If I won the lottery....

Leaving the children in poverty is a bit harsh and I would advocate that anyone winning the lottery that they should never leave the children in poverty. But there has to be a reasonable measure of what poverty is. We hear about the average income and the average price for a home, therefore it would not be unreasonable for the PWC to seek a reasonable lifestyle that they are accustomed to or is above 'average'. In either case, the children should then no longer be in poverty. It would be then for the PWC to communicate effectively with the NRP to seek further financial assistance. Prior to this though, there seemed to be 2 bartering tools; the children and money. I don’t think any PWC would dream of saying that they would use the children as bartering tools, would they?

Currently though, there are too many cases where it is clear that both the PWC and the NRP behave intolerantly towards each other, in one way or other. I'm familiar with the PWC who dominates and alienates the NRP. This may eventually cause the NRP to leave the PWC stranded (I didn't go this far). Either way there is a power struggle, upset and hardship. In my mind, the PWC seems to have too much 'power' to seek recompense through the CSA and the courts.

So it is all more important then for there to be obligatory Parenting classes upon separation so that the PWC and the NRP can talk, learn and understand the other’s perspective.

www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/32394...o-ex-wife-Wendy.html

As it's many years post divorce for me - If I won 57 million , I would give my ex 5 million no question's asked .
We get along for the children's sake no more court battles just a calm now , but this way the children can have a good life with both parents - neither of them would have to work both have equal time with the children .
After all you can't take it to your grave with you ..

No one can touch your lottery winnings not the CSA not a Court land in the UK it is gambling money if you are stupid enough to go and buy a house or a car in your name then you can have your ex on your back for these things I understand why you would ask this if a woman sees a man is not fit to live with and kicked him out the house then why is he suddenly fit to get money from afterwards
Your kids would not want for anything but the ex can go and jump.

Just don't buy a single thing in your name your money in the bank is untouchable that's the law in the UK

An interesting response to a post from nearly 8 years ago. Also entirely incorrect.

The court has jurisdiction to make lump sum orders in Schedule 1 Children Act applications. These are not the meal ticket that they appear as there is a high bar for such orders.


Also, interest is classed as income and tax should be paid on that income. If monies sat in a bank, the income from interest would be assessed by the CMS and monies would have to be paid for the sake of the children.

So, sherbet12 is incorrect - please ignore.

Charles

.Charles wrote:

So, sherbet12 is incorrect - please ignore.

Charles

sherbert 12 actually had a very positive outlook on how they would share with their ex.

NickR1212 is posting the inflammatory, incorrect, stuff in their first and only ever post on an 8 year old thread.

No doubt they will now disappear!

Oops, my apologies to sherbet12. My angst was indeed directed at NickR1212!

Charles