Observer Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 It isn't always custodial though, it can be just access. Children are very flexible so long as they feel secure and loved - I don't go along with the one parent has to do without theory/weekend parenting. Shared care is feasible. Children are not going to feel secure being passed from one parent to the other. They need to have a stable homelife and in my opinion spending one week with the mother then the next week with the father isn't stability, nor would it be practical either. Minnie, I know a family who do more or less that and the child is happy, well balanced and confident. In fact the child (with parents) plans where they are going to be and switches around throughout the week with no set pattern. Both parents and child are extremely happy. That's not always going to work for every family that splits up though is it? That demonstrates that a flexible approach to childcare can indeed promote stability and security and though it may well not be workable for some parents, for others it is the ideal solution. More often than not, the problem lies in the parents being too wrapped up in their own difficulties rather than setting them aside for the sake of the child's well being. I would not expect this example to work in all cases, but the point I am making is that each case should be assessed on it's own merits and not just made to conform with socially accepted and expected solutions. If we do not push the boundaries we do not develop as a society.
Ripsaw Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 More often than not, the problem lies in the parents being too wrapped up in their own difficulties rather than setting them aside for the sake of the child's well being. I would not expect this example to work in all cases, but the point I am making is that each case should be assessed on it's own merits and not just made to conform with socially accepted and expected solutions.
Minnie Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 I think it is just that you’re not putting your argument across particularly well Minnie but don’t stress atoo much about it. It’s not important at the end of the day is it, just each of us voicing our opinions even though they don’t make a scrap of difference to what actually goes on in the real world (ie away from the internet), and we’re not out to get you contrary to what you might think! Well, I’m not at least. I can’t speak for anyone else. Hang around here for a while and you’ll soon get a bit more thick skinned I think! I'm not stressing about it at all and I'm well aware that none of us are gonna make a scrap of difference to what goes on in the real world. I'm joking when I say stop picking on me, trying lighten the atmosphere a bit. I know it's not very important what goes on in here and I've already said it's a place for voicing opinions not getting into slanging matches, but if you ask me a lot of people who post on here take things far, far more seriously than most and like to single out individuals and make a "show" of them.................remember a "feckin pile of xxxxxx"??? Sorry, that subject's dropped now! lol
Minnie Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 Having not bothered with the "Court system" to come to agreement about the future of my child with his mother, I'm not in a position to speak from personal experience. We never bothered with the court system to agree access/visitation rights either, but I do have family and friends who have. In some cases it's inevitable that a court has to be involved in coming to the decision about where children should live, people who choose to sort their problems in that way shouldn't be judged or be made to feel they've not put their children first. Many marriages/relationships break down to the extent that there has to be a 3rd party involved, and I do believe courts make their decisions in the best interests of the children. You've obviously hit lucky with your employer, Ripsaw, but there are many employers who wouldn't be quite so understanding when it comes to fathers having childcare problems.
Ripsaw Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 Darn right that people shouldn't be judged for using the courts. I wouldn't say that I was lucky with work though, I explained the situation clearly in the interview, they had the choice to reject my application but agreed that the terms were acceptable. The job was supposed to be a 9 to 5 job. My previous employers were good about it, I went from an 8 to 5:30 job in Ramsey (with opening and closing responsibility) to reduced hours in Douglas. My salary was adjusted to reflect my new hours, but with no loss based on hourly rates. Low unemployment and lack of available quality staff may have worked in my favour, but then again I could just be ace to employ B)
Cret Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 but then again I could just be ace to employ B) Ha ha! Modest as well eh? Glad you have a situation that works for you(pl).
rallybug Posted July 9, 2004 Posted July 9, 2004 I wouldn't call getting quarter of a million a year for free a rough deal though Minnie.I know what you're getting at and I agree the kids shouldn't suffer on account of parents splitting up ever but that's not the issue as I think any father worth his salt would see to it that his kids are doing ok, especially when money is no object. According to the BBC site, it's £250,000 tax-free lump sum now, £406,000 a year for minimun of next four years and 2 mortgage free houses worth over £1 million (a £1 million mock-tudor house in Hornchurch, Essex and a holiday home in Norfolk). This is in addition to the £12,000 p.a. for each of the children. Let's repeat that: £250,000 now, tax-free, to his ex-wife £406,000 every year to his ex-wife (is this taxable?) £36,000 every year in maintenance for the children 2 house mortgage free together worth over £1 million So, Parlour's outgoings every year will be £442,000 in maintenance. Do we know if the £1.2 million p.a. he's on at Arsenal is gross or net? If gross, then £442,000 is a hell of a big percentage of the net figure, bearing in mind he'd be paying 40% tax, possibly around 10% to his agent etc. Also, his career could end tomorrow with a bad injury, so I would assume he'd have to go back to court in that eventuality to re-assess the maintenance as it was based on his future earnings.
Minnie Posted July 9, 2004 Posted July 9, 2004 Apparently the amount she's receiving is a third of his projected earnings over the next four years, he's hardly gonna be left penniless. I would imagine she'll pay tax as well, correct me if I'm wrong but I was under the impression maintenance payments are taxable?? I would also imagine he'll be well insured against the possibilty of his career ending due to injury???
Observer Posted July 9, 2004 Posted July 9, 2004 Voluntary payments are not required to be taxed as those funds have already been taxed. Payments made under a court order are taxable income and are tax deductable for those who are required to make the payments. Sounds like an extortionate deal to me and I am a girlie!
the mo beats experience Posted July 11, 2004 Posted July 11, 2004 Apparently the amount she's receiving is a third of his projected earnings over the next four years, he's hardly gonna be left penniless. i hardly think thats the point though, is it. he earns the money, she was already getting a good whack off him, he should pay for his children only, not her lifestyle. i don't know what ended their marriage, its not been said, or has it? anyway unless he did something wrong to end it, then she shouldn't get a penny for herself, i think its ludicris(love that word,can't spell it though). instead of grabbing as much of his loot as she can before he retires, if she wanted that sort of lifestyle, she should've made a bit more effort with her marriage. there's no loyalty anymore, people split up all the time, gone are the days when people work hard for a marriage.
ans Posted July 11, 2004 Posted July 11, 2004 He left her and, according to her, has still offered no explantion.
the mo beats experience Posted July 11, 2004 Posted July 11, 2004 oh well, i suppose its cos she's a moose, but then he looks like charlie dimmock!
Minnie Posted July 11, 2004 Posted July 11, 2004 He left her and, according to her, has still offered no explantion. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Serves him bloody well right then if you ask me, hope she gets every penny she can get her hands on! I didn't realise he'd left her, I think some people jumped to the conclusion that she was to blame, she left him and then proceeded to grab whatever she could from him. I don't think it's all down to her with regards the lifestyle she lead, he obviously didn't have a problem with it or he'd have sent her out to work.
Jay Posted July 11, 2004 Posted July 11, 2004 spoken like a real money grabbing bint! Maybe the poor guy could no longer put up with her incessant whinging and nagging. Will you marry me minnie?
Minnie Posted July 11, 2004 Posted July 11, 2004 spoken like a real money grabbing bint! Will you marry me minnie? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Money grabbing bint?............no, just a woman who knows what shes worth, what she deserves and is entitled to! As for your proposal, you've asked me that already! I prefer my men a bit younger, a bit richer, a bit leaner, a bit less bald and a lot more good looking than you!
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.