maintenance amount was agreed voluntarily not in court, way back when she was a single mum with no means of income. She got by then with no job, or maybe a low paid job, I'm not sure, whilst she trained up, but now she's got a new guy and her own business, the amount hasn't been reduced. I suppose you could say, why should it when it's for the kids, but surely she has to be equally responsible for paying for the kids now? I'm sure that the amount hubby pays doesn't all go towards the kids expenses as it is...

[EternalOptimist]

I very nearly didn't post it publicly and may well take it down again later, but there's next to no chance my hubby will read it, and even less chance of his ex wife reading it, so should be ok!

There are 2 kids, the maintenance amount was agreed voluntarily not in court, way back when she was a single mum with no means of income. She got by then with no job, or maybe a low paid job, I'm not sure, whilst she trained up, but now she's got a new guy and her own business, the amount hasn't been reduced. I suppose you could say, why should it when it's for the kids, but surely she has to be equally responsible for paying for the kids now? I'm sure that the amount hubby pays doesn't all go towards the kids expenses as it is...

Me and the missus are in a similar situation, so I came up with this idea. Rather than try to regulate the amount of dosh in the exes houshold ( and I can never be 100% what that is exactly) , plus bearing in mind that there is an end date, so any unfairness will end at some point, I told her that I will reduce the amount on the 16th birthday, again on the 17th and 18th , then end it a year later. One of the kids is now past 19 and a second is mostly through this cycle and it seems to have worked ok. (I actually bung the lad most of the difference directly - blooming layabout )
the third is coming up to 16 in November.

[BrilloPad]

I very nearly didn't post it publicly and may well take it down again later, but there's next to no chance my hubby will read it, and even less chance of his ex wife reading it, so should be ok!

There are 2 kids, the maintenance amount was agreed voluntarily not in court, way back when she was a single mum with no means of income. She got by then with no job, or maybe a low paid job, I'm not sure, whilst she trained up, but now she's got a new guy and her own business, the amount hasn't been reduced. I suppose you could say, why should it when it's for the kids, but surely she has to be equally responsible for paying for the kids now? I'm sure that the amount hubby pays doesn't all go towards the kids expenses as it is...

If you prefer to PM me please do. But I hope this stays public. The details you have provided could apply to alot of people.

Sorry but none of that has to do with how child support is calculated. Basically you husband should pay 20% of take home towards the children(15% for 1 child, 25% for 3). Assuming he has overnight stays 2 nights per week he pays 5/7, if 1 night then 5/7. I believe if more than 2 nights per week then pays nothing.

IMO, this is one of the things the CSA got right! men(and women where applicable) should pay for their kids and if there was any way of forcing them to see their kids (which there is not) I would be all for it.

This does not negate the fact that the CSA is badly organized, inefficient, has caused 72 suicides. And that child contact orders should be enforced.

I cannot stand men/women who fail to take their responsibilities seriously - which is one of the main reasons I have issues with my ex.

[oracleslave]

has caused 72 suicides

Serious question BP. I have no experience of the CSA so just inquiring out of interest. Can you make that statement based on fact? Surely there are a host of factors that are in place when a suicide takes place?

[BrilloPad]

Serious question BP. I have no experience of the CSA so just inquiring out of interest. Can you make that statement based on fact? Surely there are a host of factors that are in place when a suicide takes place?

My original post was serious - you are trolling. And I will bite.

Like women's aid when they said fathers having access against mothers wishes caused 29 deaths - intention to make mothers the sole decider of access? There was an official investigation and not a single one of the deaths had anything to do with accesss issues.

Every year 50% of child deaths(about 70 per year) by mother, 25% by new partner, 25% by father.

The father having access will SAVE far more children than it will harm.

So which bit of this are you going to nit pick?

[oracleslave]

My original post was serious - you are trolling. And I will bite.

Like women's aid when they said fathers having access against mothers wishes caused 29 deaths - intention to make mothers the sole decider of access? There was an official investigation and not a single one of the deaths had anything to do with accesss issues.

Every year 50% of child deaths(about 70 per year) by mother, 25% by new partner, 25% by father.

The father having access will SAVE far more children than it will harm.

So which bit of this are you going to nit pick?

Am not going to nit pick. The general premise behind my post was that you directly attributed something serious to an organisation possibly unfairly. This is probably based on your experience with them and this may cloud your subjectiveness to an organisation performing what sounds like a difficult function. As I said previously I have no experience of them, was just interested. Not sure that you are a source of a balanced view was all I was saying. Nothing more sinister than that.

[Pinto]

This is probably based on your experience with them and this may cloud your subjectiveness to an organisation performing what sounds like a difficult function.

objectiveness?

[oracleslave]

objectiveness?

Fair cop. Although in a way....

[BrilloPad]

Am not going to nit pick. The general premise behind my post was that you directly attributed something serious to an organisation possibly unfairly. This is probably based on your experience with them and this may cloud your subjectiveness to an organisation performing what sounds like a difficult function. As I said previously I have no experience of them, was just interested. Not sure that you are a source of a balanced view was all I was saying. Nothing more sinister than that.

I actually said some nice things about the CSA above - wish I had not bothered now.

One of the things about dealing with the family courts - it is so bad no-one will believe you! Even family and friends turned against me.

I really really hope you never find out just how right I am.