is it a fair cop!!!!!!!!

shymanuk

if he lost his job then what ever he paid would be fair in that situation, but when he can afford to pay . but chooses not to ..... thats diff matter ..... ie if u can pay your gas bill but decide not to they cut you off.....after a while. but depends on your priorities i guess

fsdss

shymanuk

for your information i do not back people who shirk their responsibilities, and yes i do have morals however peoples circumstances change all the time, your partners ex will have to prove this to a court / welfare officer etc.

he has a responsibility to his child financially, emotionally etc etc. and must therefore be able to provide for that child according to his means

shymanuk

fsdss wrote:

shymanuk

for your information i do not back people who shirk their responsibilities, and yes i do have morals however peoples circumstances change all the time, your partners ex will have to prove this to a court / welfare officer etc.

he has a responsibility to his child financially, emotionally etc etc. and must therefore be able to provide for that child according to his means

THAT IS MY POINT!!!!!!!! HE CAN AFFORD IT.... IF HE COULDNT ID BE THE FIRST TO SAY DO WHAT YOU CAN FOR NOW , THEN WHEN THINGS PICK UP FOR HIM . WE LOOK AT IT AGAIN....... BUT A NEW CAR ISNT NEEDED WHEN HIS OLD ONE JUST 2YEARS OLD .!!!!!! AND PAID FOR ..... HE HAS CREATED THE SITUATION FROM HIS OWN ACTIONS ........ IN MY EYES A CHILD COMES BEFORE A CAR . BUT HEY THATS JUST MY VIEW

spamalot

Shymanuk,

Just to put this in perspective, when it comes to child maintenance a CO isn't really binding as 12 months after it is signed it can be reviewed by the CSA. THis is to allow individuals to reapply if their circumstances change. To my mind this is far as if an individual is made redundant or they have another child they should be allowed to review the payments. I'd like to emphasise review not stop!

In terms of assets it is considered that a division at the time of the divorce is fair as it takes into account what the couple have accrued throughout their marriage and divides it accordingly. As one poster said, it would be grossly unfair if individuals were liable to have their assets taken off them in the future just because their ex wanted more money! Therefore, I would in your case forget the pension, it is highly unlikely that your partner would be eligible to get a share and even if she were (in the remote chance) it would probably cost thousends in court cost to obtain it so you've got to consider this one carefully as these sorts of issues are never settled quickly.

As for the Child Maintenance, I understand your frustration. I am surprised that the CSA told you to persue it in court but then they probably take the view that he is at least paying maintenance and therefore he isn't defaulting. I have been told by people in similar situations that an individual has to be at least one full month in arrears before the CSA will take action.

I might have missed this one but according to CSA calculations how much is he supposed to be paying? and how much is he actually paying? it might help to see some figures to get a better handle on this situation.

COs are extremely frustrating. When it comes to Child maintenance or contact orders there appears to be no penalty if either side breaks them. I have a friend whose ex wife has stopped him from seeing the children until he pays her more money than she is entitled to, effectively holding the kids to randsom and there is no action taken on her. I think the best thing though as some have said is to take the emotion out of it, take a step back and think about what you would gain if you persued this and what you would lose. This might help you to decide whether it is worth it.

shymanuk

we would never stop him from seeing his child ........ thats like taking his arm away ....... but worse than that it would harm his child ........ she sees him , that is the important thing, the csa calculation works out the same as what he should be giving, give or take a couple of quid, i spoke to them direct, they also said the fact he states he cannot pay the amount is not a credable one and he should pay. but thats the csa view.anyway ...... to sub it all up ... solicitor has stated when hes in breach.... they will contact his and resolve it .via court.or csa if needed..but he is seeing daughter thats the main thing for her,

kelloggs36

Only Court orders granted prior to 1993 can be taken into account as far as CSA are concerned. If he paid more than 15% of his net income up until now, then you have been fortunate because the CSA would only make him pay that much (assuming he has no children in his new household and you have just the one child by him). Only you know whether 15% is more or less than he was paying before. If 15% is more, then the only way round it is to go to the CSA who can calculate and collect the payments. As he is police, he would be pretty stupid not to pay and they can do a deduction of earnings anyway. Have no idea about the rest though.

fsdss

shymanuk wrote:

THAT IS MY POINT!!!!!!!! HE CAN AFFORD IT.... IF HE COULDNT ID BE THE FIRST TO SAY DO WHAT YOU CAN FOR NOW , THEN WHEN THINGS PICK UP FOR HIM . WE LOOK AT IT AGAIN....... BUT A NEW CAR ISNT NEEDED WHEN HIS OLD ONE JUST 2YEARS OLD .!!!!!! AND PAID FOR ..... HE HAS CREATED THE SITUATION FROM HIS OWN ACTIONS ........ IN MY EYES A CHILD COMES BEFORE A CAR . BUT HEY THATS JUST MY VIEW

all right no need to shout!, you put this post in for the opinions and expertise of others who may be able to assist you or may have been in this situation before.

i do in most respects i agree with you particulary in terms of looking after his child financially, emotionally etc, however HE will have to prove to a court that his financial circumstances have changed and buying a new car to replace a 2yr old car may well not wash well in a court report (excuse the pun!)