Moana:
he shouldnt have had issues supporting his child when he actually had to, otherwise the court would not have just awarded that money out of the blue. You still get many cases of men that are sued for outstanding child support, when they neglect or fail to make payment.
It wasnt her child alone now was it?

It's also clearly stated in the article that he was unemployed at the time and had to live on state benefits. He did not have the money at the time of separation.

It's one thing to refuse to pay when one has the means. It's quite another to not pay due to poverty. Apparently, he's made up for his negligence by giving the young man a job. How many young people who grew up with both parents actually have a job and housing him in today's economy? Plus, what would be the purpose of retro-billing him, exactly? Punishment for not taking care of his child, or providing those items the child lacked, what exactly?
Is the woman going to forward the money to the boy if she wins the case, after all, the funds should be for "child support"?

Maybe he should charge the boy for the amount of time he's lived with him and add it to whatever he's being asked to pay and terminate his employment while at it! Maybe the drug-addict mother will take him in and recommend him to a more prestigious company for a job. Smh

Timbuktou:


It's also clearly stated in the article that he was unemployed at the time and had to live on state benefits. He did not have the money at the time of separation.

It's one thing to refuse to pay when one has the means. It's quite another to not pay due to poverty. Apparently, he's made up for his negligence by giving the young man a job. How many young people who grew up with both parents actually have a job and housing him in today's economy? Plus, what would be the purpose of retro-billing him, exactly? Punishment for not taking care of his child, or providing those items the child lacked, what exactly?
Is the woman going to forward the money to the boy if she wins the case, after all, the funds should be for "child support"?

Maybe he should charge the boy for the amount of time he's lived with him and add it to whatever he's being asked to pay and terminate his employment while at it! Maybe the drug-addict mother will take him in and recommend him to a more prestigious company for a job. Smh

stop involving sentiments into this. The fact that he failed to pay child support because he didnt have the money then, does not affect the fact that it was still due.

Moana:
stop involving sentiments into this. The fact that he failed to pay child support because he didnt have the money then, does not affect the fact that it was still due.

What sentiments? What does she need the money for, is the question? Did she spend up to £1m raising this child? Or is it a man versus woman thing to you? If she gets this payment, who benefits, after all, the boy/man no longer lives with her.
Btw, the fact that it got to the Supreme Court speaks volumes. Why did the lower courts strike out the case or rule in favour of the defendant? That's a pertinent question you should ask yourself.

Timbuktou:


What sentiments? What does she need the money for, is the question? Did she spend up to £1m raising this child? Or is it a man versus woman thing to you? If she gets this payment, who benefits, after all, the boy/man no longer lives with her.

to me it isn't a man vs woman thing but to you it clearly is. Duty to maintain a child by the father is not revoked simply because the mother is playing double her role when its supposed to be done jointly.

Btw, the fact that it got to the Supreme Court speaks volumes. Why did the lower courts strike out the case or rule in favour of the defendant? That's a pertinent question you should ask yourself.

if the decision in the lower courts was accurate a superior would have confirmed it but they didn't.
If you buy a car and pay for it periodically, just because you stop using it before the last payment does not mean you do not owe whatever it is you have not paid yet. Same thing with child support simply because you failed to pay maintenance when you didn't have money does not mean you duty is revoked simply because the child became a major. He did not incur expenses when he should have and she incurred more expenses than she should have because he failed to perform his duty. If someone performs your duty for where you fail to act, the person has a right to claim compensation.

Moana:
to me it isn't a man vs woman thing but to you it clearly is. Duty to maintain a child by the father is not revoked simply because the mother is playing double her role when its supposed to be done jointly.


If the decision in the lower courts was accurate a superior could confirmed it but they didn't.
If you buy a car and pay for it periodically, just because you stop using it before the last payment does not mean you do not owe whatever it is you have not paid yet. Same thing with maintain simply because you failed to pay maintenance when you didn't have money does not mean you duty is revoked simply because the child became a major. If someone performs your duty for where you fail to act, the person has a right to claim compensation.

So, did she spend up to £1m or not if she's to be compensated? And no the mother didn't do shiit, the state did. How much did she earn by work in this period?

A SC ruling different from lower courts isn't necessarily because of inaccuracy. Most times, it's as simple as a difference in interpretation and discretion especially in ambiguous cases such as this.

I didn't read where he put his signature to be billed for having a child and though he did have that child, the law would not have billed him had they lived together and he was unemployed and unable to cater for the child, and I very much doubt his ex woulda sued him anyway. Having said that, I'm sure child support payments are calculated with the income of the paying parent in mind.

Again, I ask, when/if she does get this money:
1. who would benefit from the payment?

2. Is she going to give any part of the money to this young man as consolation for all he missed when his father was poor and homeless?

3. Do you think she spent up to £1m in raising the young man?

Please attempt all questions. Thanks.

Timbuktou:


So, did she spend up to £1m or not if she's to be compensated? And no the mother didn't do shiit, the state did. How much did she earn by work in this period?

A SC ruling different from lower courts isn't necessarily because of inaccuracy. Most times, it's as simple as a difference in interpretation and discretion especially in ambiguous cases such as this.

I didn't read where he put his signature to be billed for having a child and though he did have that child, the law would not have billed him had they lived together and he was unemployed and unable to cater for the child, and I very much doubt his ex woulda sued him anyway. Having said that, I'm sure child support payments are calculated with the income of the paying parent in mind.

Again, I ask, when/if she does get this money:
1. who would benefit from the payment?

2. Is she going to give any part of the money to this young man as consolation for all he missed when his father was poor and homeless?

3. Do you think she spent up to £1m in raising the young man?

Please attempt all questions. Thanks.

if you so wish argue from here to Pluto it will not change the fact that she was awarded over £1million.
The law is there stop those who think they can just evade their responsiblities and have others do the work for them . You don't want to end up in those kind of situations? Pay up child support when you are supposed to its as simple is that.

Moana:
if you so wish argue from here to Pluto it will not change the fact that she was awarded over £1million.
The law is there stop those who think they can just evade their responsiblities and have others do the work for them . You don't want to end up in those kind of situations? Pay up child support when you are supposed to its as simple is that.

I seem to be behind the times. Pray tell, when was she awarded this sum?

Also, I notice you're not against paying over her initial expense. Why is that? Shouldn't the law be fair?

Timbuktou:


I seem to be behind the times. Pray tell, when was she awarded this sum?

Also, I notice you're not against paying over her initial expense. Why is that? Shouldn't the law be fair?

she wouldn't get anything.....
the pay hasn't been awarded yet, they have just given her the go-ahead to table her case in court. she didn't spend a dime when the dude was away.

even if she gets any fraction of the amount she's claiming, the state owns every single penny of it cos she took benefits to groom the child. a test case of a similar incident awarded the woman nothing - i don't see how this one would succeed.

the man should also be prepared to tender his claims. he should claim the wife held him back from being successful when they had the child & thus he's due some compensation. this woman is just trying to eat his cake & have it.

coogar:


she wouldn't get anything.....
the pay hasn't been awarded yet, they have just given her the go-ahead to table her case in court. she didn't spend a dime when the dude was away.

even if she gets any fraction of the amount she's claiming, the state owns every single penny of it cos she took benefits to groom the child. a test case of a similar incident awarded the woman nothing - i don't see how this one would succeed.

the man should also be prepared to tender his claims. he should claim the wife held him back from being successful when they had the child & thus he's due some compensation. this woman is just trying to eat his cake & have it.

Good, then. IMO, it would be a travesty to award her a penny. She hasn't earned/deserved it in any way. And it would be glorious to award her some and get it back through tax and remissions.

Timbuktou:


I seem to be behind the times. Pray tell, when was she awarded this sum?

she will be awarded.

Also, I notice you're not against paying over her initial expense. Why is that? Shouldn't the law be fair?

listen if it had been the man who took care of the child while the woman didnt make contribution and a clause to terminate duty to support was never included in the divorce settlement, the court would have award the man the right to compensation, so i dont know why you want to make issue out of it simply because its a woman who was awarded the right.

Moana:
she will be awarded.

listen if it had been the man who took care of the child while the woman didnt make contribution and a clause to terminate spousal and child support was never included in the divorce settlement, the court would have award the man the right to compensation, so i dont know why you want to make issue out of it simply because its a woman who was awarded the right.

Well, what do you know? Moana is a nairalander by day and a Supreme Court Justice by night. How do you know she'll be awarded? If more than one court eviscerated the case, it means the defendant has got a case or a chance of victory. And with his kind of money, he should be able to hire the best lawyers. We'll see how much she'll get. Probably, movie ticket expense.

What man would be so shameful and trifling as to go hound his ex for money he used to train his own child. Maybe oyinbo men sha. As useless as Nigeria is, this rubbish would not fly here. Any lawyer you bring this sort of case to here will cuss you out.

Timbuktou:


Well, what do you know? Moana is a nairalander by day and a Supreme Court Justice by night. How do you know she'll be awarded? If more than one court eviscerated the case, it means the defendant has got a case or a chance of victory. And with his kind of money, he should be able to hire the best lawyers. We'll see how much she'll get. Probably, movie ticket expense.

What man would be so shameful and trifling as to go hound his ex for money he used to train his own child. Maybe oyinbo men sha. as useless as Nigeria is, this rubbish would not fly here. Any lawyer you bring this sort of case to here will cuss you out.

because being a lawless nation is something to be proud about? Well clap for yourself

Moana:
because being a lawless nation is something to be proud about? Well clap for yourself

Lol. You keep exposing the depth of your intellect. I'm supposed to cower in shame because I'm a Nigerian living in Nigeria? Get outta here. And, no, it's not lawlessness, it's common sense. I guess if it's oyinbo, it must be right, right? Smh. Moana, you need to read more.

Timbuktou:


Lol. You keep exposing the depth of your intellect. I'm supposed to cower in shame because I'm a Nigerian living in Nigeria? Get outta here. And, no, it's not lawlessness, it's common sense. I guess if it's oyinbo, it must be right, right? Smh. Moana, you need to read more.

you are the one who said Nigeria is useless but for some reason I'm at fault , why?,

Moana:
you are the one who said Nigeria is useless but for some reason I'm at fault , why?,

Oh, that's sarcasm.

Timbuktou:


Oh, that's sarcasm.

Oga Timbuktou e don do