council house being re-posessed any advice?

izzybusy23

barnaby-bear wrote: »

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.

This is a fair enough comment BUT how can we tell that money goes towards the child, huh??? The ex was on benefits, scrounging off the tax payer. She already had one daughter and kicked the guy out and did the same to my husband.

As usual, people take the moral high ground on this forum without knowing any of the facts. I said do not always blame the men for them not seeing their children as women are nasty creatures and will do anything in their power to make men pay... Lets be honest, when couples split up the woman goes all out for what she can get.. now is that for the children's benefit or for revenge reasons? I'll let you be the judge of that one.

And re-reading your post, why isn't it still being 'grapsed' that his ex kicked HIM out after 3 months into her pregnancy and not that he walked out on her. Again, the man is getting all the blame, which is evident on reply threads.

Subject closed.. I've lost any interest now in the subject, especially from certain other members who think they have the right to judge ME when they haven't got a clue. :mad:

blue_monkey_2

izzybusy I believe you. I want to tell you about an old friend of mine. I was pregnant (I had been married for a number of years at that time) and she had, a number of years before, had to have a late pregnancy terminated which she never really ever got over. When I had a daughter it devastated her I think. She joined a dating website and invited some 'bloke' down for the weekend. She told me 6 weeks later that she was pregnant but that 'it was OK as she knew where the bloke lived and that he had a good secure job and the CSA would get the money for her'. I have to admit that I was a little (OK, a lot) disgusted by this and did not really see her a great deal after this. She had twins, and they were both boys so she did not get the girls she so wished for. She gets her money - gloating about how much she was going to get from him, she sends cards to the father at Xmas with pictures inside - she does this maliciously, there is no goodwill intended I promise and she laughs about doing so.

Sadly, there are women in this world like this, she lives on benefits, goes out each weekend and leaves the kids with her mother (or whoever will have them) while picking up a string of men. Each time I have seen her (OK, I admit, it is not many because I do not agree with what she did in the past, DH refuses to have anything to do with her) she has been with someone different, parading them in front of the children including a teenage son which I do not think is setting a very good example of how to behave.

I agree though that it does work both ways and the bloke was extremely stupid as he should of worn a condom, she knew her intentions (and I gather he was married or involved as well). So guys, remember, put something on it as you could be the one in the very same situation. Not all of us are like this, but there are some very malicious ladies out there and once they have hold of you, they will have hold of your wallets for a very long time and they can feel free to have as many kids as they want as they can be sure they are going to get 'paid for it'.

izzybusy23

blue_monkey wrote: »

izzybusy I believe you. I want to tell you about an old friend of mine. I was pregnant (I had been married for a number of years at that time) and she had, a number of years before, had to have a late pregnancy terminated which she never really ever got over. When I had a daughter it devastated her I think. She joined a dating website and invited some 'bloke' down for the weekend. She told me 6 weeks later that she was pregnant but that 'it was OK as she knew where the bloke lived and that he had a good secure job and the CSA would get the money for her'. I have to admit that I was a little (OK, a lot) disgusted by this and did not really see her a great deal after this. She had twins, and they were both boys so she did not get the girls she so wished for. She gets her money - gloating about how much she was going to get from him, she sends cards to the father at Xmas with pictures inside - she does this maliciously, there is no goodwill intended I promise and she laughs about doing so.

Sadly, there are women in this world like this, she lives on benefits, goes out each weekend and leaves the kids with her mother (or whoever will have them) while picking up a string of men. Each time I have seen her (OK, I admit, it is not many because I do not agree with what she did in the past, DH refuses to have anything to do with her) she has been with someone different, parading them in front of the children including a teenage son which I do not think is setting a very good example of how to behave.

I agree though that it does work both ways and the bloke was extremely stupid as he should of worn a condom, she knew her intentions (and I gather he was married or involved as well). So guys, remember, put something on it as you could be the one in the very same situation. Not all of us are like this, but there are some very malicious ladies out there and once they have hold of you, they will have hold of your wallets for a very long time and they can feel free to have as many kids as they want as they can be sure they are going to get 'paid for it'.

Thank you so much for that. That was what I was trying to say. My husband had a good job at the time working for Airbus and she knew that he earnt fairly good money for his age at the time.

Sadly yes, he should had worn a condom. I often ask him about his past and he clams up.. I bring up the point about someday our own daughter will find out that he has another daughter out there somewhere and should we not look into getting some sort of contact as it would be nice for them to know about one another, but he clams up so something happened that he is not willing to discuss with me just yet.

I just get pretty defensive when people jump on the men all the time because, ok, there are some barstewards out there who do the dirty on their wives by having affairs and then leave the wife and kids (like my poor work colleague is currently going through).. but women can be just as bad, if not worse as they are calculating as your friend has shown us.

Oh edited to say, you have just reminded me of something that you said your friend done which is similar to what happened to my husband. When our daughter was 6 weeks old we visted the inlaws for the first time with her. The very first night we were there, there was a knock at the door. Husband went to the door where he found an envelope pushed through with photo's of his ex's daughter inside. Not too sure what she was trying to achieve by doing that, but it upset him quite a bit that she done that the night we took our baby daughter to his parents house.

barnaby-bear

izzybusy23 wrote: »

This is a fair enough comment BUT how can we tell that money goes towards the child, huh??? The ex was on benefits, scrounging off the tax payer. She already had one daughter and kicked the guy out and did the same to my husband.

You don't - but if the kid ever asks or questions it he can show he did his best and contributed to her upbringing and did what he could. Whether it does benefit her is down to the mum but he did right by her.

neverdespairgirl

izzybusy23 wrote: »

First thing he knew about its existence was when the CSA slammed him with maintenance. ... I mean, where is the damn justice in that???

.

Where is the justice in referring to some poor child as "it"? That's a disgraceful way of de-humanising the child. There may be fault in the child's parents, but not the child.

neverdespairgirl

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??

It's a problem for me, certainly. It is offensive to describe the true innocent in this situation in such a manner.

Why doesn't / didn't your husband go to court for a contact order?

macaque_2

emmafifema wrote: »

Hi there,

I have a friend who has a council house and has got into rent arrears due to the CSA taking most of her hubbys wages for past 6 months. The council have now gone to court to claim posession of the house and get her and her family evicted.

This is the third time she has been to court over this, the other two times she made payment scheme arrangements but has not stuck to them due to this |CSA money being taken every month in such large amounts.

She has 4 children all under the age of 11 and does not know what to do. The CAB have said that as she is not a secure tenant there is not much she can do unless she can pay the full amount owed before the date of eviction.

Does anyone know anything about this or can anyone offer any advice reagarding re-housing after council eviction etc???

Thanks

I am left wishing that your friend had opted to breed chickens rather than children. She is not making much of a contribution to the gene pool really is she.

izzybusy23

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

It's a problem for me, certainly. It is offensive to describe the true innocent in this situation in such a manner.

Why doesn't / didn't your husband go to court for a contact order?

Erm, that question wasn't even aimed at you so why reply to it? Just to have a dig???

Everybody wants to jump on my case without knowing the full facts. Funny how you can 'thank' blue monkey for her reply to my question which was slating her friend, but you feel the need to 'knock' me when you don't even know me personally. So judgemental and holier than thou, huh? :rolleyes:

Please save your energy and don't respond as its getting tedious now and gone completely off the OP's topic.

MadSebW

I hardly think it's appropriate to go into all this very personal banter.

Whatever the person's circumstances of several different topics happening here, some people are not present to defend themselves and it's not exactly answering any questions relating to what this forum is here to represent.

neverdespairgirl

izzybusy23 wrote: »

Erm, that question wasn't even aimed at you so why reply to it? Just to have a dig???

Everybody wants to jump on my case without knowing the full facts. Funny how you can 'thank' blue monkey for her reply to my question which was slating her friend, but you feel the need to 'knock' me when you don't even know me personally. So judgemental and holier than thou, huh? :rolleyes:

Please save your energy and don't respond as its getting tedious now and gone completely off the OP's topic.

It's something I feel very strongly about. Referring to a child as "it" means you don't have to confront the fact that the child is the true innocent in this position, not your husband, not his ex.