getting a bigger mortgage to avoid child support

Found_true_love

kelloggs36 wrote: »

Go back to CS1 then I see??

Hi kellogs

You are a person with much integrity, a good and balanced view of these difficult circumstances i wold love to know your story, you do not seem judgemental, bitter, angry or taking sides i like that.

Your posts are informative, helpfull and show that you have a good knowledge of the "system"

I regard you as a balanced person, one who will defend the right but speak your mind when someone is being unjustified, I like that in your approach.

So, I dont know CSA1 can you please let me know how my suggestions goes back to that version

A good discussion is all I ask so I can learn

I think the system as it is neds to start again going back to real values, take out the court advesarial system introduce an effective collaboration process stop RP and NRP create an equal system

Difficult I know but it start with discussion with no conditions

Stop the world I want to get off, I want to make it work right

Solicitors, Judges, politicians (mostly ex lawyers) have too much of a monatary insentive to keep the status quo............ its a multi million pound industry keeping the lawyers employed

they have a nice littel nest egg wy change the system to work better and make less money?

The CSA are the same the mandarins have a vested interest in growing thier empires

Found_true_love

PlayingHardball wrote: »

So, what you are saying is that you will contribute just a fiver each week for your child.....just to spite the ex? Who's the stupid one? Your attitude is a disgrace, your kid suffers, not her. You sound smug about your self-employment status, I guess you are truthful with your earnings to the CSA?

I find it very funny that you are blaming the ex for not being reasonable with you. Really? You don't sound like the unreasonable type!

Ok my story to show reasonable.

When me and my ex first split I was paying her £100 per week and paying for my sons nursery at £240 per month (she did not work at that time)

I was devasted with the end of the relationship. Eventually I met someone else, my ex foud out and told me to stick my money (she apparently could do without it) and she stopped me seeing my son.

So that is what I did.

She didnt like that, tried to get back together with me to split me up with my (now) wife,i fel l fro it, I went back to my ex for 1 week (I found out she was still seeing her new boyfriend caught them in bed)

I offered her a more managable amount of maintenance (£140 per month) she refused said she would get more from the CSA

BIG MISTAKE

Thats why I have no problem with £5 per week

Once again I say

IF SHE HAS A PROBLEM WITH MY MAINTENANCE PAYMENTS LET ME HAVE MY SON FULL TIME AND I WILL TAKE THAT COST AWAY FROM HER

I WILL STILL GIVE HER AS MUCH CONTACT WITH HER SON AS SHE WANTS BUT LET ME HAVE RESIDENCE AND I WILL GLADLY LOOK AFTER MY SON FULL TIME I WILL NOT LOOK FOR A PENNY FROM HER

speedster

agreed, other than the fact that when my daughter comes to live with us, the first thing i'm gonna do is set the wolves on her.

see how she likes it. :rolleyes:

LizzieS_2

Found_true_love wrote: »

I was devasted with the end of the relationship. Eventually I met someone else, my ex foud out and told me to stick my money (she apparently could do without it) and she stopped me seeing my son.

Thats why I have no problem with £5 per week

Once again I say

IF SHE HAS A PROBLEM WITH MY MAINTENANCE PAYMENTS LET ME HAVE MY SON FULL TIME AND I WILL TAKE THAT COST AWAY FROM HER

She didn't like you seeing someone else = control feak
You didn't like not getting your own way so made sure your son only got £5pw = control freak

You are both as bad as each other, the only one missing out emotionally and financially is the person you both claim to love most - your son.

speedster

LizzieS wrote: »

She didn't like you seeing someone else = control feak
You didn't like not getting your own way so made sure your son only got £5pw = control freak

You are both as bad as each other, the only one missing out emotionally and financially is the person you both claim to love most - your son.

mmmmmmmm. dunno. i call it payback.

i know 2 wrongs don't make a right, but sometimes................................... what's good for the goose, is good for the gander.

LizzieS_2

speedster wrote: »

mmmmmmmm. dunno. i call it payback.

i know 2 wrongs don't make a right, but sometimes................................... what's good for the goose, is good for the gander.

Ok look at it from a judges point of view.

Nrp asks for a defined contact order. Yes pwc looks bad for stopping contact, but does the dedicated nrp look like a responsible parent when he/she has made sure the financial side goes down?

I can sympathise with those who struggles with obtaining contact, but going down the route of retaliation does no favours to themselves if court does indeed loom (which you would expect for someone who wants contact?)

Found_true_love

Found_true_love wrote: »

Ok my story to show reasonable.


I offered her a more managable amount of maintenance (£140 per month) she refused said she would get more from the CSA

BIG MISTAKE

Thats why I have no problem with £5 per week

Once again I say

IF SHE HAS A PROBLEM WITH MY MAINTENANCE PAYMENTS LET ME HAVE MY SON FULL TIME AND I WILL TAKE THAT COST AWAY FROM HER

I WILL STILL GIVE HER AS MUCH CONTACT WITH HER SON AS SHE WANTS BUT LET ME HAVE RESIDENCE AND I WILL GLADLY LOOK AFTER MY SON FULL TIME I WILL NOT LOOK FOR A PENNY FROM HER

LizzieS

PLease re-read

At the time of the offer of £140 per month I was already having contact of two nights a fortnight. The offer was not conditional on any more contact.

It was made with the hope that with paying her reasonable maintenance she would "calm down"

She had had me charged with harrasment (she was found lying to the court, I was found not guilty) I still offered the money, her boyfriend left a note on my wifes car telling her I was still sleeping with my ex (he lied), I still made the offer of the money, my ex attacked me (twice), I have the scars to prove it, I still offered the money, my ex refuses to come to the negotiation table to try and settle our differences, I still offered the money, my ex hides behind the court order and refuses any increasing contact, I still offered the money AND

I have, as recently as a month ago via her solicitors, told her I would go into a voluntary agreement (remove the CSA from the picture) and would pay £80 a month to start with, to try and start the process again (I see it as an olive branch) she refuses to talk.

What more can I do? My only condition being that she engages with me (with her solicitor) in meaningfull negotiations.

A further thought, the government DO link contact and MONEY, they say they dont but it binds us in a horrible way and sets up confrontation.

The courts say money and contact are not linked

So NRP goes to court for contatct order gets 1 or 2 nights a fortnight plus holiday contact.

RP goes to CSA to get money based on the size of his wallet

CSA say if NRP has OVERNIGHT staying contact he can reduce maintenance payments by 1/7 for each night the child stays on average per week.

Result = greedy RP (and it is almost only the greedy RP's I am talking about) is totally focused on preventing further overnight contact because it means they may get less £££££££££££

Ah let me see the motive is ££££££££££££

I stress its only the greedy £££££££ grabber types that I refere to

My offer to my ex of £140 per month was not dependant on staying contact I wanted to get away from her belief it would reduce ££££££ with more contact

I dont give a stuff about about the cost of maintaining my child (at a reasonable level which £140 per moonth for 1 4yo child is) all I want is contact to gradually increase to the 5 nights a fortnight and half of school holidays position.

So the govenment insentivise RP to resist contact :T, I want to insentivise RP to give more contact then she will get more ££££££££

The system (with regard to ££££££ grabber wimmin) allows them to behave outragously and get away with it:eek:, the courts, filled with (mostly) PC femenist CAFCASS officers, support the wimmin, these ££££ grabber wimmin are (normally) very clever, manipulative liers, they plead innocence, they plead hard done too but it is they who are the ones who are playing the system.

Philosophy

Of all the couples who break up (with children) 80% of the population behave decently come to a compromise with regard to contact and maintenance, settle the marrital home (and/or other finances) move on with thier lives.

Of the remaining 20% they cant agree and end up in a lawyer lead system whos job it is to create dissharmony and earn £££££££ (ergo lawyers are also ££££££ grabbers they have a vested interest in division rather than co-operation)

Of that 20% of couples, 10% can reach agreement with some help from mediation or a sensible outside or other person guided way

Of the remaining 10% IMHO there is one person in the equation who is intent on a different outcome. Of that 10% they range in thier hostility from 1 to 10

1 being lets the court system decide, lets CSA decide job done

10 being, will stop NRP from seeing the child(ren) at every opportunity, maybe accuses the NRP of sexually assaulting the child(ren) accuses the NRP of harrasment to get the courts more on thier side

So we go in levels of hostility from £grabber to ££££££££grabber

NORMALLY the ££££££££grabber are all wimmin RP's with a very similar phygological profile, and guess what?

That is why this forum is here, this forum is a melting pot of all that is wrong with the system here are all the worst cases

You dont get good situations here they have been sorted out a long time ago by reasonable people (my wife for example and her ex)

my ex is about a 7 on the hostility level :mad: she is what the psyco trade call a "high macavellian" (that all means may be resorted to for the establishment and preservation of authority and that the worst and most treacherous acts of the ruler are justified) Egor control freak. she is also a martyr and a pathological lier. Mix that into trying to act in the best interest of the child

She is a very very VERY good lier and and has an unbelievable way of getting people on her side (like all good con merchents are) very quickly. In that regard I have the utmost respect for her its amazing what she comes up with.

She even persuaded me that she still loved me and to get back with her early on in my relationship mith my (now) wife. Only for me to find that she was still shogging her boyfriend (I caught them in bed) and had never stopped shoggin him, I was lucky I found out within a week, my wife forgave me because I went back to my ex try and reconcile the relationship for the sake of being a family again.

When my ex found out that I had been forgiven by my (then girlfriend now wife) and that we had resumed our relationship she got all green eyed again I wont bore you with the details.


Get the ££££££grabber wimmin in analysis get them profiled and

THEY WILL ALL BE THE SAME BASIC PSYCHOLOGY

Some may be men 95% will be wimmin bet ya

PlayingHardball

Speedster and FoundTrue: Your kid suffers at your hand whether you see that or not (fiver a week). You are both as bad as your ex's and only the children must suffer by that fact. Hopefully one day you will see that.

I would listen to Lizzie's excellent advice and set a good example of your financial integrity to your child, in the face of your most likely future court situations.

Found_true_love

PlayingHardball wrote: »

Speedster and FoundTrue: Your kid suffers at your hand whether you see that or not (fiver a week). You are both as bad as your ex's and only the children must suffer by that fact. Hopefully one day you will see that.

I would listen to Lizzie's excellent advice and set a good example of your financial integrity to your child, in the face of your most likely future court situations.

Why does paying my ex maintenance at any level constitute my child suffering?

If my ex was financially suffering she would not hesitate to take my £140 per month in return for negotiations

What I see is the new telly, the new (second hand) car, the new clothes etc AND

The fact that I took the woman from a rented council house in a run down slum to a (still rented granted) house in a lovely neighbourhood, installed the bathroom, kitchen, loft, set her up in her business (money for machines, shed to do the wotk (insulated, electrics)) basically allowed her to save over £20,000 which she secretly squirrelled away, and still she is a greedy £££££graber for more than I am offering is the relevant thing here

My child is happy and loving his position is that he wants to spend morre time with me and my family he goes on about it whenI pick him up yesterday he said "am I staying at yours for a long time this time?" I replied what do you want m8?" he says I want to stay with you for a long time, he is only 4 and a day is a long time but I know what he means.

The ex is blocking his request for more contact, I am not blocking her money I am paying what the CSA rules say I should pay.

If she wants to stick to the letter of the court order for contact then fine she sticks to all the rules not just the ones that suit her

that is my position

speedster

LizzieS wrote: »

Ok look at it from a judges point of view.

Nrp asks for a defined contact order. Yes pwc looks bad for stopping contact, but does the dedicated nrp look like a responsible parent when he/she has made sure the financial side goes down?

I can sympathise with those who struggles with obtaining contact, but going down the route of retaliation does no favours to themselves if court does indeed loom (which you would expect for someone who wants contact?)

you've obviously never been in court then either have you? if you had, you'd know what happens if you bring up the issue of money in a family court.

so where did you concoct this opinion then?? more uninformed and way off the mark posting.

again.