have the money but dont want it to go to kids

think that this thread has gone on for too long and has gone away from the real issue..

the thread was started along the vein of have the money but dont want to give it... this is clear indication of this father's very public declaration that he does not want to support the kids he helped to create...

very good point made on the mothers real and everyday contribution to raising the children that can not be quantified in financial terms... that is not gender biased but is based on the truth that most mothers have the full responsibility of the kids. I feel the same way about every parent with care regardless of gender...

as for me have had no financial support for our child since he left 20 mths ago while he like the original poster has flash cars, fab hols but I am getting on with my life regardless and our daughter wants or needds for nothing...

both of us have legal and financial responsibilities to our daughter but he is choosing to avail only of the fun element of being a parent... i work part time to make sure that she has everything she needs but childcare is very expensive and so there is very little left over for treats but more importantly lots of time for cuddles and love...

too many parameters involved in all of our cases to judge but deep down the original poster knows what he should be doing for his children but more importantly he should want to do it as they are his kids and no new wife or family will ever alter that...

time for him to grow up me thinks... there is no justification for any parent not supporting the child or use that child to impose financial hardship on the other...

" there is no justification for any parent not supporting the child or use that child to impose financial hardship on the other.."
But isn't he paying 600 a month in child maintenance or did I read that wrong? And hasn't he been paying maintenance all these years? By chosing to have a baby with a new man and not going out to work, asking him to increase CM isn't she more or less asking him to help support another man's child?

It was just increased from a couple of hundred to £600 by the court. He was paying the couple of hundred for the last 15 years after leaving just after the twins were born. He already admits that he's got away with it and gloats about the fact that his ex won't bad mouth him to the children because she's a good mother and she'll never stop or hamper contact because she never has.

The new wife however isn't keen on the twins and prefers a new handbag, holidays, her own child, two new cars every years etc etc.

He earns in the region of £50k and chooses by choice to have a nice lifestyle over and above what he can afford as he says he'll pay it all off when he retires instead.

His ex has always worked until now and has been putting money away for the twins to go to university which he doesn't want to pay towards as it's not a car or a holiday which are more important. Her partner earns more than enough for her to give up full time work and he is paying her 50% towards the children (and obviously over and above that for over 10 years) but there is no reason why he should continue to pay her ex's share as well is there?

Or are we saying that it's acceptable when we have money and like holidays to concentrate more on that than the children we bring into this world?

Oh and by the way the common concensus is that this in fact was a hoax thread rather than a genuine query put up to provoke a response rather than a genuine one.

T

"he is paying her 50% towards the children (and obviously over and above that for over 10 years) but there is no reason why he should continue to pay her ex's share as well is there?"
Well that's not how I read the first post which said she was on her own for 13 years and only got married 3 years ago.

penny10p wrote:

"he is paying her 50% towards the children (and obviously over and above that for over 10 years) but there is no reason why he should continue to pay her ex's share as well is there?"
Well that's not how I read the first post which said she was on her own for 13 years and only got married 3 years ago.

Either way (as I can't be bothered to read through all of his threads from the begining again) the op still isn't paying anywhere near enough at a couple of hundred for two children for 15 years on a £50k wage is he?

It's not what she should or should not be paying (and lets be honest this mythical poster has no intention of spending a penny more than he has too on his first children) but on what he should be paying as a father with a 50% share. Children are not cars you just pass responsibility and upkeep on like second hand cars. They're your's for life not just till the registration doc is signed.

T

Still think you are all being a bit harsh on the OP, mythical or not! It's not as if he walked away from his kids and never saw them or paid a penny towards their keep.
I think it's the fact that she has decided to take him to court just at the time that she has a baby by another man and wants to give up work, that makes me less sympathetic towards the ex-wife. She could, after all have taken him to court for more maintenance at any time over the past 15 years if she felt he wasn't paying enough.

Well on the plus side then he got away with it for 15 years didn't he, so not really got too much to complain about then has he.

He see's them only at his convenience, when it doesn't interfere with his or his new wifes life and as long as his expense is minimal to non-existant.

The impression I get is more the rate he's currently spending he'll be bankrupt and in second divorce court within a couple of years anyway so the mother will be funding all of the college fees herself because you just can't get blood out of a stone. Hence why I think she took him back to court in the first place rather than for her own selfish reasons.

Meanwhile these children will still think their dad cares because they have a mother who thinks enough about them not to tell the truth and thinks first about protecting them rather than telling them they're sub-standard to the new batch.

Might sound harsh but I'm not feeling too cuddly where parents who don't care about their kids are concerned today. They were happy enough to have sex and create lives so they should be equally as happy to put their hands in their pockets and pay for them otherwise they should have thought about contraception and stop expecting others to pick up their share.

And I made a mistake when I said £600 it's £400 (up from peanuts) till they go to uni and £200 when they go to uni for three years on a £60k wage (approx £3.5k to £4k a month).

And his ex is obviously awful as she's had the nerve to get married after 13 years (she wasn't receiving sm anyway) and have a new baby and not go back to work like she had to first time round) as he buggered off.

T

hi all,

well despite all the commetns good and bad here is the result.

we went to Court.

I now have to pay £200 per child per month from now and until they finish a three year degree whichever is soonest.

also have to pay £100 per month each child if they do go though Uni.

so thats £600 per month!

I think i got off pretty lightly, even the CSA CALCULATOR throws out figures of at least £765 per month to my ex wife for the twin girls (how can twin girls begin to cost that per month??)

I think i got a lesser monthly amount cos I now have to pay even longer.....but hey.....IM happy she isnt.....and kids are none the wiser as ex doesnt think they should be involved so no chance shes gonna blacken my name to them.

so Im now £600 a month down.......

just thought after all the posts u might wanna know the outcome

derek