council house being re-posessed any advice?

MissMoneypenny

izzybusy23 wrote: »

Hey, before ranting at the men, think about how devious women can be!!! My husband was in a relationship with a girl who fell pregnant. She deceided after 3 months she didn't want him around anymore and ended the relationship. She didn't tell him when the baby was born, or what it was. First thing he knew about its existence was when the CSA slammed him with maintenance. Now this ex of his is a right lazy layabout. Has a daughter by another man, sat on her backside on benefits, gets knocked up again and still done nothing but sit in her council house sponging off us tax payers.. and my husband has a life sentence to pay for a child he has NEVER seen or been allowed to be involved in her life because his ex has the upper hand and the law is always on the womans side.. I mean, where is the damn justice in that???

So no, its not always the men. Women can be evil witches you know. Have a few kids and sit on their !!!!!s until the kids are 16 - 19 years of age on benefits without lifting a finger and doing a days work in their whole scummy lives.

Rant over.

Has your husband ever applied to the courts to see his child?

Has your husband ever asked a solicitor to apply to the courts on his behalf, to see his child?

I do find it very disrespectful that you refer to your husband child as an "it". They didn't have any choice about being created, whereas your husband and his girlfriend did (equally) have a choice about whether this child was created.

MissMoneypenny

From post 23
"I forgot to add - I do have direct experience of it. Then why did you comment "from what I have READ..."

Strapped as you put in post 24, the csa has changed. I read the respective board as I follow how the csa has changed. In the first days of the csa in the early 90s, you got a booklet from the post office and things like how much the father paid for his living accommodation and other things came into it more and his children only got a % of the remaining amount. I am of course, only talking about the fathers who didn't want to have the children living with them, or/and were reluctant to pay for them. My experience of the csa was that it was so bad in those days that I hired a barrister to sort out the finances. It was the best 2k I have ever spent.

teeni

From what you have said she is no longer a secure tenant. She is now what is know as a tolerated trespasser see http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2006/06/tolerated-trespassers-the-aftermath/ for information on this. Its complex and will depend on the original order that was given, but as it has been breached her tenancy has ended and all of its rights including right to buy, exchange and right to have repairs completed.[/quote]

This is why if a successful application to suspend the warrant is made a request should also be included to postpone the date of the eviction to reinstate the security of tenure.

As I said if there is a genuine reason why the previous arrangements failed and it can be shown that it is now affordable they should make the application to court. It has to be better than seeking private rented accommmodation at short notice.

izzybusy23

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Has your husband ever applied to the courts to see his child?

Has your husband ever asked a solicitor to apply to the courts on his behalf, to see his child?

I do find it very disrespectful that you refer to your husband child as an "it". They didn't have any choice about being created, whereas your husband and his girlfriend did (equally) have a choice about whether this child was created.

Disrespectful? I think its damn disgraceful that he has to pay for a child he is NOT ALLOWED to see. And yes, its an 'IT' to me... is that a problem for you??

Lets see you fork out £200 a month on a child you have never ever seen for 16-19 years of your life and then lets see how much of a buggear you bear.

Dont patronise me, please.

Edited to say, get off your moral high ground. Unless you know the full facts then please don't say anything that isn't worth substantiating. I guess you got CSA for your kids huh??? That would be the reason you were so negative about my post... hmmm???

lynnexxxo

izzybusy23,

If the child was born after 2003 and your husbands name is on the birth certificate then he has paternal rights. If the child was born before then he can apply for that right. After that he can go to court to gain access to his child.

Nothing would stop me from seeing my children.

MissMoneypenny

izzybusy23 wrote: »

Disrespectful? I think its damn disgraceful that he has to pay for a child he is NOT ALLOWED to see. And yes, its an 'IT' to me... is that a problem for you??

Yes. That is a living being who did not ask to be created and children deserves more respect than being called an "it". Aim you hate at your husbands girlfriend or maybe your husband, who should have worn a condom. Or perhaps your husband should get better taste in women. Perhaps it is better that your husband doesn't apply to the courts to have contact with his child if that is how you (the stepmother) feel about him/her(?) - you never said what the sex of "it" is:rolleyes:

izzybusy23 wrote: »

Lets see you fork out £200 a month on a child you have never ever seen for 16-19 years of your life and then lets see how much of a buggear you bear.

Dont patronise me, please.

£200 a month will not be keeping that child.

And I wasn't patronizing you. There would never be any kindness from me towards anyone who referred to a innocent child as an "it".

izzybusy23 wrote: »

Edited to say, get off your moral high ground. Unless you know the full facts then please don't say anything that isn't worth substantiating. I guess you got CSA for your kids huh??? That would be the reason you were so negative about my post... hmmm???

While you are on the subect of knowing the "full facts" before commenting:D No, I didn't use the CSA against my ex husband. We used the CSA calculations and the third rule of maintenance for a court order and registration and let the judge decide about the house, which had been mine before we married. The judge decided I should have the house.

The CSA is not as good as a Court Order. The courts have more powers against any dead-beat dads. Also, the CSA let the non resident parent off from contributing to their children, if those children go to university. A court order has to be paid until that persons offspring finish full time education, albeit advanced education.

Strapped

lynnexxxo wrote: »

Nothing would stop me from seeing my children.

I don't want to take this thread O/T (not that it hasn't already) but that's what a lot of people think before they have experienced the nightmare that is the family courts system for themselves. Even after you have jumped through every hoop to prove yourself a fit parent and gained a Contact Order, the parent with care is absolutely free to ignore it because the Courts typically won't enforce the order! (Although it is still worth going for it, because even if this happens, and you don't manage to achieve contact, at least your child will know in the future that you wanted to know them and did everything possible). Anyway, that's another whole discussion.

lynnexxxo

Last hijack post from me- promise...

Strapped, Your probably right, I have no personal experience of the family courts, and as the mum if me and my partner split up i would get custody.

barnaby-bear

izzybusy23 wrote: »

Disrespectful? I think its damn disgraceful that he has to pay for a child he is NOT ALLOWED to see. And yes, its an 'IT' to me... is that a problem for you??

Lets see you fork out £200 a month on a child you have never ever seen for 16-19 years of your life and then lets see how much of a buggear you bear.

Dont patronise me, please.

Edited to say, get off your moral high ground. Unless you know the full facts then please don't say anything that isn't worth substantiating. I guess you got CSA for your kids huh??? That would be the reason you were so negative about my post... hmmm???

Even if I couldn't see my child I still want to pay to know that one day if they asked they'd know I cared and because whatever I thought of the mother I'd like to think the money made quality of life better for the child. It's not the child's fault he can't see it nor that he couldn't figure out that this might happen if he had unprotected sex.

izzybusy23

Yes. That is a living being who did not ask to be created and children deserves more respect than being called an "it". Aim you hate at your husbands girlfriend or maybe your husband, who should have worn a condom. Or perhaps your husband should get better taste in women. Perhaps it is better that your husband doesn't apply to the courts to have contact with his child if that is how you (the stepmother) feel about him/her(?) - you never said what the sex of "it" is


You know what, I deleted what I had originally typed because I can't be bothered to waste any more energy discussing this any further ... think what you like of me and the situation, it really makes no odds to me whatsoever and doesn't change the facts.