Do you remember Heather Mills?

You're relying on a very old-fashioned idea that the child should be treated as a golden goose laying golden eggs exclusively for Mills, who was responsible for generating 0.0% of McCartney's wealth.

And that all funding of their daughters upbringing must go through Mills.

Can you not see how messed up this is? It's not McCartneys job to keep his ex-wife in clover. They divorced.

Anyway going to give up now

Good plan.

@Sparklingbrook I know what the settlement was. And maintenance of £35,000 a year until she was 17, school fees and salary of a nanny.
He is tight, he didn't want to give any more than he was forced to.
This isn't about her future. He may have made provisions or not made any. This is about her childhood. He was determined to pay as little as possible towards that.
Anyway going to give up now. For some reason, you are determined to defend a billionaire giving as little money as he could to his ex-wife and child. He could have given four times the amount he did and it would still only have been 1% of his overall wealth.
And Paul himself owns a number of houses.

Of course, they could manage with that. The point is Paul could have been far more generous to his daughter and not affected his own income. The settlement was 0.25% of Pauls wealth. Nothing.

Only a 3.9 million pound house. That must have been very stressful for Beatrice I'm sure. And poor Heather only having 20 million left over for everything else. How very hard that must have been.

I was replying to your previous comment ridiculing the idea of money as Beatrice is now an adult.
Yes they could have bought that house. Then needed money for maintenance and bills, not cheap in such a big house. And living costs, clothes, out of school activities and holidays.
In reality, she and Beatrice lived in a £3.9 million house. More realistic on a 24 million settlement.
www.hollywoodreporter.com/lifestyle/style/heather-mills-sells-uk-mansion-250751/

[quote julieca]@Sparklingbrook dont be disingenous. I am talking about when Beatrice was a child. She has only just turned 18.[/quote]
I am not. She could have bought a very nice terraced house in London when Beatrice was a child with the settlement she got.

@Sparklingbrook dont be disingenous. I am talking about when Beatrice was a child. She has only just turned 18.

She could have bought this terraced house and had money left over.

www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/102983105#/?channel=RES_BUY

What sort of holidays does PM go on that cost more than 24 million pounds?

The house Paul lives in was bought for £16.5 million.
But I guess Heather could have just bought a terraced house for her and her child?

@EYProvider not the kind of holidays Paul goes on. He doesn't just fly on Easyjet to Ibiza you know.
But plenty on here thinks it is fine for a dad to live a more luxurious life than his own child.
In my world you put kids first.

i see the thread's back on topic (sort of ) but I thought HM gave loads of the settlement away anyway?

Would 24 million not buy her a few decent holidays then, @julieca.

Sorry, but I just find your comments ridiculous.

Beatrice needs to be able to go on decent holidays with her mum as well.
Heather got 0.25% of Paul's wealth. It was nothing. And no a house was not included in the settlement.

She got 24 million pounds, not 24 thousand pounds or 24 million rupees. Plus, she got at least one house into the bargain, plus Beatrice got to go on plenty of holidays with her dad.

I’m sure you could buy 100 terraced houses in Coventry with 24 million. What a strange strange argument.

A house to live in, holidays, etc. I wouldn't expect her to live in a terraced house in Coventry.

Also, how much money SHOULD you spend on one kid over the course of 18 years?

What you view as ‘tight’, other people might view as responsible.

@julieca

How much can you spend on one kid over the course of 18 years? And if 24 million isn’t enough, how much is?

@TomPinch yes there was joint custody. That simply means a sharing of parental responsibility, it does not dictate where the child lives. Beatrice was always going to live with Heather. Heather got what she did on the basis that Beatrice was going to be living with her. So yes a tight settlement. I would not have treated my own child that way.

You're missing the point. Because custody was joint there was no basis that I can see for the court to order McCartney to pay Mills anything at all for the upkeep of Beatrice. If Beatrice subsequently lived with Mills anyway, the ordinary course would be for Mills to seek child support or some private arrangement at that time, not before.

As for spousal maintenance, from the judgment I take it that's it's payable if a) one spouse sacrificed their career for the other or b) one spouse will suffer an abrupt drop in living standards.

Mills failed on a) and got millions under b) (which is ironic because it means Mills would have got less if he'd lavished less on her).

But what you're arguing for is c) lifetime meal ticket. I'm not suggesting that Mills was a gold digger, bit it is where your argument leads and it infantilises people in her position.

As I have said, custody was joint, but Beatrice lived with Heather. It is usual when a child is living with one parent full time, that the other parent pays maintenance and a divorce settlement.
I think some of you would have been happy if Beatrice had been raised in a council flat, as long as Heather didn't get any money from Paul.

[quote julieca]@TomPinch I and others have talked about their child Beatrice. Beatrice lived with Heather. Yes it was a tight divorce settlement and related to 0.25% of McCartneys wealth. He could have been generous to his daughter and it would have had zero impact on his own standard of living.[/quote]
@Juliaca

I think you and I are the only ones left discussing Heather Mills!

Whatever may have happened subsequently, it's clear that when the court ordered the settlement, custody was joint. So there is no obvious reason why McCartney should have been required to pay anything in respect of his daughter with Mills. In any respect, what he gives to her is surely a matter between him and her and no one else.

As for Mills herself, why should she have any claim on the wealth McCartney had before the marriage? Seriously, just why? Mills didn't earn it. She enjoyed some of the benefits of it while she was married, but that doesn't make it hers, either legally or morally.