CSA and Pensions

sured wrote:

so does that mean the absent parent should end up with a nice fat pension, whilst the parent with care has to struggle with less money. .

But doesn't the parent with care normally end up with the house (assuming there is one)?

Rebekka wrote:

:rotfl: :rotfl: you mean as well as the children:rolleyes:

I'm not saying the other parent shouldn't pay for the kids - of course they should. But the point being made was that money paid into a pension should not be classed as income and then someone said that if it wasn't then the 'absent' parent would end up with a pension. I was just pointing out that the other parent usually got the house. So things end up pretty even.

I know a man who got divorced because his wife had three affairs (and then had the cheek to divorce him for 'unreasonable behaviour') - he willingly paid the CSA maintenance for the children, she had the house and the maintenance and he could not afford to buy anywhere himself, then she asked him to pay for repairs on the house, which he did.....he ended up living on the breadline although he had a good salary.

And then he's begrudged a pension?

Rebekka wrote:

.... nothing stopping them starting again with a new family ...

Surely this applies to both ex-partners?

I am sure that posters will relate tragic stories from both sides ,but what saddens me is that you only get one chance at being a child and I am sure that it is possible to make every effort to make sure the children are secure safe warm and happy,by being fair reasonable and honest .But I am afraid parents get entangled in their own selfish emotions and forget ,whilst one partner is more concerned about his/her own welfare the children and ex partner suffer.

The point that I am trying to make is ,forget the bitterness,all the horrible things he/she has done ,just try for the sake of the kids to get on .Never ever bring up past arguments and rake up past history ,it is a sure way to start a new argument.

Just devote yourself to the kids and it might be hard and it might take time,but the rewards will come ,nothing is more important than them and then you can be proud ,when they grow up and realise that Mum and Dad are not together but they tried for our sake,and if one didn't and chose to start another life he/she is the ultimate loser,it might take time ,but the wheel goes round,and what goes round ,comes round.

kelloggs36 wrote:

Wouldn't that be nice? However, some are so pig headed that they can't (or rather won't) see it that way. I would dearly love my daughter to have a relationship with her father, but he has made it clear he aint interested. However, I believe he has a moral duty to maintain her in whatever way he can, but he refuses. He is the one who makes it difficult in my case! In other cases I have come across many women who refuse access as revenge and those who won't pay maintenance because of disputes over access. clearly in cases where the children are in danger there is a case, but in most cases this is not what is happening and I just wish that people could swallow their pride and put the children first.

He has a duty to maintain your daughter,I agree,if he does not wish to cherish her and develop love and understanding that is his loss ,he will be the big loser ,when he is old and she walks away from him when he needs her ,then regrets will come ,but it will be all to late.So pity him ,she will be strong because of your love and understanding.