Hypothetical problem

[Candystore]

.

 

[Dolby]

You must be A or know A.

I think asking him to put the kids on his medical aid is fair. I also think any father shouldn't have an issue.

Does A not have a medical aid?

 

[Dolby]

Ok.

I don't have a child, wife or even girlfriend at this stage. But I'll try put myself there :

If I had been paying a more than fair maintenance for the past 5 years, I would possibly question where the money was used. However - it's still my child and I'd still move the child over to my medical aid for the medical expense - and pay the outstanding balance not coverered by medical aid.

At worst, I would possibly come to some sort of agreement on the outstanding - maybe 50:50.

 

[gifs]

One more problem to think about. Normally if someone joins a medical aid after not being on another medical aid, there will be some sort of waiting period during which you wont be able to make any claims or only some limited claims. I am not sure how long this period will be. This is done to prevent exactly what you are trying to do here, wait until big expenses are expected and only then join the medical aid.

So if the medical care the child needs is urgent, there might be a problem.

 

[Dolby]

So what did A do with the extra money?

Or did A simply up the lifestyle of the the only child?

If she did keep money aside, then surely the 50:50 suggestion is also fair?

 

[guest2013-1]

The maintenance contracts usually have to state cost in terms of medical as well.

I'd shoot the lawyer who drew up the pages and then sue the family for damages.... but that's just me

FYI, alley-moh-nee and maintenance is separate usually. The latter used for the kids only and the other for her own needs. So if she was living out of this money and didn't do the whole medical aid thing it's her own fault.

Again. The documents had to specify this

 

[guest2013-1]

FYI, B would be able to argue in court that he paid maintenance for 3 kids even though 2 are not dependent anymore so that A has to cover everything

I think any non-single person with kids (or single person with kids) with no medical aid is playing Russian roulette

 

[CathJ]

FYI, B would be able to argue in court that he paid maintenance for 3 kids even though 2 are not dependent anymore so that A has to cover everything

I think any non-single person with kids (or single person with kids) with no medical aid is playing Russian roulette

While I think this may be the legal interpretation, when it comes down to it B might have to make a choice between paying for the treatment (even though it sounds to me like he shouldn't have to), or seeing his kid go untreated.

 

[Dolby]

I imagine that A can argue that she was entitled to an increase (at least inflation related) in maintenance. However, she never requested one.

Would her entitlement to an increase and his entitlement to a reduction because 2 kids left the house amount to more or less the same then?

I doubt it.

Did A not keep any money aside ?

 

[guest2013-1]

I imagine that A can argue that she was entitled to an increase (at least inflation related) in maintenance. However, she never requested one.

Would her entitlement to an increase and his entitlement to a reduction because 2 kids left the house amount to more or less the same then?

She could but mathematically she won't have a leg to stand on really.

Inflation over a period of 5 years, I'm pretty sure that by the 2 kids leaving and not being dependent anymore covers that for at least 8 years.

Remember, we're not talking Zimbabwe inflation here (unless she lives there, then I might be totally wrong)

From what I understand is the ex-husband has been more than fair with regard to everything. The reason for him not requesting a lowering of the monthly expense is testament to that (although, I'm assuming he's not an idiot)

So for A to request this from B. IMO, is unfair.

Yes, if B doesn't do it HIS child will suffer because of the "raise" A took out of the money meant for the child in the first place. So he is kind of forced to in a situation like that wouldn't you think?

Anyway, from this entire post I'm starting to think that A is just wanting to take advantage of B's good nature and not take a dip in her own lifestyle.

 

[Dolby]

Are you then saying B ought to pay more maintenance or is he entitled to a reduction?

She kept no money aside, in fact she wanted a loan from B, which was declined.

I'd say he's more than generous and even though A didn't get an increase, the extra B was paying for the 2 children would have been greater anyway.

So say he was paying R1000,00 for each child (R3,000.00 in total), after 5 years at even 15%, he'd be paying less than R1,800.00 a child. With only a signle child, he'd only be paying that R1,800.00 as opposed to the R3,000 he's paying for the 3 children - if that makes sense :/

 

[guest2013-1]

Are you then saying B ought to pay more maintenance or is he entitled to a reduction?

She kept no money aside, in fact she wanted a loan from B, which was declined.

Okay, this just confirms my suspicion.

If the money B gives A for all 3 kids were enough for her to live off and take care of 3 kids, why is getting money for 3 kids and only having 1 to take care of such a problem now?

If I were A I'd sit down with a calculator and go through all my expenses and see what I can do... Suzie Orman will have a field day with this woman...

Do women go to strip clubs? Because that's the only place I know can suck me dry in next to no time...

 

[Battery]

Ugh! I am utterly disgusted by A's behavior.

Being a child whose parents divorced my father still had to pay all excesses. While my mother received a very very generous maintenance, I didn't see that much of that money. Sure, I could eat more but it really doesn't add up to that amount IMO.

If having to pay for one third of what is given in the maintenance, surely there should be an excess amount of money considering the other 2 non-dependent children now can afford their own expenses?

Having been in the situation of the child that requires the funds that is depicted in the 'hypothetical' scenario, i find that 'A' is out to abuse 'B''s generosity - much like my mother did.

Still love her though.

Man kann einfach nicht leute so durch die scheisse ziehen. Du kommst einfach nicht klar 'A'! Stop leading an eloquent lifestyle and prioritize the children, like their father does - you hypocrite.

 

[Other Pineapple Smurf]

I'm divorced and my daughter lives with her mom. My maintenance agreement has age limit on it - when my daughter is 18. I'm under no obligation to contribute more than what is in our contract (legal stance) - from a personal stance I contribute as much as I can (3 x my requirement).

Morally my daughter is still my daughter (even though I did not see her for many years and that she will live with her mom). I believe parents have an obligation to care for their children and each case needs to be handled on its own merits.

 

[Rouxenator]

The answer is A and B made many mistakes.

They got togehter (mistake), they had children (massive mistake), they got divorced (mortal mistake).

Therefor based on their track record I would think they can do pretty much anything they like because even if it is a mistake it will just be A and B doing what they do best.

Family murder seems like a logical next mistake to make.

 

[CathJ]

Ugh! I am utterly disgusted by A's behavior.

Careful - we're only seeing one side of the story here. It might well be more complicated than it sounds.

 

[blunomore]

"A" could very well be Mr Blu's ex from the sound of it

I am obviously subjective, but it's nevertheless a fact that a lot of women sees divorce as a mealticket for life ....

 

[Pitbull]

B is a fk face for leaving his kids without medical aid to begin with. Kids SHOULD ALWAYS have medical cover, and it's the fathers duty to make sure they are well looked after.

B is a useless father

 

[Pitbull]

"A" could very well be Mr Blu's ex from the sound of it

I am obviously subjective, but it's nevertheless a fact that a lot of women sees divorce as a mealticket for life ....

True, but the father should not leave his kids without medical aid no matter what. Even if that is taken out of the maintenance he pays her, he must keep the kids on his medical aid.

 

[blunomore]

True, but the father should not leave his kids without medical aid no matter what. Even if that is taken out of the maintenance he pays her, he must keep the kids on his medical aid.

So you suggest B should put the kids on a medical aid and deduct the monthly premium from the maintenance? You should expect some serious squealing!