Ex wants child support in one go
Discussion
Just been reading that Guardian report. It says 11-15% of divorces involving kids go through parental alienation. That's a huge amount.
Would it misogynistic to suggest which parent is most likely to restrict the child from seeing their other parent?
Clank clank clank goes the white coloured armour.
Would it misogynistic to suggest which parent is most likely to restrict the child from seeing their other parent?
Clank clank clank goes the white coloured armour.
And 'only' 5 years too late for me...
Thanks for posting that.
Even if it doesn't help directly, it's clearly a 'thing' that non-resident parents should be aware of.
So tread lightly, and weigh up your words and actions carefully at least until the child has a mind of their own....
The money side of things gets sorted relativley easily by a judge/csa.
The emotional and physcological side of things gets damaged once and the person affected stays damaged.
You can't grieve because they're ok.... but you can't raise, see or love them either.....
Christ even without 15% of the non-resident's income, being a loving parent and a loved child is worth a s
t load more.Gavia said:
Then she’s an idiot. Good of the Dad to make sure she got done for it, at the same time he reduced his payments for the child. Great advert for fathers on this thread.
She's a criminal actually.It seems all about the money to you. Do you consider what financial contribution the mother makes?
Ozone said:
I can only hope this might help some fathers in future
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/nov/17/pa...
10 years too late for me.
I wonder if it could backfire and help exclude some dads if judges disagree
Hmmm...https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/nov/17/pa...
10 years too late for me.
I wonder if it could backfire and help exclude some dads if judges disagree
article said:
Cafcass said it had recently realised parental alienation occured in significant numbers of the 125,000 cases it dealt with each year.
The word that leaps off the page to me is 'recently'. If that is an accurate statement it is a damning indictment of that organisation given it has been in existence for 16 years (since 2001). What rock have its officials been living under?I find it more than a little ironic that it came into existence on 1st April.
There is a problem with recalcitrant resident parents, and sending them to prison is self defeating because it harms the child.
Removing residence may be the only effective step.
The reason why it is more often women than men who are the main resident parent is that more men than women remain the main earner in male-female marriages, the reasons for that being historical and associated with maternity as an exclusively female attribute. If the demographics were reversed and women tended to be the main earners, I expect that there would be just as many resident fathers behaving badly. It's not a man-woman thing, it's a people being unreasonable thing.
Cafcass is a weak body, and the family Courts have been too weak.
Removing residence may be the only effective step.
The reason why it is more often women than men who are the main resident parent is that more men than women remain the main earner in male-female marriages, the reasons for that being historical and associated with maternity as an exclusively female attribute. If the demographics were reversed and women tended to be the main earners, I expect that there would be just as many resident fathers behaving badly. It's not a man-woman thing, it's a people being unreasonable thing.
Cafcass is a weak body, and the family Courts have been too weak.
Breadvan72 said:
There is a problem with recalcitrant resident parents, and sending them to prison is self defeating because it harms the child.
Removing residence may be the only effective step.
The reason why it is more often women than men who are the main resident parent is that more men than women remain the main earner in male-female marriages, the reasons for that being historical and associated with maternity as an exclusively female attribute. If the demographics were reversed and women tended to be the main earners, I expect that there would be just as many resident fathers behaving badly. It's not a man-woman thing, it's a people being unreasonable thing.
Cafcass is a weak body, and the family Courts have been too weak.
As a stay at home dad going through a divorce, I was hoping to buck the trend to gain residency. But the wife, in front of my two kids, called the police and lied about being a victim of abuse. Removing residence may be the only effective step.
The reason why it is more often women than men who are the main resident parent is that more men than women remain the main earner in male-female marriages, the reasons for that being historical and associated with maternity as an exclusively female attribute. If the demographics were reversed and women tended to be the main earners, I expect that there would be just as many resident fathers behaving badly. It's not a man-woman thing, it's a people being unreasonable thing.
Cafcass is a weak body, and the family Courts have been too weak.
I was subsequently arrested, and interviewed. Overnight whilst in the cell, wife gave a full statement with the full works alleging everything from physical and emotional abuse, coercion etc.
I was released with no charges but with bail conditions. Not allowed home. 7 weeks later I still don't know if I'm being charged or not.
So at the moment my kids are being cared for by a mother who works full time, and has the propensity to lie to police.
And the reasons for her lie,? She knew I had a strong case to get residency etc and she wanted me out of the house!
MYOB said:
As a stay at home dad going through a divorce, I was hoping to buck the trend to gain residency. But the wife, in front of my two kids, called the police and lied about being a victim of abuse.
I was subsequently arrested, and interviewed. Overnight whilst in the cell, wife gave a full statement with the full works alleging everything from physical and emotional abuse, coercion etc.
I was released with no charges but with bail conditions. Not allowed home. 7 weeks later I still don't know if I'm being charged or not.
So at the moment my kids are being cared for by a mother who works full time, and has the propensity to lie to police.
And the reasons for her lie,? She knew I had a strong case to get residency etc and she wanted me out of the house!
I was subsequently arrested, and interviewed. Overnight whilst in the cell, wife gave a full statement with the full works alleging everything from physical and emotional abuse, coercion etc.
I was released with no charges but with bail conditions. Not allowed home. 7 weeks later I still don't know if I'm being charged or not.
So at the moment my kids are being cared for by a mother who works full time, and has the propensity to lie to police.
And the reasons for her lie,? She knew I had a strong case to get residency etc and she wanted me out of the house!
Something similar happened to me, except she was actually the violent one. It got as far as a court date to plead before she dropped it.
She went on a couple of years later to maliciously accuse me of being a paedophile and abusing our son. She got a formal police caution for that one.
They are all f
king bat st crazy if you ask me.Gavia said:
MB140 said:
My brother had an agreement with his ex outside of the csa. Worked for years until one day she pushed him too far. He said no, she went mental and then to the csa thinking she would get more.
He’s self employed. When the csa assessed his books. They came to a figure less than she was already getting so got less. Additional it transpired she had been claiming certain benifits but not mentioning the payments from my brother. They soon became interested in that to.
Good for your brother. Well done on providing less for his child. A father to be proud of. He’s self employed. When the csa assessed his books. They came to a figure less than she was already getting so got less. Additional it transpired she had been claiming certain benifits but not mentioning the payments from my brother. They soon became interested in that to.
She’s now 18, a fully functioning adult, very smart, polite, courteous. Everything my brother could want as a daughter and a credit to BOTH her parents. There still good friends to this day.
My niece never hurt or wanted for anything. My brother had her every weekend without fail (apart from illness) since the day he seperated with her mother. He spent just as much on her. The money just came direct out of his hand not via the csa and the mothers.
As for your comment, please read my post again. I await your apology or failing that you can f
k off you imbecile. There is no distinction between what you refer to as a "legal contract" and an agreement made between the parties and written down by them. Law does not operate by magic words. In most contexts, an agreement between two people is binding, home made or not. In the specific context of divorce and financial arrangements, however, only agreements that are approved by the Court are binding.
MB140 said:
She’s now 18, a fully functioning adult, very smart, polite, courteous. Everything my brother could want as a daughter and a credit to BOTH her parents. There still good friends to this day.
My niece never hurt or wanted for anything. My brother had her every weekend without fail (apart from illness) since the day he seperated with her mother. He spent just as much on her. The money just came direct out of his hand not via the csa and the mothers.
As for your comment, please read my post again. I await your apology or failing that you can fk off you imbecile.
An apology? For what?My niece never hurt or wanted for anything. My brother had her every weekend without fail (apart from illness) since the day he seperated with her mother. He spent just as much on her. The money just came direct out of his hand not via the csa and the mothers.
As for your comment, please read my post again. I await your apology or failing that you can f
k off you imbecile. I’ve read your post several times and it quite clearly states that your brother was happy to pay less and plenty of backslapping from you as a result.
Stop crying and be honest.
replace the words "pay less"
with
"pay the correct amount"
Do you see how perhaps your view is a bit skewed?
Breadvan's comments about a weak system and what the likelihood of things being similar if the popular men/women roles were reversed is spot on imo.
Being a bad parent or a bitter, nasty st, is not gender specifc....
with
"pay the correct amount"
Do you see how perhaps your view is a bit skewed?
Breadvan's comments about a weak system and what the likelihood of things being similar if the popular men/women roles were reversed is spot on imo.
Being a bad parent or a bitter, nasty s
t, is not gender specifc....I post in full my initial post below
I’ve read your post several times and it quite clearly states that your brother was happy to pay less and plenty of backslapping from you as a result.
Stop crying and be honest.Where does it state specifically my brother was happy?
No it doesn’t
Where did I imply or more importantly say there was any backslapping going off?
Again no it doesn’t.
Did I express any opinion about anything relating to your he matter in my original post?
Again no I simply stated FACTS no opinion or emotion in any way.
Do you sound like a sanctimonious ahole?
I don’t need to answer that I think everybody who reads it can tell.
To the OP, sorry for detailing your thread, my only advice would be get it done by a legal professional so every party knows where they stand.
MB140 said:
My brother had an agreement with his ex outside of the csa. Worked for years until one day she pushed him too far. He said no, she went mental and then to the csa thinking she would get more.
He’s self employed. When the csa assessed his books. They came to a figure less than she was already getting so got less. Additional it transpired she had been claiming certain benifits but not mentioning the payments from my brother. They soon became interested in that to.
He’s self employed. When the csa assessed his books. They came to a figure less than she was already getting so got less. Additional it transpired she had been claiming certain benifits but not mentioning the payments from my brother. They soon became interested in that to.
Gavia said:
MB140 said:
She’s now 18, a fully functioning adult, very smart, polite, courteous. Everything my brother could want as a daughter and a credit to BOTH her parents. There still good friends to this day.
My niece never hurt or wanted for anything. My brother had her every weekend without fail (apart from illness) since the day he seperated with her mother. He spent just as much on her. The money just came direct out of his hand not via the csa and the mothers.
As for your comment, please read my post again. I await your apology or failing that you can fk off you imbecile.
An apology? For what?My niece never hurt or wanted for anything. My brother had her every weekend without fail (apart from illness) since the day he seperated with her mother. He spent just as much on her. The money just came direct out of his hand not via the csa and the mothers.
As for your comment, please read my post again. I await your apology or failing that you can f
k off you imbecile. I’ve read your post several times and it quite clearly states that your brother was happy to pay less and plenty of backslapping from you as a result.
Stop crying and be honest.
No it doesn’t
Where did I imply or more importantly say there was any backslapping going off?
Again no it doesn’t.
Did I express any opinion about anything relating to your he matter in my original post?
Again no I simply stated FACTS no opinion or emotion in any way.
Do you sound like a sanctimonious a
hole?I don’t need to answer that I think everybody who reads it can tell.
To the OP, sorry for detailing your thread, my only advice would be get it done by a legal professional so every party knows where they stand.
Breadvan72 said:
There is no distinction between what you refer to as a "legal contract" and an agreement made between the parties and written down by them. Law does not operate by magic words. In most contexts, an agreement between two people is binding, home made or not. In the specific context of divorce and financial arrangements, however, only agreements that are approved by the Court are binding.
It never ceases to surprise me people are willing to give advice on things they have little to no idea about.My parents split up when I was very young and fell out. They eventually became friends again, obviously because they had a son together.
I think it was little things like my dad going over to my mums house to help redecorate and the fact they never argued over money that meant they now get on fine and both families can spend Christmas together.
If you get her the car deposit, why don't you help her go car shopping? I have no idea if you are amicable or not so that's down to you.
My dad put in a huge effort and I'm incredibly grateful.
I think it was little things like my dad going over to my mums house to help redecorate and the fact they never argued over money that meant they now get on fine and both families can spend Christmas together.
If you get her the car deposit, why don't you help her go car shopping? I have no idea if you are amicable or not so that's down to you.
My dad put in a huge effort and I'm incredibly grateful.
Quickmoose said:
replace the words "pay less"
with
"pay the correct amount"
Do you see how perhaps your view is a bit skewed?
Breadvan's comments about a weak system and what the likelihood of things being similar if the popular men/women roles were reversed is spot on imo.
Being a bad parent or a bitter, nasty st, is not gender specifc....
My view isn’t skewed. A father is paying an amount he’s happy to, then his ex plays silly buggers. An amount payable is assessed as less. So he chooses to not thatnlesser amount. That isn’t the sign of someone who really cares about his kids. It’s a sign of someone who cares more about money / gettingnone iver in his ex. with
"pay the correct amount"
Do you see how perhaps your view is a bit skewed?
Breadvan's comments about a weak system and what the likelihood of things being similar if the popular men/women roles were reversed is spot on imo.
Being a bad parent or a bitter, nasty s
t, is not gender specifc....It doesn’t reflect well on him.
MB140 said:
Where does it state specifically my brother was happy?
No it doesn’t
Where did I imply or more importantly say there was any backslapping going off?
Again no it doesn’t.
Did I express any opinion about anything relating to your he matter in my original post?
Again no I simply stated FACTS no opinion or emotion in any way.
Do you sound like a sanctimonious ahole?
I don’t need to answer that I think everybody who reads it can tell.
To the OP, sorry for detailing your thread, my only advice would be get it done by a legal professional so every party knows where they stand.
No it doesn’t
Where did I imply or more importantly say there was any backslapping going off?
Again no it doesn’t.
Did I express any opinion about anything relating to your he matter in my original post?
Again no I simply stated FACTS no opinion or emotion in any way.
Do you sound like a sanctimonious a
hole?I don’t need to answer that I think everybody who reads it can tell.
To the OP, sorry for detailing your thread, my only advice would be get it done by a legal professional so every party knows where they stand.
You wouldn’t have posted the story if it wasn’t for a bit of congratulatory backslapping from the posters on here.
Gavia said:
You wouldn’t have posted the story if it wasn’t for a bit of congratulatory backslapping from the posters on here.
Really!!!! Some people!!!
If I’d wanted backslapping it would have gone something like this.
“My brother did his ex out of a s
t ton of money by fking her over with the csa. Bloody great result”. We went out to celebrate. You inferred from your own reading something that was not stated.
Anyway
Bye!
Edit for autocorrect mixup
Edited by MB140 on Saturday 18th November 11:06
Gavia said:
My view isn’t skewed. A father is paying an amount he’s happy to, then his ex plays silly buggers. An amount payable is assessed as less. So he chooses to not thatnlesser amount. That isn’t the sign of someone who really cares about his kids. It’s a sign of someone who cares more about money / gettingnone iver in his ex.
It doesn’t reflect well on him.
I guess you deliberately overlooked the comment below as it doesn't suit your agenda.It doesn’t reflect well on him.
MB140 said:
My niece never hurt or wanted for anything. My brother had her every weekend without fail (apart from illness) since the day he seperated with her mother. He spent just as much on her. The money just came direct out of his hand not via the csa and the mothers.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff