"Special expenses" - Family court - this must have been asked before?
I'm going through what I think is the fairly typical [censored] that so called "mothers" routinely put fathers through. So basically, as most dads are, I'm completely willing to provide everything that my son needs, whether it's financially or otherwise. In my case, the mother has issues, I've always paid for everything in the relationship and for our son, when I say she's paid literally nothing, ever, that's an understatement, but anyway that's in the past. I've also been the primary care giver to our child.
The situation now is, she's unilaterally taken the child and is preventing contact. I've started the court process, I know the whole process always is pathetic but in my case it seems even worse, nearly 4 months to wait from application to FHDRA, what a joke (especially when even the practice directions state it should be a maximum of 6 weeks! they force their BS practice directions down your throat wherever they can, but when it doesn't suit them they'll ask you to submit a C2, pay £215 and do nothing about bringing the FHDRA forward). Anyway, that's not news. The latest thing, and as expected, I've received the paperwork from CMS (and been chased by phone 3 times within a week of receiving the paperwork!). The ex didn't speak to me before making the application and has no intention of making any sensible arrangement between ourselves, you know like adults who are trying to do the best thing for the child......... but hey, let's empower her through every law we can to do the worst for the child we can... sorry ranting again..
So the question is.. "special expenses" - I think I know what the answer will be!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! the CMS information says, if you're spending £10 a week to stay in touch with the child... well I'm spending what is likely to be £50k+ in family court simply to stay in contact with the child.. - Opinions please?
This has probably been asked before, but I've not been able to find the answer anywhere. I'm willing to give our CHILD EVERYTHING, but something most people seem to ignore, I've no idea why... the CMS are not giving the money to the child. They give the money to the ex - do we honestly think even a fair amount of it is eventually used to benefit the child? I think not..
Yes the amounts in expenses you can claim from CMS are very minimal, but better than nothing I suppose. I think it's better if you don't spend something like 50k on legal fees. With right guidance you can self represent or get help from a McKenzie friend. Sent you a PM.
CMS expect primary carer to spend the money on children. But unfortunately there is no accountability on what exactly the money is spent on.
@bill337 - I completely agree on the travel expenses etc, definitely better than nothing. My question is though, any costs of going to court/legal fees due to mother's poor behaviour (preventing me from seeing the child) are costs of seeing the child. Therefore, court fees and legal costs should be "special expenses" and the whole £50k or whatever amount should be allowed..... I know in reallity CMS won't accept this, but theoretically they should. Otherwise I'd like them to simply answer the question of why am I going to court and incurring legal costs if it is not to see my child? - I've asked them to send me their special expenses form... I know this won't go anywhere but it should. Too often the law is intepretated and implimented in the way that suits a particular group/person. when the boot is on the other foot, they change their interpretation as an when it suits to fit their own agenda..
I also 100% agree that it's a completely stupid amount of money to waste on legal fees etc. I definitely think I could represent myself, and a Mckenzie Friend would make it a lot easier - that's if I rely on the courts actually implementing the law. I know I'll sound nuts, and that's exactly what the system wants, for people to sound nuts when they say anything against the system, but the court process isn't fair, reasonable or equitable - the law isn't implimented fairly in many cases. I would say that by nature I'd ordinarilly be extremely against getting barristers involved, especially where the case is so crystal clear that mum is completely insane and dad is rational and appropriate, and there is mountains of evidence to back this up. However I'm convinced that the sad reallity is, even with the help of a Mckenzie friend, and even with the ECHR articles, right to a fair trial, right to family life etc - they sound good in theory but too often they don't get implemented in reallity. The court/judge sometimes (often) isn't "fair". I know that a barrister may not improve the issue much, but at least I'll know that I did everything I could. I know I'm ranting, but judges are just ridiculous, a litigant in person could literally say the exact same words in the exat same tone at exactly the same time as a barrister, yet the judge knows it's unlikely they'll be challenged if they chose to ignore whatever a litigant in person says. I know I sound insane. I definitely wouldn't take the same approach for all circumstances though, for instance where a father wants to increase there existing time with the kids etc, but where there are false allegations and everyone is ignoring the rules it's a bit of a different story.. I think I'll post separately about this.. there's so many issues...