Years on and your ex-wife might still be able to take you to the financial cleaners....

[Unrighteous]

We can only hope someone dumps a kid on you and does one so you can show how little it constrained you life.

 

Aww... thanks precious. 

[Anubis]

Melons and Cath - genuine question. I hear what you've said about her looking after the child so he could concentrate on his business (if, in fact, that happened). But did she not then go and have more children in another marriage? And didn't those children - which have nothing to do with him - tie her down to motherhood? How can she say she was left holding the baby and this restricted her when she went on to have more and put herself in that position anyway?

[Champ]

To be honest, I havent been following the detail of this particular case; I've just been intrigued by the debate on here and by extension my own views on the subject. 

 

I first became aware of the case when I heard him speaking on the radio, the day melons started the thread, I think. He came across as having lost all sight of the rights and wrongs of her claim and solely focussed on ensuring she gets as little as possible from him, at almost any cost. Fortunately, I have never been in that position myself but I am always struck by how 2 people, who apparently loved each other can end up being eaten up by their hatred of and desire to inflict as much pain as possible on the other party.

 

And, additionally, I know someone who used to work for Mishcon de Reya so was intrigued how they became involved and why it would be that he would be footing their substantial costs

[VladimirIlyich]

 

 

Not fair, reasonable. If it was fair she should expect more than the 1.9m. The financial cost alone is said to be quarter of a million, what about the cost to her personally?

 

 

 

What, so the kid can claim the money that he didn't have whilst growing up? Ay dad, where's my tenner a week pocket money? Or the guilt money for not seeing me 3 nights a week?

 

 

If that's how you want to put it,yes.

 

The child is a bond that should be there for life while the relationship between the parents maybe no more than fleeting. Obviously the larger responsibility falls on the Mother if the father leaves but he is still supposed to contribute financially and emotionally too.

The argument regarding this woman having more kids with another fella(s) is a moral one which I imagine would have no place in the legal decision,I am guessing?

 

[Liverpool lad]

A few on this thread will be donning superhero costumes on the fella's behalf

 

#fathersforjustice

[melons]

That would depend on when the business started turning a profit.

 

From what I've read, around 1993. 

 

Ah, I'm obviously missing a few details in this so I'm going to bow out until I have a chance to read up. But this doesn't change my stance regarding living with his Dad, or what he owes yet. If anything it makes it more strange, to me. Obviously until I'm in the kids shoes I won't understand but why just leave your mum, who has loved you and cared for you all your life, to jump into the arms of some cunt who didn't want to know you? Personally I wouldn't want them in my life.

 

Still, as I said, I think all she should be "entitled to" is whatever child support he SHOULD have paid based on the earnings he had during the years 0-18 (I think it goes on until the child leaves full time education, too?). Never £2,000,000.

 

I've thought about this, and the more I think about it, the more pissed i seem to get about the "child support" line. Had the child support been paid, at the 1993 rate of around 30% of his net earnings, I'm sure it is possible things would have turned out very differently for the mother. 

 

 

 

Who's to say he couldn't have achieved that while still married? He was obviously quite skilled, inventive and forward thinking. For your reasoning to be sound you'd need to know how many hours a week he put into this project etc. How do you know he couldn't have done both? (work and be a parent). He's obliviously a feckless father, I'n not denying that. I just don't think what he went on to do has any direct bearing on any payout, unless you can prove a direct relationship with his earnings. Maybe he didn't bail to go work on this project. Maybe he bailed because he was a cunt, a shit dad, a coward? Not nice but not punishable financially. So is it percentage based? And if so, what is the percentage? If its 1% of £10m/pa, then would it be still be 1% if he'd sat all his life scratching his plumbs? 1% of £10k/pa? Or would you just pluck an arbitrary number that feels right? Is the sole purpose to charge him enough so he feels it?

 

 

 

 

Had he succeeded when they were still married, wouldn't she have enjoyed the rewards more so than the sum she is asking for now?

 

He could have done both, he didn't. Should he be punished for being a feckless father? Too right he should. They all should. 

 

 

 

So, that makes it totally irrelevant? I guess the link severs at 18?

 

Anyway, this is getting nowhere.  I'm very clear on my stance, and hope this absurdity doesn't equal any windfall for her.

 

Yes, it does. He is old enough to support himself, he would be responsible for his own actions. Taking a man in at 18 does not a father make. 

 

 

 

Melons and Cath - genuine question. I hear what you've said about her looking after the child so he could concentrate on his business (if, in fact, that happened). But did she not then go and have more children in another marriage? And didn't those children - which have nothing to do with him - tie her down to motherhood? How can she say she was left holding the baby and this restricted her when she went on to have more and put herself in that position anyway?

 

Yes she did (she already had one previously that he'd taken on before having their son), and I do get your point, but i'll maintain the argument that having the support be it financial or physical makes a mountain of difference. 

 

Like i said before, the more i think about it, the more i could justify a larger payout on the basis of how much extra work was put in being the single parent than had it been the two, not just the CSA but for compensation for the effort she had to put in when he didn't. I know it sounds lame, but there were times when my lot were little I'd have given up a weeks wages for a couple of nights sleep, not only that, the child care bills used to run up to the £700/£800 a month mark, had my ex done his share, my hours may have been different and I would not have spent out that money? I can ramble on this one all day. 

 

 

A few on this thread will be donning superhero costumes on the fella's behalf

 

#fathersforjustice

 

Only if it doesn't cost them money.... 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Funnily enough, I've just come across this whilst doing a little digging on the ages of her kids...

 

 

 

In December 2012 a judge ordered the ex-husband to pay Ms Wyatt £125,000. But he challenged the ruling and Appeal Court judges struck it out.

 

And he's now moaning about having to pay £500k in fees, my heart bleeds for the poor bastard. Not. 

[melons]

Bollocks, just double checked, 30% was what they'd have been likely to take on a normal wage. The minimum would have been around £160 per week. That would have been around £150k based on 18 years of owed payments, not that he was eligible to pay for them for all that time, but the point remains.

 

Also, the divorce finalised in 1992, he claims his business only took off in 1996.  

[Cardie]

Has it been reported how long she was part of a single parent household and where the cross over with the other partners/fathers was.

 

 

[melons]

No, just that they were brief. Even if she was, that wouldn't impact CSA type payments just spousal payments. 

[Anubis]

And he's now moaning about having to pay £500k in fees, my heart bleeds for the poor bastard. Not. 

 

 

Yup. He's played this badly. He should have handed the £500k to the Russian Mob and had her whacked....

 

Only joking. In principle I'm not against him paying something to her, but I do think she's trying to have him off at £1.6m. After all, she'd remarried and presumably had her new husband to provide for her.

[Cardie]

No, just that they were brief. Even if she was, that wouldn't impact CSA type payments just spousal payments. 

 

I know it doesn't impact CSA ( unless he was looking after a child too) just wondered what the time line was for the other people.

[Creator Supreme]

Just to go back to one of the earlier posts, "pre-nuptual agreements" are a fucking disgusting idea, no matter how much you're worth.

 

If I was marrying Kelly Brook and she asked me to sign a pre-nup I'd tell her to go and fuck herself! And I'd have hoped missus would have done the same if I'd asked her to sign one.

 

If you're getting married, and the main thing on your mind is finances, don't get fucking married!

[Rick Sanchez C-137]

Just to go back to one of the earlier posts, "pre-nuptual agreements" are a fucking disgusting idea, no matter how much you're worth.

 

If I was marrying Kelly Brook and she asked me to sign a pre-nup I'd tell her to go and fuck herself! And I'd have hoped missus would have done the same if I'd asked her to sign one.

 

If you're getting married, and the main thing on your mind is finances, don't get fucking married!

 

Who says it the main thing on their mind? It's certainly something to consider IMO. When marriages end, they rarely end well, and I'll be fucked if I'm going to let someone clean me out and leave myself and my daughter with fuck all because of antiquated marriage/divorce laws.

[Jose Jones]

Who says it the main thing on their mind? It's certainly something to consider IMO. When marriages end, they rarely end well, and I'll be fucked if I'm going to let someone clean me out and leave myself and my daughter with fuck all because of antiquated marriage/divorce laws.

Not really antiquated are they?

I mean in the old days you could kick out a wife for not having kids of the right sex and claim she was a witch. You might have to pay back her dowry if you were unlucky.

 

In these more enlightened times marriage is seen more as a partnership with love and support being valued more highly than who brings in the coin.

[Moo]

Only joking. In principle I'm not against him paying something to her, but I do think she's trying to have him off at £1.6m. After all, she'd remarried and presumably had her new husband to provide for her.

I'm not that invested in this story as I have no personal experience of any part of this scenario, basically because I don't have kids. But Anubis, unless I'm reading you incorrectly, or you're just fishing, your point above is one of the worst in this thread, "a new husband to provide for her"?? This case is about him being a father, or not being, so the mere suggestion that a new husband absolves the father of any of his responsibilities is quite disgusting!! Like I say I'm not personally invested in this at all, but do know of a couple of female acquitances who have remarried and the ex husband has presumed that their kid will be provided for by the new fella so that means they have to do or provide less, and it never fails to make me sick. Shame on any man who would act in that manner.

[Rick Sanchez C-137]

Not really antiquated are they?

I mean in the old days you could kick out a wife for not having kids of the right sex and claim she was a witch. You might have to pay back her dowry if you were unlucky.

 

In these more enlightened times marriage is seen more as a partnership with love and support being valued more highly than who brings in the coin.

 

I believe they are, certainly. Most prenuptial agreement basically state that each person leaves the relationship with what the entered it with. To me, that should be the default position, and shouldn't require a contract. Ask any man that has been fucked by divorce if he now thinks a pre-nup would kill the 'romance'.

[Jose Jones]

I believe they are, certainly. Most prenuptial agreement basically state that each person leaves the relationship with what the entered it with. To me, that should be the default position, and shouldn't require a contract. Ask any man that has been fucked by divorce if he now thinks a pre-nup would kill the 'romance'.

I was just mainly making a bit of jest about your use of antiquity.

 

Still not sure I could disagree more with that really. If you are massively rich and don't want to get ripped off by a gold digger either don't get married or realign your priorities on what you want from life.

 

Also if both partners leave with what they brought to the relationship who takes the kids? Presumably the toddlers have to look out for themselves.

[Rick Sanchez C-137]

I was just mainly making a bit of jest about your use of antiquity.

 

Still not sure I could disagree more with that really. If you are massively rich and don't want to get ripped off by a gold digger either don't get married or realign your priorities on what you want from life.

 

Also if both partners leave with what they brought to the relationship who takes the kids? Presumably the toddlers have to look out for themselves.

 

This is where I stand to be honest. I wouldn't get married for the reasons outlines previously. The issue regarding kids and finances is complicated and a separate issue (although closely linked). I mean purely in a relationship with no children, should the pre-nup apply. I don't think leaving your wife and kids with fuck all is morally acceptable.

[Rick Sanchez C-137]

I was just mainly making a bit of jest about your use of antiquity.

 

Still not sure I could disagree more with that really. If you are massively rich and don't want to get ripped off by a gold digger either don't get married or realign your priorities on what you want from life.

 

Also if both partners leave with what they brought to the relationship who takes the kids? Presumably the toddlers have to look out for themselves.

 

Also, I'm far from massively rich. I earn ~£24k, and pay a mortgage and run a house by myself, and have a daughter (albeit only half the time). If anything, that makes my ability to keep my hands on my own finances more important. If I have £1,000,000 and someone takes half, then I won't starve (although I wouldn't be happy about having to give that sum of money away).

[Jose Jones]

I meant "you" as a generic term rather than you personally.

I think you could do worse than marrying a rich bird though.

[Rick Sanchez C-137]

I meant "you" as a generic term rather than you personally.

I think you could do worse than marrying a rich bird though.

 

Oh I know, just pointing out it's not exclusively the rich who have the potential to be shafted. People with less money can be financially crippled due to divorce.

 

If I were to marry a rich woman, and then divorce, being 'entitled' to their money wouldn't even enter my head.

[Harry Squatter]

He should have just put it all in a Swiss bank account. I did find it funny as someone has already pointed out that this hippy was well into sharing other people's food, petrol or splits when he was travelling round in his van but now he has shitloads of cash he doesn't believe in that anymore.

[Anubis]

I'm not that invested in this story as I have no personal experience of any part of this scenario, basically because I don't have kids. But Anubis, unless I'm reading you incorrectly, or you're just fishing, your point above is one of the worst in this thread, "a new husband to provide for her"?? This case is about him being a father, or not being, so the mere suggestion that a new husband absolves the father of any of his responsibilities is quite disgusting!! Like I say I'm not personally invested in this at all, but do know of a couple of female acquitances who have remarried and the ex husband has presumed that their kid will be provided for by the new fella so that means they have to do or provide less, and it never fails to make me sick. Shame on any man who would act in that manner.

 

I think you've misread me so please crank that neck back in. The point I'm making is purely regarding finances. This is not a case where she had his child alone. As I understand it she had remarried and had other children. She had a husband who was presumably providing finances for the other children. Therefore any financial obligation he has should be limited to his own child, and any claim it prevented her from a career should be examined in the light of her choosing to take on the childcare responsibilites of other children.

 

Obviously a parent shiuld look to play a part in their child's upbringing. But that is another argument.

[Anubis]

And it isn't  a case about him being a father. It's a case about money.

[Bjornebye]

Has it come out that she was getting ploughed behind his crusty back by all sorts in the 80's yet ?