Posted on 03/11/2015 7:07:55 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
LONDON - A penniless British woman seeking financial support from her millionaire ex-husband 22 years after their divorce was told by Britain's Supreme Court on Wednesday that she could pursue her claim, a ruling with implications for other British divorcees.
(Excerpted because of al Reuters source)
(Excerpt) Read more at winnipegsun.com ...
So this good ole boy let his kids live in squalor while he did not?
There are a number of people who fight child support and intimidate and really find winning more important that the children.
Sad.
The man in question only became wealthy in the last 15 or so years. I don’t believe he should have left his children in poverty, but it should be noted that the youngest of his children NOW would have to be at least 22 years old!
paste:
Dale Vince and Kathleen Wyatt were both poor when they married in 1981. They had a son and lived an itinerant lifestyle together until 1984, when they broke up. They were formally divorced in 1992.
After their separation, Vince joined the traveller community and spent about a decade living from hand to mouth in a converted ambulance, attending New Age festivals and anti-nuclear arms protests.
In the early 1990s, he began experimenting with green energy. He started at the Glastonbury music festival where he fixed a windmill to the top of an old pylon, installed batteries at its foot, plugged in four large mobile telephones and offered festival-goers a wind-powered phone service.
From these modest beginnings, Vince, now 53, eventually built up Ecotricity, a green energy business worth an estimated 57 million pounds ($86 million).
Meanwhile, Wyatt, now 55, and her four children continued to live what the court described as “an unsettled lifestyle”, subsisting on state benefits and earnings from low-wage jobs.
end paste
Sorry, they broke up in 1984. Thus, their son would now be at least 30 years old!
So she wants another swing at the divorce pinata now that her ex husband is rich, instead of the smelly hippie he was when they were together? I would give some to his son- voluntarily. But to the ex? Not a damn farthing. all the fortune he earned was well after the divorce.
CC
First of all, it’s child, not children. They only had one child together, the other three had other father(s). Second, the “child” would be at least 31, if he was born in the last year of their failed marriage, at which time, and for several years after, both were destitute. What about the other father or fathers? Do they not have an obligation as well? Their obligation is far more recent than this gentleman’s. What about the mother? Does she not have an obligation to support her children, or is it only the man who has such an obligation?
We do not know the circumstances of the divorce or the post-divorce custody situation. Perhaps the mother kept the father out of the child’s life and he never had an opportunity to know his son. Maybe his son didn’t want to have anything to do with him. Maybe the woman was at fault for the dissolution of the marriage. We simply do not know.
There is no way in any case that this man should be LEGALLY obligated to pay anything to two other adults who he has no legal obligation to support. Sure, there may be a moral obligation, particularly with respect to his son, but again, this is a moral obligation, not a legal one.
I don’t approve of his decisions, but her actions in trying to take money he earned after they were divorced and after the kids were (technically) adults are even worse. The courts should give her nothing. What he chooses to share with her or with his children is his own business.
I say this as a man who cannot imagine not giving my own wealth to my children.
This is not about alimony. This is about her having raised their four children with no help from him, and now he is wealthy and she is penniless. It’s about not having received any child support over the years of struggle.
According to the article they had one child at the time of their breakup. She may have ended up with four, but the other three have a different daddy.
So where did the other 3 come from? Why should he have to support the other "additions" she accumulated since they divorced?
In this case, I think he should help HIS kid out, but just because he improved his condition is no reason for people in his past to feel they have the right to his self-made situation. I think we used to call that COMMUNISM!
Welcome to the Animal Farm...
Real men support their children (or in this case, child).
The woman can go to he11 as far as I am concerned, but the guy should have taken better care of his kid once he began to make a good living.
Where in the article did it say that he earned his wealth after his child was grown?
The article reads as if they only had one child together and they were divorced in 1984. It sounds very much like the other three children were not his.
Seems the British courts are taking that pretty seriously...
well guess what? Child support never dies...........
That depends.
Did he even know where the child was? My ex tried her best to keep my child as far away from me as she could. The only thing she wanted was the support payment.
If she kept good relations with him over the years, I think he should help her, and he definitely needs to be in his son's life, but if she was a witch toward him, he owes her nothing. In fact, the lawsuit has "witch" written all over it. An approach based on honey instead of vinegar would probably get results.
The best solution to this issue is this post.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.