Can a father sue child for return of maintenance money?

Leakrgn

Apologies, I clearly got it wrong. He earns well above £100,000 a year so top 2% was incorrect?

I maybe should have stated that my sister was in a position where she did not need the money from him and fully expected it to stop. My father was the one who continued to pay. Maybe my mother and I were to blame, as we suggested she should keep it after everything she had been put through during the divorce/custody battle.

Essentially the reason why we cut him out of our lives was because serious allegations of abuse came to light from a family member but eventually were not taken forward through intimidation tactics on his behalf. So whatever your opinion on the money side of things (which I appreciate) unfortunately my respect is something that he will never have. I find him to be quite an abhorrent individual.

Ultimately, he has lived with and supported his wife's children for 10 years which I believe to have come to a considerable amount more than the £350 a month that we received.

Aside from that, he does not finance my life. I do.

Treevo

tyllwyd wrote: »

So under the terms of the court order your father should have been paying maintenance to your mother but instead he has been paying the equivalent amount to your sister? I'm not a lawyer, but if it went to court, I think she could argue that it wasn't maintenance, it was a gift from him to her and he would have trouble proving otherwise.

No he wouldn't. Not if the maintenance for both went to them when they turned 18 and ended when they finished education.

The OP's sister effectively stole from her father.

janninew

I think as soon as your sister decided not to continue with her education and not to have contact with your Father that any money sent to her should have been returned. Why keep his money, surely she knew when she was spending it that she shouldn't be receiving it. Sounds like there is a lot of bitterness here, what he spends his money on is his business alone, your sister is over 18, not in education and therefore shouldn't be supported by her father, her needing the money more than him is totally irrelevant.

Leakrgn

Treevo wrote: »

No he wouldn't. Not if the maintenance for both went to them when they turned 18 and ended when they finished education.

The OP's sister effectively stole from her father.

She did not lie to him, he knew she was not going back to university. She did not expect the money to keep coming, but it did. She does not live an extravagant lifestyle, she merely did what I did while at uni and put it towards rent. No holidays, no cars. Just life.

Leakrgn

janninew wrote: »

I think as soon as your sister decided not to continue with her education and not to have contact with your Father that any money sent to her should have been returned. Why keep his money, surely she knew when she was spending it that she shouldn't be receiving it. Sounds like there is a lot of bitterness here, what he spends his money on is his business alone, your sister is over 18, not in education and therefore shouldn't be supported by her father, her needing the money more than him is totally irrelevant.

I would just like to try to point out again that the two decisions were not made at the same time. She decided not to go back to university months before she decided to cut contact with him. He was around for the decision and continued to pay. Believe me she would rather he had just stopped the payments and left it at that than be in a situation now where he is trying to hold it over her head just because she won't respond to his text messages.

Pixiechic

Leakrgn wrote: »

She did not lie to him, he knew she was not going back to university. She did not expect the money to keep coming, but it did. She does not live an extravagant lifestyle, she merely did what I did while at uni and put it towards rent. No holidays, no cars. Just life.

That wasn't what the money was for though, not part of the agreement.

She shouldn't really have accepted the money and sent it back. Especially as she considers herself to have nothing to do with him.

Treevo

Leakrgn wrote: »

Apologies, I clearly got it wrong. He earns well above £100,000 a year so top 2% was incorrect?

Why should this make a difference? He earns the money and your sister stole it.

Leakrgn wrote: »

I maybe should have stated that my sister was in a position where she did not need the money from him and fully expected it to stop. My father was the one who continued to pay. Maybe my mother and I were to blame, as we suggested she should keep it after everything she had been put through during the divorce/custody battle.

So why did you say she needed the money in your first post? It doesn't make it OK that your sister stole from your father because you and your mother decided she should. It makes you as bad as her.

Leakrgn wrote: »

During this time her living costs increased and her job hours were cut so she started to struggle financially. She approached our father (I witnessed the conversation) and asked if he could restart her maintenance even though she wasn't at uni because she needed the money to live. He agreed and started to pay her the maintenance again.

Leakrgn wrote: »

Essentially the reason why we cut him out of our lives was because serious allegations of abuse came to light from a family member but eventually were not taken forward through intimidation tactics on his behalf. So whatever your opinion on the money side of things (which I appreciate) unfortunately my respect is something that he will never have. I find him to be quite an abhorrent individual.

Many allegations are false. And there are a hell of a lot of people who grow up to realise that the parent they didn't live with, isn't the monster they've been told he or she is.

Leakrgn wrote: »

Ultimately, he has lived with and supported his wife's children for 10 years which I believe to have come to a considerable amount more than the £350 a month that we received.

If you only received £350 each month then he clearly doesn't earn 'well over £100,000 which, even at that level would give the two of your maintenance of around £1600 each month.

And maybe his step-children didn't steal from him.

Leakrgn wrote: »

Aside from that, he does not finance my life. I do.

Then you should have helped your sister and not encouraged her to steal from your father.

fiscalfreckles

She should have contacted him & told him to stop sending it if she wanted nothing more to do with him.

Especially if she did not need it as you say above!

pigpen

You got £350 each????? I have 6 children whose dad doesn't pay a bean towards them and even if he did it wouldn't be that much for all of them combined! You should all be very grateful.. He can't be all bad if he forked out that much for you all over the last goodness knows how many years! I've not had a penny from my dad since I was 15... not that I want it.

He sounds very generous. legally he didn't have to support any of you once you finished A-levels so to continue through university is more than you would have been awarded by the courts!

Your sister however, regardless of the conversation where she told him she wasn't going to uni but needed the money took money knowing she no longer needed his help. She is very wrong and as a parent that is stealing, taking money under false pretences so I too would be very cross. She should have contacted him IMMEDIATELY and said thank you for helping me over the last couple of years I really appreciate it but I am happy to say I can manage my own finances now so no longer need your financial support. It has meant a great deal to have that support... but she didn't.. so the chances are he won't bother suing to get it back but wants her to realise she has greatly annoyed him..

If I was her, I'd ring him and make huge apologies and try to sort it out.

To me it looks like she got what she wants from him and now no longer needs his money so she has dumped him.. how lovely of her!

It wouldn't be viewed as 'child' maintenance either but a financial agreement between 2 adults because believe it or not, that is what she is!

Leakrgn

Pixiechic wrote: »

That wasn't what the money was for though, not part of the agreement.

She shouldn't really have accepted the money and sent it back. Especially as she considers herself to have nothing to do with him.

We were never told what the money had to be spent on. I could have gone to uni, been an idiot and spent all the money on holidays and parties if I had wanted to? As it is we have both spent the money on exactly the same thing! Rent!