Lush said:
It works the other way too. If a husband runs off with a younger model and there are no kids the wife isn't entitled to more than half because he did it DELIBERATELY
My point exactly.
Lush said:
It works the other way too. If a husband runs off with a younger model and there are no kids the wife isn't entitled to more than half because he did it DELIBERATELY
Tony Meolas Loan Spell said:No I said she is £300 a month better off than me because she is doing minimal hrs and her benefits stack up added to my CSA payments.
Plus she got the house and everything. AND SHE HAD THE AFFAIR. Dont forget that.
If you net it down its more like £300 a month for each child.
British Bulldog said:Maintenance is something that should be paid by every father and I dont have a problem with that, but the way the CSA were going about it when I was assessed was unfair. Even the ex could'nt believe how much they were taking off me.
Lush said:Ok so she did a BAD thing. And it hurts that she's got more money than you going into her bank account at the end of each month, but you were EQUAL partners AND she's looking now after herself AND the kids. It's good that she's at least got a job so she can contribute something herself to bringing them up.
It works the other way too. If a husband runs off with a younger model and there are no kids the wife isn't entitled to more than half because he did it DELIBERATELY
Lush said:But basically a person could have slept with the entire Brighton first team and it would not affect what they were entitled to in court.
Lush said:Besides, what would you prefer TMLS? That she works every hour god sends and doesn't claim Tax Credits and the kids are left at after school clubs and child minders because she can't be there for them? I know it hurts and doesn't seem FAIR but you have to think what's best for the kids upbringing. That's how the court sees it anyway.
Tony Meolas Loan Spell said:Basically it should be up to me to pay what I want and what I can afford bearing in mind her actions.
Yorkie said:Can't you appeal and have it re-assessed? The CSA weren't running when I went to the family court in 91 so I'm not sure how they run things.
British Bulldog said:The upshot was they left me paying well over a third of my wages to the CSA.
Tony Meolas Loan Spell said:Yes because she should have THOUGHT about that BEFORE she had the affair. Especially with some tosser who didnt have a pot to piss in.
You reap what you sow.
Besides the kids have two sets of doting grandparents. One set retired. No way would after school clubs and child minders be on the cards!
I know thats how the courts see it mate.
But now she has a new bloke and getting married to him (he therefore becomes their step father) and I still have to pay the same amount, yet he is making a commitment to her and my kids!!!
And at the same time I have to live as well. Or shall I just live at my parents until such time as they die and leave me the house?
Im just about covering the mortgage as it is.
Bozza said:What's the benchmark here? Over a third of my monthly take-home money goes to my wife and daughter.
British Bulldog said:The benchmark was that it left me no money to take the kids out ( when she let me see them that is ) and very little money to live on, And I thought the CSA stood for child support agency not ex wife support agency!
Tony Meolas Loan Spell said:Im only paying for the kids at the moment thankfully.
As far as working goes when we split the kids were 3 and 2. She had been working full time up until the birth of the first. She had a good job in a building society on the career ladder. So its not one of these cases where hadnt been working for 10 or 12 years or whatever.
The whole syatem stinks they dont think about what the impact is on the INNOCENT party.
They dont take the FACTS into account. Its too black and white.