How do I prove he is depriving himself of income?

DUTR

jetta_wales wrote: »

Are you still getting the £68 a week though?

Indeed, some do not recieve anything, the guy has moved on, got himself a nice partner and is contributing, stop being so envious

jetta_wales

That's nearly £300 per calendar month. Do you really NEED more than that?

mrsspendalot

jetta_wales wrote: »

Are you still getting the £68 a week though?

DUTR wrote: »

Indeed, some do not recieve anything, the guy has moved on, got himself a nice partner and is contributing, stop being so envious

I have to sway towards this sentiment too - if you are getting £68 a week and have been doing on a regular basis, then I think you are doing pretty well to be honest, particularly considering many PWCs with exes who are self employed struggle to get a penny

£68 a week is a decent assessment, to be honest. If he is seeming to do better than this, but has a girlfriend, is it not possible that she is funding their lifestyle from her income? If she is an architect, I dare say her earning potential will be very good. Could she have not funded the flats from her own pocket, and therefore the income they generate is hers? It sounds like the CSA have done a thorough investigation and haven't found anything untoward going on.

clearingout

I'm not sure that's the point, though, is it? that she should be grateful for what she gets, particularly as some of us get nothing (*holds hands up*!!).

If the OP were still in a relationship with this man, both she and the child would benefit financially from his apparent success. If he's on an income of, say, £100k a year as a result, and is paying £68 a week, it's not really 'fair' is it? We could all do with extra money in our pockets, pay off the mortgage, put some away for a rainy day, give our children the horse riding lessons they've been begging for.....the extra coming into the houshold could mean mum is no longer worried about paying the bills when they come in has an impact on the child, surely? Less stress in any household is a good thing.

I don't buy the 'you should be grateful for what you get' if what you get isn't a fair amount based on the NRP's income argument.

jetta_wales

It's a very fair amount based on what she actually needs to give the children a comfortable loving. To want more just because he has more is wrong in my opinion.

I really do believe there should be a cap on the amount of money you can claim for child support.

AnxiousMum

Firstly, for everybody who is claiming that this is a fair assessment - do we know how many children it is for? I can't see that anywhere in the post.

OP - go for the tribunal, but don't let it eat you up. To other posters - we never know the whole situation - maybe it could be that the op helped support this guy while he was getting education, training, gave up career to stay at home and watch little ones, thereby losing out on career promotions etc. that she would be benefiting from right now. To say that it is a 'fair assessment' based on doctored information - is highly 'unfair'.

Yes, £68 per week is good - if she's still getting it. However, it may be that the children are entitled to alot more - which might allow the OP to go back to school, get retraining if needed so that she can make up for the years that she may have stayed home looking after children - we don't know what the scenario is.

My ex and I had a business - while it started up, I was the one working full time earning a good wage. When we had children, I was the one who took time out of work, returned to work, cutting back hours - becoming a 'temp' at my place of employment which has had an effect on future private pensions etc. If the OP's situation is anywhere near similar - go for what you are owed for your children - you have the right.

If there was no 'purchase' of the business from the girlfriend, ie if it was just signed over to her, I'm quite certain that a Judge (as long as not an nrp involuntarily paying child support) would see it just for what it was, and order an assessment based on real figures.

Marisco

That's the problem with the boards. Unless someone puts the whole story up first, then it's obvious people are going to go on "face value". We see it time and again over other boards, then the story comes out in bits, and puts a whole new slant on things!! Moral of the story, put ALL the facts in first;)

SarahT1980

What other facts do you need? apart from that he is heavily into drinking gambling and prostitutes I didnt feel that was relevant.

My question is why is he allowed to get away with declaring his income at £15k when other building site foremen earns 50? His lifestyle is not consistent and he never had any of these trappings before his emplyer died apart from the vices.

His girlfriend cant take him for everything because he deals with the clients and decides who works on his building sites, from gophers to the guy up in the crane. They are fiercely loyal to jonny, its the Irish way and he would just reform a new company with a barmaid.

If you can tell me what other information you need, I am more than happy to provide it.

His attitude to the CSA is you got your DEO behind my back so live with it.

How do I get a judge involved? I want to argue that he disinherited himself of the company to avoid paying child maintenance. Can anyone tell me how to do this?

jetta_wales

Do you still get the £68 per week? (nearly £300 a month) Do you really think you NEED more than that?

HappyMJ

SarahT1980 wrote: »

How do I get a judge involved? I want to argue that he disinherited himself of the company to avoid paying child maintenance. Can anyone tell me how to do this?

It's been said already. see bdt1's response to you earlier. Appeal then apply to tribunal.

We are just letting you know anyone can choose to sell assets for less than their book value and self employed NRP's are the hardest to prove any case against. If he chose to sell his company for £1 then it's not depriving income but depriving capital over which no CSA assesment would have been made anyway.