Is it true about the Army Pensions office and the CSA?

#1
My husband's ex-wife is trying to get his Army pension included in her child support assessment. We've been told that the Army pensions office don't have to (and won't!) disclose any info to the CSA, due to a loophole in the law. Does anyone one know if that is true?
 
G

goneandgone

Guest
#2
Mac982 said:
My husband's ex-wife is trying to get his Army pension included in her child support assessment. We've been told that the Army pensions office don't have to (and won't!) disclose any info to the CSA, due to a loophole in the law. Does anyone one know if that is true?
I would hope that the Army pensions office have to..and do ..fully
cooperate with the CSA 8O
A mans first financial commitment must be to the children of his first marriage. Subsequent marriages and children are luxuries should he then be able to afford them.
 
#3
So are some children more important than others?

And do some deserve better standards of maintenance than others?
 
G

goneandgone

Guest
#4
Minister_doh_nut said:
So are some children more important than others?
And do some deserve better standards of maintenance than others?
There's only so much money to go around within a family.
A man shouldn't go creating babies with a woman he promised to be committed to for life through marriage then simply abandon responsibilty for supporting those children upon divorce and move on to make fresh babies with his latest squeeze.
Fathers need to take responsibilty and support the children they father and not expect the rest of us to pay extra in taxes to let them off the hook.
 
#6
Not just the fathers responsibility

Equality when it suits.... Pah!
 
#7
™blondebint™ said:
Subsequent marriages and children are luxuries should he then be able to afford them.
That is a terrible statement. So leave the subsequent families to fend for themselves? You truely are bonkers or your ex is doing the same with you?. And before you go off on one, this is not the AAC Mafia ganging up on you. Your statement is total garbage.
 
#8
"I would hope that the Army pensions office have to..and do ..fully
cooperate with the CSA
A mans first financial commitment must be to the children of his first marriage. Subsequent marriages and children are luxuries should he then be able to afford them."

I think this is the most twisted statement I have ever heard! And am enraged by the ideas behind it.

As a woman I take great exception to the implication that I cannot fend for my children and myself.

If you want to provide luxuries for your children, get a job....

Under the new tax credit system you have up to 80% of your childcare paid for you. So get a job! If you died your husband would be in the same situation you are in, get on with it!

How dare the suggestion a man should pay anything he may not be able to afford as a penance for not loving the mother anymore! Men are as emotionally attached to children as women, how many guys on this site are in second marriages to women who came with children? Do you refuse to care and provide because they are another mans off spring? I'd be surprised if you said yes....

Revenge is an ugly twisted thing.... for the sake of children to make money the priority?! Disgusting!

It was a joint decision to have children, if not then surrender the child to the parent that did plan the pregnancy then pay him maintenance! Lets see how much you can bleat over this idea.

As to the laws governing the rights of information and disclosure of any ex-forces pensions details.... Watch this space, I'll get the info for you ASAP mac982....

And can I say I hope it is in his, his childrens and your favour.

HIS NEW FAMILY UNIT.
 
G

goneandgone

Guest
#9
blessed baby cakes said:
"I would hope that the Army pensions office have to..and do ..fully
cooperate with the CSA
A mans first financial commitment must be to the children of his first marriage. Subsequent marriages and children are luxuries should he then be able to afford them."

I think this is the most twisted statement I have ever heard! And am enraged by the ideas behind it.
Twisted? The idea that a father should have supporting his children as his first priority? Also that he should not father further children if he cannot afford them? Why twisted? Should the taxpayer bear the cost of a mans irresponsibility then?

As a woman I take great exception to the implication that I cannot fend for my children and myself.
You consider it acceptable for men to abandon financial responsibilty for their families? If a man leaves a woman she should be able to financially support herself and their children alone?

If you want to provide luxuries for your children, get a job...
Under the new tax credit system you have up to 80% of your childcare paid for you. So get a job! If you died your husband would be in the same situation you are in, get on with it!
You expect the wife to get a job to fully support herself and her children. You approve that the father doesn't pay to support his children?

How dare the suggestion a man should pay anything he may not be able to afford as a penance for not loving the mother anymore! Men are as emotionally attached to children as women, how many guys on this site are in second marriages to women who came with children? Do you refuse to care and provide because they are another mans off spring? I'd be surprised if you said yes....
Yes. The mans first responsibilty is to the children of his first marriage.
Emotional attachment doesn't fill a hungry belly- Maintenance does.

Revenge is an ugly twisted thing.... for the sake of children to make money the priority?! Disgusting!
Housing, feeding and clothing the children of the marriage is the priority. I fail to see how your rant regarding revenge is relevent.

It was a joint decision to have children, if not then surrender the child to the parent that did plan the pregnancy then pay him maintenance! Lets see how much you can bleat over this idea.
Once the children are here they need to be provided for. They should remain the financial responsibilty of the parents.

And can I say I hope it is in his, his childrens and your favour.
HIS NEW FAMILY UNIT.
A wife and mother should be able to expect that the father of her children will support them after as before the divorce.
The new family unit is the secondary commitment.
 
G

goneandgone

Guest
#11
blessed baby cakes said:
I am so glad there are a vast majority of women who do not feel as you do, you're arguement is that of a woman bitter and scorned.
To sad to fight, you're to bruised already.
I consider this a simply a discussion- not personal.
The vast majority of women left supporting the children of the marriage alone would feel that the father should continue to support his children financially.
Are you suggesting that a father should not support his children?
I fail to understand your reasoning.
 
#12
™blondebint™ said:
A wife and mother should be able to expect that the father of her children will support them after as before the divorce.
The new family unit is the secondary commitment.
Why should he maintain the ex wife? Children yes, joint reponsibilty either in time or fiancially or both

new family seconadry commitment.really..so if you remarried and had another child you would treat the first lot differently..... bet its great in your house
 
#13
™blondebint™ said:
A wife and mother should be able to expect that the father of her children will support them after as before the divorce.
The new family unit is the secondary commitment.
Absolute b0llocks

Kids yes, ex wife? Fcuk her and let her starve. Once divorced the welfare of the ex wife is her responsibility. There are too many fat, lazy divorced scroungers that live their lives by fleecing the ex husband via the CSA on the false pretence that all of the money is "for the kids"

This "for the kids" money then inevitably goes towards paying for their cakes and special brew.

And before you ask, no I haven't fallen foul of them but I have a couple of mates that have who's lives have basically been ruined by a faceless bureaucracy that doesn't actually give a t0ss about the welfare of the kids and will blindly listen to the bleating of the sponging, bitter ex spouses.

The quote above is the typical sort of garbage drivel that I have come to expect of that bitter, twisted loony tune Blondedick
 
#14
A veritable can of worms has been opened!

It appears the initial reply was sent by someone who feels strongly and has per chance fell foul of the system. It is expected that from her perspective the emphasise is on the ex-husband. While the wife has the finiancial burden of the children even after the man has moved on to a new relationship.
 
#15
™blondebint™ said:
Minister_doh_nut said:
So are some children more important than others?
And do some deserve better standards of maintenance than others?
There's only so much money to go around within a family.
A man shouldn't go creating babies with a woman he promised to be committed to for life through marriage then simply abandon responsibilty for supporting those children upon divorce and move on to make fresh babies with his latest squeeze.
Fathers need to take responsibilty and support the children they father and not expect the rest of us to pay extra in taxes to let them off the hook.
What a single minded self centred cow. Just because your old man done the decent thing and legged it.......there's no need to hate us all.
 
#16
Well, I seem to have stirred up some emotions here!

My husband doesn't object to supporting his children from his first marriage. He pays £500 per month, it's not about the amount of money, he doesn't want his privacy invaded, he doesn't want his ex to know how much he earns (or doesn't earn, lol!, he's pretty uncomfortable with me earning more) or the amount of his pension.

We have chosen not to have children because we can't afford to, his priority should be with the children he has already - he and his ex-wife divorced, he didn't divorce the children. He chose to bring them into this world and I utterly respect him for truly understanding the meaning of responsibility.

He and his ex-wife don't communicate well, the children are in their mid-teens and she doesn't feel she can trust him to continue paying as she knows we intend to live in France in the next couple of years. He's tried to reassure her but he wasn't a particularly good husband the first time round (I wasn't involved, thank goodness!) so maybe she has her reasons for not trusting him.

As for her, she works hard, and she does her utmost to bring the girls up to the best of her ability - no small task on her own and she does a great job, they are really nice kids. I hardly think that our money goes towards just 'luxuries' and certainly doesn't go towards enabling her to sit on her 'fat arse' or eat cakes and drink special brew - very harsh comments, folks.....

Not every father wants to dodge paying maintenance and equally, not every mother is a money grabbing lazy so and so. There really are considerate and responsible people about, don't be so quick to judge, huh?

Thanks, Mac

PS Never thought I'd be sticking up for my hubby's ex!
 
#17
What happens if say..that as an absent partner who is paying maintainance for his children is then denied access to them? as does happen in a few cases.

OR

the mother was working, before making the case to csa drops down to part-time hours, so ex-hubby has to pay more to her?

too many scenarios that favour the female in the case of CSA. cases the web and newspapers are filled with them.how did those that seperated manage before the creation of all these "agencies"? i would suggest the woman went and got a job and paid for a childminder.

give up on this the world owes me type life we have all fell into, you came in with nothing, and thats how you go. :twisted:
 
#18
No-one is judging, mac. Some just feel they cannot respond in a rational way.

Ex, your comment hits the nail squarely on the head.

too many scenarios that favour the female in the case of CSA. cases the web and newspapers are filled with them.how did those that seperated manage before the creation of all these "agencies"? i would suggest the woman went and got a job and paid for a childminder
 
V

vespa

Guest
#19
On one hand the Govt is worried about falling birth rates ( less young people to support oldies) and the other set the CSA hunting packs onto responsible fathers with unfair rules etc when it was originally set up to chase run-away fathers so far it hasnt done that one very well so it goes for the "easy" target ( sounds familiar Speed cameras anyone),

is it any surprise that the birth rates is falling as a lot of lads dont want to become a dad because of the potential fall out also some girls use it as a way to beat their Ex even further into the ground some have given up and hanged themselves thereby depriving the child of a father figure WELL DONE CSA :roll: there is no "child support" in that

not all of the money goes to the child a percentage of it is taken away by the CSA as "admin fees"
 

X-Inf

War Hero
Book Reviewer
#20
It works both ways. On my split my kid decided to stay with me. Try to get the family allowance book from her!!!! Finally got it, took weeks, with the vouchers cashed up to date - no money handed over.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top