Lottery winnings

Csa_Survivor

Good for you DUTR, I love a happy ending, forgive me if I am perhaps too cynical, but I am guessing the term "My child" almost magically became "Our child" overnight also!

Csa_Survivor

duchy wrote: »

As a PWC I got money from my ex to support my child. Needed money ! The OP appears to be able to save it all for her daughter's future -lucky lady ! I certainly couldn't have afforded to do that.

OP if as a teenager you are finding your daughter more expensive to keep can I suggest (in the nicest possible way) that you use her child support for it's purpose which is to support your child now whilst she is a child rather than try and build her a nest egg for later (or do a bit of both).

As for her Dad if trips to the F1 are more important than trying to repair his relationship with his daughter....well there's not much you can do about that except be a good Mum and give her all the love and security she needs.

Hi duchy,
The thing is, something does not ring true with the post to me, click on michaela888203's name, then onto the "find more posts by" and you will see exactly what I mean!, particularly the posts dated 16 17 and 18 Sept of THIS YEAR, you will not believe it, seriously.
Anyone who seriously believes that the money is to be saved for the childs future must be living in Cloud Cuckoo land! Having said that I am only giving my opinion, michaela888203 may be genuine in her intentions?, but for anyone in her position would any of you do the same, just take a look.

DUTR

Csa_Survivor wrote: »

Hi duchy,
The thing is, something does not ring true with the post to me, click on michaela888203's name, then onto the "find more posts by" and you will see exactly what I mean!, particularly the posts dated 16 17 and 18 Sept of THIS YEAR, you will not believe it, seriously.
Anyone who seriously believes that the money is to be saved for the childs future must be living in Cloud Cuckoo land! Having said that I am only giving my opinion, michaela888203 may be genuine in her intentions?, but for anyone in her position would any of you do the same, just take a look.

I did have a look the other day and agree with you, of course the OP is right to ask the question as many think about but too scared to ask, it matters not which side of the fence one is sitting.

If the OP's ex had say £50k saved and then came into another £18k then they would be over the threshold of £65k assets and the extra may qualify towards CS, however if the OP had come into the money would they be as eager to inform the ex?

DUTR

Csa_Survivor wrote: »

Good for you DUTR, I love a happy ending, forgive me if I am perhaps too cynical, but I am guessing the term "My child" almost magically became "Our child" overnight also!

It's like you were there yep, all of a sudden she is my daughter when the £££s are required (not that I cave in to the bullying) .

Emmanuel1998

Philtimo wrote: »

What has it got to do with you?

Good luck to him and his new wife.

If you won the lottery would you tell him you no longer needed any maintenance?

NO! Because you don't like the fact he has moved on.
Something you should do.

Yes, she probably would to be rid of the CSA, sorry but grow up and post adult comments as opposed to stupidity, anyone who can be avoiding the CSA would if they could :mad:

clearingout

DUTR wrote: »

Indeed, it takes 2 people to repair, and if the daughter is not interested then sadly it is her loss.



You are correct (IMO) my situation is sort of similar to the OP's ex, earlier in the year, the Mum had got in touch , all nice as pie, then occasionally there was the tap of "would you like to contribute to" this or that?
I contribute every week which I reminded her of, and had to add I would rather give the money to charity as at least I would get a thanks for it.
My contribution went to getting and stabling a horse (essential eh?) the final straw from 'them' was an overpriced trip to Florida, I've just completed part of my retail therapy collecting another brand new car with lots of options, but hey, nobody is going cold or hungry and at least I'm not being treated like a loser.

why on earth should a parent have to be grateful for another parent supporting their joint child? should my ex ever get round to supporting our children (flying pig, anyone?), there is no way on earth he will get my thanks for doing what any decent parent would have done without the need of the CSA, the courts or any conscientious, decent new partner.

DUTR

clearingout wrote: »

why on earth should a parent have to be grateful for another parent supporting their joint child? should my ex ever get round to supporting our children (flying pig, anyone?), there is no way on earth he will get my thanks for doing what any decent parent would have done without the need of the CSA, the courts or any conscientious, decent new partner.

Perhaps you may have missed the content of my posts, I do contrbute already, I have no qualms in that, I do personally object to being treated like a walking wallet, so what I meant is that I wouldn't be contributing any EXTRA. I'm on the logic why do something for nothing, when I can do nothing for nothing. It's a win win for all concerned in my episode.

mania112

michaela888203 wrote: »

Yes he does pay CSA money, to which every month I put in a bank account for my daughter when she gets older, and believe me if I could of afforded it, I wouldnt of taken him to the csa in the first place, as I dont want anything from him.

So do you or don't you need the money? If you're putting it away I would say you don't need it.

You then go on to say you don't want anything from him... yet you're receiving the CSA money and you're asking about a recent windfall of his.

To answer your original question, no it's not considered for CSA. This is easier to understand if he is Self-Employed as Gambling winnings are non-taxable (and CSA payments are calculated by way of self-assessment tax return for the SE).

FBaby

So do you or don't you need the money? If you're putting it away I would say you don't need it.

Just to comment on the fact that she is putting money aside for the child....does this mean that it is ok not to get the child's father to contribute fairly? I manage to support my children alone AND put some money aside for them. Does this mean that it is ok that their father can't be bothered to contribute even a penny towards them? If he did, it could be seen in both ways. He contributes towards their every day living, so i can put more of what I contribute in the saving pot. Or it could be seen that he puts it straight there because I can support their every day expenses alone. In the end, it is exactly the same thing.

The issue is therefore about what is FAIR. Is it fair that she should consider that he should share some of his wins towards his daughter, or not? OP wants to know what is considered fair legally (just as is the 15% per child that is legal considered fair although many would disagree). Morally, it is totally out of her hands as she's been told.

DUTR

FBaby wrote: »

Just to comment on the fact that she is putting money aside for the child....does this mean that it is ok not to get the child's father to contribute fairly? I manage to support my children alone AND put some money aside for them. Does this mean that it is ok that their father can't be bothered to contribute even a penny towards them? If he did, it could be seen in both ways. He contributes towards their every day living, so i can put more of what I contribute in the saving pot. Or it could be seen that he puts it straight there because I can support their every day expenses alone. In the end, it is exactly the same thing.

The issue is therefore about what is FAIR. Is it fair that she should consider that he should share some of his wins towards his daughter, or not? OP wants to know what is considered fair legally (just as is the 15% per child that is legal considered fair although many would disagree). Morally, it is totally out of her hands as she's been told.

Fair has to work both ways though doesn't it?

If the PWC won a windfall (substantial amount) this wouldn't mean that the NRP is no longer required to contribute even if the NRP was unemployed. I'm sure also for some there is no way the PWC would be sharing the good fortune with a previous partner (not all just many) .

I'm pretty sure if my offspring or her Mum came into some good fortune I would be the last person on their minds and wouldn't expect them to report it to me.

Likewise if I came into some good fortune, I wouldn't report to many or any (after all, it's none of their business (to a point)).

In the case of the OP her previous partner is already meeting his obligations.