Is this Right?

MXW

djdido2 wrote: »

MXW

What a nightmare for him to take you to court even though he has nothing to do with your children. He sounds just as spineless and spiteful as my ex. He does not want to see his son at all and has had no contact with him since October last year and then when he did it was an hour or two here and there when he could fit him in around his job and his frequent trips to the pub or to play golf.

I was making it my mission to chase up daddy for the sake of my son who asks for him on a daily basis. It is only when a friend pointed out to me that I was using up precious time trying to FORCE him to see his child and that is when I decided to stop.

Like you I am working really hard and have missed payments on my mortgage as I have not earned enough this month to cover the payment. I would walk to the end of the earth for my kids and will jump straight to defence when you get these idiots saying that the money they HAVE to give is being spent on the mother instead of the children. GRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!

All I can say to you as we will have what the ex's will never have............that is the love and respect of our children, I would not change that for holidays, clothes, social life etc etc....which my ex has clearly choosen over contact with his children. Like you I have tried my best to keep contact with the children and their dad going, but it is a complete waste of time, so I have given up. My children no longer wish to see their dad, they know I would never stand in their way if that's what they wanted (despite everything he has and is still doing.) My ex's parting shot to me when he left was "you will never be able to pay the mortgage, you will have to sell the house, I will see you and the kid's on the streets." That was the best thing he could ever have said to me, because it has made me all the more determined to make sure that it will never happen!

djdido2

What a complete tos***. Sounds like you are well rid of him. My son has just turned four. He asks every single day can he speak to or see his daddy. The poor excuse for a father will not answer his telephone and has gone round telling anyone who will listen that I have stopped him seeing his son. What a joke. There is no way on this earth I would stop him from having access to his own child and in some ways it would give me a little break here and there. He knows where I live and has hardly tried to break the door down to get to see him. If it was him with my son I could safely say I would kill him to get to see my own child.

You sound like you are doing an excellent job MXW, keep it up!!!

Dido
x

MXW

djdido2 wrote: »

What a complete tos***. Sounds like you are well rid of him. My son has just turned four. He asks every single day can he speak to or see his daddy. The poor excuse for a father will not answer his telephone and has gone round telling anyone who will listen that I have stopped him seeing his son. What a joke. There is no way on this earth I would stop him from having access to his own child and in some ways it would give me a little break here and there. He knows where I live and has hardly tried to break the door down to get to see him. If it was him with my son I could safely say I would kill him to get to see my own child.

You sound like you are doing an excellent job MXW, keep it up!!!

Dido
x

Thanks, same to you. x:beer:

master99

repsolblade wrote: »

4 years ago I split from my ex wife, we weren't that well off I earned around £230 per week and she worked part time and eaned about £120.
Since we split I am now self employed and earn after tax around £400-£500 per week.
We have two children aged 11 and 6 and I pay £200 per month for them.
I have my kids twice a week and that has been really hard to secure as she has used them consistently to get at me, but that's another story and too long to tell here.
My question is this.
Do any of you think that now I'm earning better money that I should pay my ex-wife 20% of those earnings as she thinks she deserves, I now live with my partner who has a 9 year old and she works full time, and recives £140 per month from her ex.
I treat my children when they are with me and want that to continue, however, if the CSA take more money from me then I cannot do that, and as I was not earning this kind of money before, why should my ex wife be entitled to it, as it is she already uses that money to pay monthly for an expensive car that she's bought, it is clear that the money I pay already is more than enough to cover their costs etc.
Please give me your thoughts

:cool: sorry to hear whats going on but thatsb csa and you will have people on here jumping on your back i think the £200 your paying is more then enough. simply bcos your x wife also should be paying for them. some how most women on here feel they should be paid to look after there kids. they should do it out of love not to make trouble and take as much money as possible. my advice is lie lie lie to the csa to get what you want not what they want. bcos they end up making you homeless and all what will be said pay for your kids.

remeber you paying over £200 a month you getting ripped off simply bcos money should come out of her pocket as well. unless shes usoing your money to pay for cars fags drinks. her home and car is her responsbilty not for you to pay for. also you have your kids as well so somthing is wrong there dont beleive csa staff weather they say they on here helping you its bull they just want as much money as possible. i say write to them there heads office, ring up find out the person whos the head then just write to them. it works i have done it.

missylou_2

master99 wrote: »

:cool: sorry to hear whats going on but thatsb csa and you will have people on here jumping on your back i think the £200 your paying is more then enough. simply bcos your x wife also should be paying for them. some how most women on here feel they should be paid to look after there kids. they should do it out of love not to make trouble and take as much money as possible. my advice is lie lie lie to the csa to get what you want not what they want. bcos they end up making you homeless and all what will be said pay for your kids.

remeber you paying over £200 a month you getting ripped off simply bcos money should come out of her pocket as well. unless shes usoing your money to pay for cars fags drinks. her home and car is her responsbilty not for you to pay for. also you have your kids as well so somthing is wrong there dont beleive csa staff weather they say they on here helping you its bull they just want as much money as possible. i say write to them there heads office, ring up find out the person whos the head then just write to them. it works i have done it.

Did you have to fund the translator for your communications with them, or did we the tax-payers sub sidise that?

MXW

missylou wrote: »

Did you have to fund the translator for your communications with them, or did we the tax-payers sub sidise that?

:rotfl: :rotfl:

repsolblade

aussiesbird wrote: »

For what its worth repsolblade, I'm with you!
My partners ex is money motivated and and will do whatever she can to get more. The kids are well looked after at the moment but the CSA are asking for an extra 57% increase on what we already pay even though it has been based on non-guaranteed earnings (O/T & unsocial hours) This means we can no longer afford to take the kids places and do things with them when they visit like we used to, which has resulted in the eldest child being bored and would rather stay at home to see his mates (understandably). If the kids were not well looked after through lack of money then yes I would agree that the my partner should pay the extra as their health and welfare are more important than trips out. But, they walk around in the up to date designer clothing and footie strips and eat out at takeaways nearly every night! Why can't we be given a bit of slack so that we can continue to provide some kind of quality entertainment when they visit us? But the law states stipulates these rules so we have no option. The law needs to be changed to take these sort of circumstances into account.

Thanks for the replies, Im not going to go on much but I will add that me ex is Money orientated and is hell bent on ruining any future that I may strive for.
I will always look after my kids but I will NOT give her any extra because it will NEVER go near the children.

Whatever happened to this...
The Human Rights Act 1998 states that everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and its contents.

Yet the CSA send bailiffs round taking money and property.. hmmm
NRP's and PWC's should both be finacially assesed.

kelloggs36

How can you financially assess the PWC as the PWC already contributes towards the children. What you are effectively saying is that for all PWCs who are financially well off should not get anything from their ex in respect of maintenance as they can do it all themselves. This isn't right. It doesn't actually matter what the PWC has in their household - as both parents are responsible, both parents should pay. Money is taken from one household and given to another which sticks in the throats of most NRPs who find that maintaining a child is expensive and then think that their money is being wasted by the other parent.

The reason bailiffs are sent round is because of non-payment of maintenance and does not breach the convention of human rights which has been grossly misunderstood by many people. How about the child's right to be maintained by both parents, one of whom refuses? The law is as it is and whether you agree with what you have to pay is irrelevant. What needs to be established is whether the assessment that has been carried out is correct in law - if it not then by all means take all necessary steps to get it rectified. If it is, then there is no other option. It doesn't matter what the motivation for the money is as the law states when an assessment has been done it is legally enforceable - the PWC has a RIGHT to ask for maintenance at the correct rate based on the NRP's circumstances and if the PWC

repsolblade

kelloggs36 wrote: »

How can you financially assess the PWC as the PWC already contributes towards the children. What you are effectively saying is that for all PWCs who are financially well off should not get anything from their ex in respect of maintenance as they can do it all themselves. This isn't right. It doesn't actually matter what the PWC has in their household - as both parents are responsible, both parents should pay. Money is taken from one household and given to another which sticks in the throats of most NRPs who find that maintaining a child is expensive and then think that their money is being wasted by the other parent.

The reason bailiffs are sent round is because of non-payment of maintenance and does not breach the convention of human rights which has been grossly misunderstood by many people. How about the child's right to be maintained by both parents, one of whom refuses? The law is as it is and whether you agree with what you have to pay is irrelevant. What needs to be established is whether the assessment that has been carried out is correct in law - if it not then by all means take all necessary steps to get it rectified. If it is, then there is no other option. It doesn't matter what the motivation for the money is as the law states when an assessment has been done it is legally enforceable - the PWC has a RIGHT to ask for maintenance at the correct rate based on the NRP's circumstances and if the PWC

The system is not fair.
You tell me WHY I should give my ex £500 instead of the Current £200, what has changed in her life to necessitate such an increase of £300?
Explain?
have my kids grown extra heads or become Elephants overnight?
You tell me that is fair.
That is my money that I work hard for and as for one poster that said earlier I should "pay for my ex and kids to have a better life"
Get a life! Why should I fund my ex's life. It's my kids I pay for not her!
And that's my point.
What's so hard about that?

repsolblade

djdido2 wrote: »

You are there dad so where were you when the mother was treating them so badly. If she ran off to the U.S with her head in the clouds you should have been there as a father to take your kids in. If you had to show them how to feed and clothe themselves as teenagers then you probably have not been a particularly good dad either have you?

You need to get back on the ciggies and lay off the Hard Stuff!
Most men DON'T have a bloody choice when it comes to their kids upbringings, once they've left the "home" and as far as custody!
Have you ever applied to the courts for such things?
If you haven't may I politely point out that it can be the most laborious tedious and downright pointless task ever, because unless, and here's the thing. Unless you can PROVE without any doubt that the childrens' lives are at risk etc etc then you don't stand a chance because the court nearly Always favours the mothers!
And in that particular case I'm sure as in many there would sufficient alibi's to cover up holes!