Reply to: Divorcee's £600,000 plea of poverty

[ruth11]

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.

That's not a bad idea. I might put that to hubby at some point. Thanks EO.

[ruth11]

I wasn't really looking to take anything further - as I said, it's none of my business. I was just wondering.

Thanks for the responses

[BrilloPad]

Yes, it's more than that. But there isn't and never will be a "case". I was just wondering if I was being unreasonable in wanting her to stop taking the piss.

Guess it's just life after divorce and that's that.

You are not being unreasonable. But I reckon you should leave it. It is not worth it. The kids grow up - it will not last forever.

The very best of luck to both of you and the kids.

[ruth11]

Do you currently pay more or less than (husband_net_pay * 0.2 * (6/7))? If more, then you have a case.

The current finances do not come into it. Even if you are both on benefits and she has won the lottery - it does not matter.

AFAIK she should pay everything for kids out of her share.

But she has the power. Unless the amounts involved are large I would advise to not bother. You see the kids - there are alot of men who do not.

Yes, it's more than that. But there isn't and never will be a "case". I was just wondering if I was being unreasonable in wanting her to stop taking the piss.

Guess it's just life after divorce and that's that.

[BrilloPad]

CSA was never involved in hubby's case. Was decided all amicably at the time of divorce. Mainly because he offered a cracking deal and she knew it. I just think that maybe now, a good few years down the line, she should be willing to accept a reduced payment as their financial situation is hugely better than ours.
Not that he will ever ask because he won't rock the boat, as I said before. It's all just my opinion. And obviously I have no valid reason to get involved because they're not my kids, so I occasionally say something, but we will never row about it cos it's none of my business.
The main time that it bugs me is when she asks for more money to cover school trips. She also takes Grandma - hubby's mum - out shopping with them when the kids need stuff, knowing full well that Grandma will pay for most of it.

We have the kids for 2 nights every fortnight, because they now live about 50 miles away.

Do you currently pay more or less than (husband_net_pay * 0.2 * (6/7))? If more, then you have a case.

The current finances do not come into it. Even if you are both on benefits and she has won the lottery - it does not matter.

AFAIK she should pay everything for kids out of her share.

But she has the power. Unless the amounts involved are large I would advise to not bother. You see the kids - there are alot of men who do not.

[ruth11]

CSA was never involved in hubby's case. Was decided all amicably at the time of divorce. Mainly because he offered a cracking deal and she knew it. I just think that maybe now, a good few years down the line, she should be willing to accept a reduced payment as their financial situation is hugely better than ours.
Not that he will ever ask because he won't rock the boat, as I said before. It's all just my opinion. And obviously I have no valid reason to get involved because they're not my kids, so I occasionally say something, but we will never row about it cos it's none of my business.
The main time that it bugs me is when she asks for more money to cover school trips. She also takes Grandma - hubby's mum - out shopping with them when the kids need stuff, knowing full well that Grandma will pay for most of it.

We have the kids for 2 nights every fortnight, because they now live about 50 miles away.

[BrilloPad]

And to the person who emailed me last night saying they did well in court last week and found my advice useful - I say good on you. I really really hope all your access issues get resolved.

[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.

[oracleslave]

objectiveness?

Fair cop. Although in a way....

[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]

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.

[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]

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]

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.

[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.