Divorcing empty nesters...
Discussion
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Your ex sounds horrific but you can't compare your weekend treat day to the day to day stuff she has to do. Yes supermarkets are boring, yes parks are monotonous but that's what 99% of kids do as it's just life. Track sessions in AMG mercs for a ?5 year old? Was it a birthday or a 'look how much more I love you' day?Us dads in these scenarios shouldn't even be thinking about what the other parent does with the children. Just focus on what you do otherwise we can get consumed with bitterness and resentment. Obviously the other danger is there is the risk of treating your days with the kids as a competition and see who can provide the better fun days.
Kids need a balanced lifestyle. Yes, give them fun days out, but they also need days at home chilling out and doing regular stuff.
This isn't aimed at anyone in particular. Just an observation.
Kids need a balanced lifestyle. Yes, give them fun days out, but they also need days at home chilling out and doing regular stuff.
This isn't aimed at anyone in particular. Just an observation.
On Radio 4's Moneybox programme just now, news of a new bill coming up in parliament about child maintainence.
A very well spoken mum called Carol came on, she says her husband is earning "at least £1.5k a week" but being self employed she claims he is declaring much lower and so "she is having to rent with the kids, there is damp, the kids are not getting the life they were accustomed to (mentioned large bedrooms) and have no money to do anything.
"It is simply horrific" apparently.
So now some MP or another is pushing it and government is reviewing it, want to look beyond declared and give powers to CSA to investigate if husband's lifestyle reflects declared, tax bodies involvement and much more...
Surprisingly the piece was focused on 'husband and wife' as opposed to using terms such as main earner.
Good idea for any evil parents who won't support their kids, but only if any new laws are written well as I would imagine every Tonker's ex type crazy woman will be claiming all sorts leading to tax payer funded forensic examinations.
A very well spoken mum called Carol came on, she says her husband is earning "at least £1.5k a week" but being self employed she claims he is declaring much lower and so "she is having to rent with the kids, there is damp, the kids are not getting the life they were accustomed to (mentioned large bedrooms) and have no money to do anything.
"It is simply horrific" apparently.
So now some MP or another is pushing it and government is reviewing it, want to look beyond declared and give powers to CSA to investigate if husband's lifestyle reflects declared, tax bodies involvement and much more...
Surprisingly the piece was focused on 'husband and wife' as opposed to using terms such as main earner.
Good idea for any evil parents who won't support their kids, but only if any new laws are written well as I would imagine every Tonker's ex type crazy woman will be claiming all sorts leading to tax payer funded forensic examinations.
Edited by hyphen on Sunday 18th February 21:27
hyphen said:
On Radio 4 just now, a new bill coming up in parliament about child maintainence.
A very well spoken mum called Carol came on, she says her husband is earning "at least £1.5k a week" but being self employed she claims he is declaring much lower and so "she is having to rent with the kids, there is damp, the kids are not getting the life they were accustomed to (mentioned large bedrooms) and have no money to do anything.
"It is horrific" apparently.
So now some MP or another is pushing it and government is reviewing it, want to look beyond declared and give powers to CSA to investigate if husband's lifestyle reflects declared and so on.
While piece was on husband and wife as opposed to using terms such as main earner.
Good idea for any evil parents who do pay, but only if any new laws are written well as I would imagine every woman will be claiming all sorts.
Not saying it is not true but usually the woman and kids would stay in the home and the guy would move out. If this is the case I would expect the property to be mortgaged and payed for by the guy (clearly small business or a contractor) so would have had enough money for a deposit and mortgage. I would also have thought that with the guy moving out there would be more room in the house. Some women have a hard time understanding that what sales a company make are not entirely profit.A very well spoken mum called Carol came on, she says her husband is earning "at least £1.5k a week" but being self employed she claims he is declaring much lower and so "she is having to rent with the kids, there is damp, the kids are not getting the life they were accustomed to (mentioned large bedrooms) and have no money to do anything.
"It is horrific" apparently.
So now some MP or another is pushing it and government is reviewing it, want to look beyond declared and give powers to CSA to investigate if husband's lifestyle reflects declared and so on.
While piece was on husband and wife as opposed to using terms such as main earner.
Good idea for any evil parents who do pay, but only if any new laws are written well as I would imagine every woman will be claiming all sorts.
hyphen said:
On Radio 4's Moneybox programme just now, news of a new bill coming up in parliament about child maintainence.
A very well spoken mum called Carol came on, she says her husband is earning "at least £1.5k a week" but being self employed she claims he is declaring much lower and so "she is having to rent with the kids, there is damp, the kids are not getting the life they were accustomed to (mentioned large bedrooms) and have no money to do anything.
"It is simply horrific" apparently.
So now some MP or another is pushing it and government is reviewing it, want to look beyond declared and give powers to CSA to investigate if husband's lifestyle reflects declared, tax bodies involvement and much more...
Surprisingly the piece was focused on 'husband and wife' as opposed to using terms such as main earner.
Good idea for any evil parents who won't support their kids, but only if any new laws are written well as I would imagine every Tonker's ex type crazy woman will be claiming all sorts leading to tax payer funded forensic examinations.
The thing is, there are men who look to avoid their obligations to their children. A very well spoken mum called Carol came on, she says her husband is earning "at least £1.5k a week" but being self employed she claims he is declaring much lower and so "she is having to rent with the kids, there is damp, the kids are not getting the life they were accustomed to (mentioned large bedrooms) and have no money to do anything.
"It is simply horrific" apparently.
So now some MP or another is pushing it and government is reviewing it, want to look beyond declared and give powers to CSA to investigate if husband's lifestyle reflects declared, tax bodies involvement and much more...
Surprisingly the piece was focused on 'husband and wife' as opposed to using terms such as main earner.
Good idea for any evil parents who won't support their kids, but only if any new laws are written well as I would imagine every Tonker's ex type crazy woman will be claiming all sorts leading to tax payer funded forensic examinations.
Edited by hyphen on Sunday 18th February 21:27
I well understand that some men, left with no other avenue for their frustration and anger at divorce or seperation, look to take revenge with the only lever remaining. Money.
Women, may use access to the kids, but men use money.
You have to accept the money you give is for your kids, not your ex, but an unintended consequence is your ex has your money.
Whilst I fully agree an inevitable consequence of seperation is less money and a reduced standard of living, if men aren't paying their way then it is inevitable that women will look for redress.
Gargamel said:
hyphen said:
On Radio 4's Moneybox programme just now, news of a new bill coming up in parliament about child maintainence.
A very well spoken mum called Carol came on, she says her husband is earning "at least £1.5k a week" but being self employed she claims he is declaring much lower and so "she is having to rent with the kids, there is damp, the kids are not getting the life they were accustomed to (mentioned large bedrooms) and have no money to do anything.
"It is simply horrific" apparently.
So now some MP or another is pushing it and government is reviewing it, want to look beyond declared and give powers to CSA to investigate if husband's lifestyle reflects declared, tax bodies involvement and much more...
Surprisingly the piece was focused on 'husband and wife' as opposed to using terms such as main earner.
Good idea for any evil parents who won't support their kids, but only if any new laws are written well as I would imagine every Tonker's ex type crazy woman will be claiming all sorts leading to tax payer funded forensic examinations.
The thing is, there are men who look to avoid their obligations to their children. A very well spoken mum called Carol came on, she says her husband is earning "at least £1.5k a week" but being self employed she claims he is declaring much lower and so "she is having to rent with the kids, there is damp, the kids are not getting the life they were accustomed to (mentioned large bedrooms) and have no money to do anything.
"It is simply horrific" apparently.
So now some MP or another is pushing it and government is reviewing it, want to look beyond declared and give powers to CSA to investigate if husband's lifestyle reflects declared, tax bodies involvement and much more...
Surprisingly the piece was focused on 'husband and wife' as opposed to using terms such as main earner.
Good idea for any evil parents who won't support their kids, but only if any new laws are written well as I would imagine every Tonker's ex type crazy woman will be claiming all sorts leading to tax payer funded forensic examinations.
Edited by hyphen on Sunday 18th February 21:27
I well understand that some men, left with no other avenue for their frustration and anger at divorce or seperation, look to take revenge with the only lever remaining. Money.
Women, may use access to the kids, but men use money.
You have to accept the money you give is for your kids, not your ex, but an unintended consequence is your ex has your money.
Whilst I fully agree an inevitable consequence of seperation is less money and a reduced standard of living, if men aren't paying their way then it is inevitable that women will look for redress.
ds as there are bhes in divorce. If a man is shirking his responsibilities he should be made to shoulder them where possible.However, enshrining in a new law the right for HMRC or any government body to look deeper into an individuals affairs should be approached with great caution.
Not least because a disgruntled ex, fired up by the acrimony of divorce is going to see the chance to set the tax man on the ex as too tempting a prospect to resist (imagine Tonker's ex).
Also because if thousands of these accusations are brought (and they will be, how many people don't think the ex is hiding something), someone's got to investigate them and that will inevitably come at the public's expense.
Edited by Mark Benson on Monday 19th February 13:48
PAUL500 said:
However in my case, soon after the funds were divided, my ex reneged on a very clear, written and signed statement she presented to the court in the final hearing that she would never place my adopted children into care, and proceeded to do exactly that, fully against my will, and she was allowed to keep the money she was allocated to home my daughter anyway, and the state is now paying a small fortune to look after her instead.
That is an absolutely vile thing to do.hyphen said:
So now some MP or another is pushing it and government is reviewing it, want to look beyond declared and give powers to CSA to investigate if husband's lifestyle reflects declared, tax bodies involvement and much more...
And how many women do we think the CSA will be investigating?Around about none is my guess.
MYOB said:
Rather than start a new thread, I thought I would post an update on my case.
Today I had a Court Hearing for an Occupation Order and non-molestation Order. My ex and I both filed for an Occupation Order, whilst she also filed for a non-mol order.
At the Hearing with regards to the non mol, the judges selected 3 incidences in our statements and were only willing to talk about those 3 incidences. They chose to believe my ex's version of events of two of these incidents and dismissed the other. Boy, she could have won an Oscar award with her sobbing, and the judges even allowed a 10 minute recess to allow her to sort herself out.
Despite not doing anything to warrant a non-mol order, I have now been issued with one. The Order is simply to stay away from the home and only contact my ex by email with regards to access to the kids. I still see my children so that's good. CAFCASS are now being instructed to write a S7 Report following my application under the Child Arrangements Order.
As for the Occupation Order, as per the findings from the non mol matter, I have to stay away from the family home.
After today, I'm feeling less confident but the Court were keen to stress that today's Hearing was about the "now" rather than the future, and simply wanted to ensure the status quo as this would be less disruptive to the children.
Should I be worried about the non-mol order in terms of security checks for employment etc, or would this only apply if the Order was breached and it becomes a criminal matter? The Order is in place until the Courts decide what resolution is determined in the Child Access Arrangements matter.
Jeez, without going into too much detail, this is what I’m about to go through! I think we were married to the same woman. Today I had a Court Hearing for an Occupation Order and non-molestation Order. My ex and I both filed for an Occupation Order, whilst she also filed for a non-mol order.
At the Hearing with regards to the non mol, the judges selected 3 incidences in our statements and were only willing to talk about those 3 incidences. They chose to believe my ex's version of events of two of these incidents and dismissed the other. Boy, she could have won an Oscar award with her sobbing, and the judges even allowed a 10 minute recess to allow her to sort herself out.
Despite not doing anything to warrant a non-mol order, I have now been issued with one. The Order is simply to stay away from the home and only contact my ex by email with regards to access to the kids. I still see my children so that's good. CAFCASS are now being instructed to write a S7 Report following my application under the Child Arrangements Order.
As for the Occupation Order, as per the findings from the non mol matter, I have to stay away from the family home.
After today, I'm feeling less confident but the Court were keen to stress that today's Hearing was about the "now" rather than the future, and simply wanted to ensure the status quo as this would be less disruptive to the children.
Should I be worried about the non-mol order in terms of security checks for employment etc, or would this only apply if the Order was breached and it becomes a criminal matter? The Order is in place until the Courts decide what resolution is determined in the Child Access Arrangements matter.
MYOB said:
Ari said:
But presumably keep paying for it? Or am I being cynical..?
No, she's a high earner whilst I was the stay at home dad. I'm currently job hunting so until then, she continues to pay for everything.MYOB said:
Rather than start a new thread, I thought I would post an update on my case.
Today I had a Court Hearing for an Occupation Order and non-molestation Order. My ex and I both filed for an Occupation Order, whilst she also filed for a non-mol order.
At the Hearing with regards to the non mol, the judges selected 3 incidences in our statements and were only willing to talk about those 3 incidences. They chose to believe my ex's version of events of two of these incidents and dismissed the other. Boy, she could have won an Oscar award with her sobbing, and the judges even allowed a 10 minute recess to allow her to sort herself out.
Despite not doing anything to warrant a non-mol order, I have now been issued with one. The Order is simply to stay away from the home and only contact my ex by email with regards to access to the kids. I still see my children so that's good. CAFCASS are now being instructed to write a S7 Report following my application under the Child Arrangements Order.
As for the Occupation Order, as per the findings from the non mol matter, I have to stay away from the family home.
After today, I'm feeling less confident but the Court were keen to stress that today's Hearing was about the "now" rather than the future, and simply wanted to ensure the status quo as this would be less disruptive to the children.
Should I be worried about the non-mol order in terms of security checks for employment etc, or would this only apply if the Order was breached and it becomes a criminal matter? The Order is in place until the Courts decide what resolution is determined in the Child Access Arrangements matter.
Not much help, but it sounds (from comments elsewhere) that it could have been far worse - not to say that any permutation is 'good'.Today I had a Court Hearing for an Occupation Order and non-molestation Order. My ex and I both filed for an Occupation Order, whilst she also filed for a non-mol order.
At the Hearing with regards to the non mol, the judges selected 3 incidences in our statements and were only willing to talk about those 3 incidences. They chose to believe my ex's version of events of two of these incidents and dismissed the other. Boy, she could have won an Oscar award with her sobbing, and the judges even allowed a 10 minute recess to allow her to sort herself out.
Despite not doing anything to warrant a non-mol order, I have now been issued with one. The Order is simply to stay away from the home and only contact my ex by email with regards to access to the kids. I still see my children so that's good. CAFCASS are now being instructed to write a S7 Report following my application under the Child Arrangements Order.
As for the Occupation Order, as per the findings from the non mol matter, I have to stay away from the family home.
After today, I'm feeling less confident but the Court were keen to stress that today's Hearing was about the "now" rather than the future, and simply wanted to ensure the status quo as this would be less disruptive to the children.
Should I be worried about the non-mol order in terms of security checks for employment etc, or would this only apply if the Order was breached and it becomes a criminal matter? The Order is in place until the Courts decide what resolution is determined in the Child Access Arrangements matter.
I'm interested in the Hearing itself, was there any explanation as to why just those 3 incidences were selected ?
Despite the outcome, did you feel that the general procedures were 'fair' to both parties - were you free to explain yourself and/or your actions ?
Was it handled in a sensitive manner, allowing both of you to feel relaxed (or as best you could be in the circumstances) ?
MYOB as I advised you before, I was in exactly the same situation, I went in to court thinking no way can this be upheld, its all just claims, no hard evidence etc etc, the courts will be fair and reasonable. Up to that point I had never been in a court in my life apart from Jury service.
As you can see even in 2018 the man is always going to be blamed regardless and screwed by the system.
We are the easy target, did they use the childrens act to cover their arses?
Like you I only realised afterwards they hand them out like smarties to bitter wives.
Did they make you pick up her legal costs as well? that cost me another £4k!
As you can see even in 2018 the man is always going to be blamed regardless and screwed by the system.
We are the easy target, did they use the childrens act to cover their arses?
Like you I only realised afterwards they hand them out like smarties to bitter wives.
Did they make you pick up her legal costs as well? that cost me another £4k!
Edited by PAUL500 on Saturday 24th March 11:44
I feel for you buddy, how can a legal system brand someone with such claims when the police themselves say there is no proof, and no charges are even made, its nuts.
The judges are simply protecting their sizable pensions by siding with the women as they know there will be no repercussions that way. The judge even bragged in court to my barrister how good his pension was when the pension split was being discussed, you could not make it up.
If the guy who recently had the other thread deleted is reading this, then the same road will be taken by your ex I am afraid, its the standard lawyers tactic, prior to the assets being carved up.
In my case I have been told today by a third party that my youngest adopted daughter (11) has now been excluded from school, and is having screaming matches at home with my ex, so its only a matter of time before she seeks to have her put into care as well and swans off with the money she was given to home them both from my share of the assets. I went to the eldests school concert earlier in the week, the ex swans in looking like mutton dressed as lamb in all her new bling finery, whilst my youngest who also came looked like she had been clothed from Oxfams reject bin.
The judges are simply protecting their sizable pensions by siding with the women as they know there will be no repercussions that way. The judge even bragged in court to my barrister how good his pension was when the pension split was being discussed, you could not make it up.
If the guy who recently had the other thread deleted is reading this, then the same road will be taken by your ex I am afraid, its the standard lawyers tactic, prior to the assets being carved up.
In my case I have been told today by a third party that my youngest adopted daughter (11) has now been excluded from school, and is having screaming matches at home with my ex, so its only a matter of time before she seeks to have her put into care as well and swans off with the money she was given to home them both from my share of the assets. I went to the eldests school concert earlier in the week, the ex swans in looking like mutton dressed as lamb in all her new bling finery, whilst my youngest who also came looked like she had been clothed from Oxfams reject bin.
Edited by PAUL500 on Saturday 24th March 23:58
MYOB said:
Yes of course they used the Children Act and said they had to consider the children's needs. It didn't help that the ex said if I was allowed back in the home, she would move out with the kids. They, understandably, didn't want the children to be further disrupted. But no regard to me previously being their main carer previously until the ex called the police and got me arrested after falsely accusing me of domestic abuse.
However, they Court were keen to stress that the non mol and the occupation order were about the "now", and the Child Arrangements Order will be about the future. So a glimmer of hope there, but the cards are stacked against me now that they believe her arguments of domestic abuse. So whilst I cannot give up, I am faiingl to treat their position with any optimism in the Child Arrangements Order matter.
I have the First Hearing on the Finance stuff next week. Nothing will be decided as there are still outstanding questions and documentation but I suspect the outcome cannot be decided until the Court determine the Child Arrangements matter. CAFCASS has now been instructed to begin their Section 7 Report.
Throughout everything that has happened so far, no-one has been interested in my allegations of child abuse against my ex and I'm not confident in CAFCASS's ability to treat these seriously given the Court has ruled I am guilty of 2 incidents of domestic abuse.
You were lucky.However, they Court were keen to stress that the non mol and the occupation order were about the "now", and the Child Arrangements Order will be about the future. So a glimmer of hope there, but the cards are stacked against me now that they believe her arguments of domestic abuse. So whilst I cannot give up, I am faiingl to treat their position with any optimism in the Child Arrangements Order matter.
I have the First Hearing on the Finance stuff next week. Nothing will be decided as there are still outstanding questions and documentation but I suspect the outcome cannot be decided until the Court determine the Child Arrangements matter. CAFCASS has now been instructed to begin their Section 7 Report.
Throughout everything that has happened so far, no-one has been interested in my allegations of child abuse against my ex and I'm not confident in CAFCASS's ability to treat these seriously given the Court has ruled I am guilty of 2 incidents of domestic abuse.
Mine smashed a glass over her own head to create the evidence needed to get the non-molestation and occupation orders, and have me arrested and charged with GBH.
I wasn't even in the house when the alleged assault occurred but couldn't prove that.
They are all f
king crazy and the 'system' supports them.Edited by PurpleMoonlight on Sunday 25th March 07:14
PurpleMoonlight said:
You were lucky.
Mine smashed a glass over her own head to create the evidence needed to get the non-molestation and occupation orders, and have me arrested and charged with GBH.
I wasn't even in the house when the alleged assault occurred but couldn't prove that.
They are all fking crazy and the 'system' supports them.
WOW - I have no words. The poor kids having to associate with such a low individual.Mine smashed a glass over her own head to create the evidence needed to get the non-molestation and occupation orders, and have me arrested and charged with GBH.
I wasn't even in the house when the alleged assault occurred but couldn't prove that.
They are all f
king crazy and the 'system' supports them.Edited by PurpleMoonlight on Sunday 25th March 07:14
johnwilliams77 said:
WOW - I have no words. The poor kids having to associate with such a low individual.
And she went on to accuse me of being a paedophile and sexually abusing our son.Got arrested for that too but never charged with anything.
And people wonder why I have misogynist tendencies.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff