gutted - he might get away with it

Zazen999

woody01 wrote: »

So you think that entitles her to pocket the £24K then?

Yes. Of course it does.

kaya

erm..... we dont know if she works or not, probably the taxpayer has paid for them for the last nine years! (please feel free to flame me if my assumption is wrong)

mitchaa

Agreed, I know someone in a similar boat, she received £30k back in arrears.

She had a boob job and all over lipo along with a few foreign holidays with only her partner. I dont think the kids received a penny of the £30k.

All wrong. Any arrears should be forced into trust funds for the children not so the ex could go living it up.

LizzieS_2

woody01 wrote: »

So you think that entitles her to pocket the £24K then?

She will have paid out far more than 24K over 10 1/2 years by paying both her and the pathetic fathers (in this case) contributions, no reason for her to feel guilty if she does get the 24K.

Zazen999

mitchaa wrote: »

Agreed, I know someone in a similar boat, she received £30k back in arrears.

She had a boob job and all over lipo along with a few foreign holidays with only her partner. I dont think the kids received a penny of the £30k.

All wrong. Any arrears should be forced into trust funds for the children not so the ex could go living it up.

I'm not saying that it's right....but presumably she has had to move money from her luxuries whilst they were growing up, to pay for the kids - perhaps her partner had spent lots of his money on the kids to support them whilst their dad was not paying a penny?

Zazen999

kaya wrote: »

erm..... we dont know if she works or not, probably the taxpayer has paid for them for the last nine years! (please feel free to flame me if my assumption is wrong)

Why is that probable? Not every mother is on benefits.

Blonde_Bint

tut tut didnt you know .... of course they are :rotfl:

(and before you flambay me thats a joke:rotfl:) lol:p

Zazen999

Blonde_Bint wrote: »

tut tut didnt you know .... of course they are :rotfl:

(and before you flambay me thats a joke:rotfl:) lol:p

OI

Behave you.

kelloggs36

woody01 wrote: »

So you think that entitles her to pocket the £24K then?

Yes actually it does - this is a refund of all the costs incurred for bringing up the children on her own for the past however many years it is - if she had had the money at the time, her financial situation would not have been so tight. This is to put her in the position she would have been in had he coughed up when he should have done.

kelloggs36

mitchaa wrote: »

Agreed, I know someone in a similar boat, she received £30k back in arrears.

She had a boob job and all over lipo along with a few foreign holidays with only her partner. I dont think the kids received a penny of the £30k.

All wrong. Any arrears should be forced into trust funds for the children not so the ex could go living it up.

I see, so all those years, the children starved, had no clothes, lived on the streets etc, etc. The parent with care provided all this with no help from the father, and had to contribute his share as well as her own. As he paid up in the end, she no longer has to pay for those things, she has had to have gone without all those years and so should not feel guilty about treating herself now.