to think that after 20 yeaes you shluld not be leeching off your ex?

[butterfly2015]

The woman who has won the right to screw her ex for money has really pissed me off. 20 years after the split, she remarried, had two more kids and bought her council house but let it fall into disrepair. So now her ex has made.a fortune she's decided to demand money from him.

A financial order does not prevent a spouse from coming back for more. I know a number of people with financial orders whose ex-spouses have gone to court to increase maintenance because their ex has made more money

Whatever you think about the case, I'm not sure either of them come out well. We have Ecotricity (his company) as our energy supplier and this really makes me want to jump ship!

This is more of a general point but pre CSA it was quite common for people to have private and less standardised support arrangements.

So my dad never paid his ex 'maintenance' for her/my sister but he did put the house in her name and pay the mortgage plus any repairs required for 20 years.

The system was changed/standardised because too many people men abused the lack of structure to walk away from financial comittments but that doesn't mean they all did. You'd need to judge on a case by case basis - which is difficuult so many years later.

Can't you see the irony in your post?!

to think that after 20 yeaes you shluld not be leeching off your ex?

• No, you shouldn't, Mr. Ecotricity. You spent the last 20 years not contributing a PENNY to your kids - leeching utterly off this woman, who DIDN'T have the free time, headspace or lack of commitment to get the chance to do anything near becoming an entrepreneur and making a million. While you were doing that, she funded YOUR children - who you now get to have a relationship with, get to be Dad, get to have a family with. She spent HER time and energy and cash raising them. Calling yourself 'Dad' and expecting to get the benefit of that relationship with what are now young adults is the very DEFINITION of leeching. You kept your time to yourself and used it to make millions instead of helping to support them.

Clean break? Yup, that would be Mr Eco putting his hands up and saying 'No, I don't have the right to sponge here - I did nothing to get them to this stage, why should I get to be Dad now and enjoy that bond, that relationship?

Of course she has the right to say now - ok, you now have the funds - perhaps it's time to reimburse me for years and years and years of creating, maintaining, funding this amazing asset that you are now only too happy to enjoy the benefit of.

This story has really angered me - not least because it's disgusting that she should even have to ask. Yes, Mr Green, Mr doing great stuff for humanity - pity he couldn't look at the human being that's poured her energy into the OTHER assets he now enjoys and say 'hey, you know, by rights - if I'm going to look at my life as a whole and the good stuff I have - half of this cash belongs to you.'

This is at the whole core of why women who stay and raise the children get done over, time and time again, why society sanctions that - and does little or nothing to see justice done when it comes to taking responsibility for raising children. NOBODY would even think, in a MILLION years, to say to Mr. Eco - 'Hang on, you split years ago. You decided to separate yourself from this family and played no part, made no contribution to creating and maintaining this amazing asset, these now adult humans who are only what they are because your ex wife made them her project. You have no right to ask to share those assets now. You are not Dad, go away.'

Yet in reverse - when the child carer says, hey - you've only got those monetary assets AND the benefit of having children, grandchildren, a family, because I did it all - oh nooooo, the cash Mr. Big makes because he's not finishing work at 3pm because he has to get to the school - no, you've no right to that! All mine! And yes, the kids are half mine too. Me human rights, innit?

I couldn't disagree more with your OP, and I hope she gets a good payout.

Sylvanian you have said everything. I wanted to say but so much better, total agree.

I am lone parent who exh decided he couldn't see son at regular times as interfered with his hobbies and his girlfriend so he doesn't see don . His mother reminds me his lucky I am he pays regular amount and that I'm living off him. I told her exactly what I thought of her son paying a minimal amount and having no responsibility of our son as he does what he pleases.
He has no issues with childcare or day to day responsibilities it is him using get out of parent card by paying a token amount and so he is leeching off me as I am doing the toke of two parents

Sylvanian - who's to say his son and step-son didn't have a relationship with him before he started his business? Just because he was a New Age Traveller living in a converted van and didn't contribute much financially to their upbringing, doesn't mean he wasn't a loving father who was regularly spending time with his children. I haven't read anything in the papers that claims he was or wasn't an involved father - according to a pp who claims to have personal knowledge of the situation, he was.

You spent the last 20 years not contributing a PENNY to your kids
He only had one child with her, and this child moved in with him as soon as he was 18. He had informally accepted parental responsibility for her first child whilst they were together but not for the children born subsequent to their break up/divorce.
The Supreme Court judgment is rather more reliable than some of the news reports.

I've just checked, and the action began in 2011 which still seems an absurdly long time to wait for financial redress, imo.

didn't he not pay any maintainance for his son't childhood? He should pay that back with interest, but the rest of it.....no way. he made that money without her help. However, he owes her for bringing up his son without his financial help which prob meant she couldn't go and focus on a new business venture like he could.

www.supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2013_0186_Judgment.pdf

That link tells you about the case, where the various DC lived and when, and the absence of regular maintenance payments (including his DS's later teen years when the business was profitable - think 6 figure clear profit)

I think the money should be taken from him and given back to the State who supported his child.

Thanks for the link, lilymaid. It makes very sad reading - the children seem to have had a quite chaotic upbringing (and it seems, Vince did treat his older stepchild, Emily, as his own). There seems to have been efforts by Vince to get informal custody of both the children a few times and, reading between the lines, it all seems very rancorous. Both Emily and Dane (his biological son) moved in with him when they reached adulthood but Emily moved back with her mum after about a year.

What struck me most was that Wyatt claimed that several occasions she had when her path crossed with Vince over the years were "reunions" which he denies. I think this is way more about revenge/control than it is about money.

YABU. She should be be compensated in the form of the child maintenance she should have got.

I think this is very unjust and hope she gets very little.

They seperated 32 years ago!

When does it end.

He tried to get custody of his son and step daughter so not some feckless man who abandoned his children.

I think the fact that his son went to live and work with him at 18 says a lot.

It's impossible to know the facts without actually being the parents. She had the kids so he could work is one scenario but another might be that she refused to let him have the kids. A lot of posters are 'projecting' about their own experiences. He only started the buisness when his son was 14

YABVU
If I just read the headline and no more then YANBU but they have a child together which she's had to care for over the years ( like many woman seem to end up doing when they separate/ divorce). He's the biological dad and he does not stop being the biological dad after they divorce.

Belindabelle kids. Most of the time kids think the other parent is more fun and the grass is greener as the NRP doesn't have the day to day boring stuff the resident parent does like housework,homework etc
I'd say most NRP rock up and have fun for the scheduled times and go home so if course kids think it will be more fun to go and live with the other parent for awhile.
I'd say he abandoned his kids if he didn't pay for them, it's all well and good saying his lifestyle was living in a van being a new age hippy and he had no money to give but that is not a father not providing for his kids

So one of the children isn't actually his?
Three of the children aren't his biologically. The eldest was born before the marriage (different father) and was accepted by Vince as his child. The other two were born after the marriage ended (post divorce)
The Supreme Court has indicated that she should receive a modest amount which will secure her a mortgage free home in good condition - certainly not the £1.9 million claimed.

queen read the link kindly provided by lilymaid and you will see that he didn't just 'abandon' his child, nor did he just wipe his hands the child that wasn't biologically his.

It was very interesting reading (and sad at the same time). You could read the document and have one of 2 opinions....she genuinely tried to better herself with an education but was scuppered each time by her controlling/abusive husband or, as there is no record of this, she is attempting to discredit ExH and suggest that she couldn't get a decent paying job as she wasn't allowed to train at uni so is therefore entitled to financially support as it's his fault.

Have either of the children spoken up on this? TBH if this was my mother (and the scenario with my biological father isn't that dissimilar, except he isn't a multi-millionaire) I would be somewhat embarrassed and ashamed that she would think it entirely reasonable to try and exhort money out of after all this time.

exmrs and sylvanian you are both coming across in your post's as incredibly bitter and twisted.

Yes I am bitter NRP get to pick and choose when they want to be a parent or walk away entirely and they face no consequences.

Oh and if you read the document provided via link you will see that the mother also adopted the nomadic lifestyle and followed him to several traveller sites and they shared childcare. Because she chose that lifestyle, does she also get a grilling for not 'providing' for her children? Why not? She didn't have any money either, and they were sharing childcare at the various sites they lived at.

How did she buy her council house then? She must have had a job

exmrs Please read the Supreme Court judgment - all this is explained (as far as the court could discover!)