Can the CSA touch my ex's savings.......

FBaby

DUTR wrote: »

but the PWC should encourage the relationship to be maintained, no point some complaining about the low amount of finacial support and lack of emotional support, when the impression is that person is not even worth a 50p card plus postage stamp and a bit of pen ink

Sound like a very lazy victimised attitude... when I want something desperately, i don't wait for others to decide whether I should get it or not, I do ANYTHING in my powers to get it.

In this case, the father made the decision to leave his family, why should the PWC do anything else but to insure not to stop contact? Not her problem to insure her ex has a good relationship with their children.

In any case, compension or not, entitled or not, it is a pathetic fact that a father could enjoy such a pleasant lifestyle but not be one bit bothered that he doesn't share some of it with his children.

DX2

FBaby wrote: »

In any case, compension or not, entitled or not, it is a pathetic fact that a father could enjoy such a pleasant lifestyle but not be one bit bothered that he doesn't share some of it with his children.

It is a pathetic fact one that really isn't being disputed, but we have to throw in the legality of these types of situations. Legally a man can walk away from their child and not look back as long as he pays child support whether that's £5.00 per week or £500.00 per week that is all he is legally entitled to do, morally is a whole different kettle of fish, and one that only an individual has to live with daily for the rest of their life.

Did they do enough.

DUTR

FBaby wrote: »

Sound like a very lazy victimised attitude... when I want something desperately, i don't wait for others to decide whether I should get it or not, I do ANYTHING in my powers to get it.

In this case, the father made the decision to leave his family, why should the PWC do anything else but to insure not to stop contact? Not her problem to insure her ex has a good relationship with their children.

In any case, compension or not, entitled or not, it is a pathetic fact that a father could enjoy such a pleasant lifestyle but not be one bit bothered that he doesn't share some of it with his children.

That is not what I read from the Op's posts.
What is the pleasant lifestyle? The fact of a few material things or the fact that he is with a group of people that love him and appreciate's his company?

AnxiousMum

OP - good luck with pursuing this with the CSA - though it's not sounding too positive from other posters.

I always look at it as though, if the parents of the children in question had stayed together, the children would have a certain standard of living. In my opinion, the children are STILL entitled to that standard of living, as well as a good relationship with both parents. Had you and your ex remained a couple, your children would surely be benefiting from the payout - £400,000 of which was for 'loss of earnings', and the remainder was for compensation from what I understand from your post. So from the first £400,000 - yes, your children should certainly be receiving child support from him (well, that's just my opinion morally speaking). Just as his new wife's children are benefiting from it, I'm sorry - but his own children should come first.

Best of luck - it sounds like you're going to need it!

MissMoneypenny

happycamper3 wrote: »

Why are you attacking me!!!,

Don't let them get to you happycamper3. Some "deadbeat dads" hang around on this forum: it's best just to ignore posts from them.

DX2

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Some "deadbeat dads" hang around on this forum: it's best just to ignore posts from them.

Who would they be?

DUTR

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Don't let them get to you happycamper3. Some "deadbeat dads" hang around on this forum: it's best just to ignore posts from them.

The Op's ex is not hanging around here though,
Don't get sucked into the emotional side of the thread and the headline of £400K , I don't think it's about deabeat dads more so deadbeat parents :eek:

AsknAnswer2

DUTR wrote: »

Actually no! it's to provide for the additional care for the victim that is required to continue independance. How many of you would prefer a payout for medical negligence and live a life of special need?

That is only one aspect of damages. Damages can be awared for far more than that, including the loss of future earnings (pecuniary loss).

Given that CSA is calculated pursuant to net earnings, and some damages may have been awarded for loss of future earnings, I can sort of see the OP's point. Don't necesserily agree with it, but I do see what she is getting at.

FBaby

DUTR wrote: »

The Op's ex is not hanging around here though,
Don't get sucked into the emotional side of the thread and the headline of £400K , I don't think it's about deabeat dads more so deadbeat parents :eek:

Any parent who doesn't support his/her children when they have the funds to do so, whatever the source of that money, whatever the circumstances, is a deadbeat parent.

DUTR

AsknAnswer2 wrote: »

That is only one aspect of damages. Damages can be awared for far more than that, including the loss of future earnings (pecuniary loss).

Given that CSA is calculated pursuant to net earnings, and some damages may have been awarded for loss of future earnings, I can sort of see the OP's point. Don't necesserily agree with it, but I do see what she is getting at.

Correct me if I'm wrong though, I'm sure I saw £16k per annum earnings banded about, if the youngest is 5, then that is 9 years at around £76 per week, diminshing to £46 per week, ok still better than the £5 currently recieved .
I suppose the OP ought to also check that the children are not excluded from any last will testament (not that she will be able to do much about it) .