What do you think?

I think that you are right he does have a responsibility for them, but as the father of her children does she not have some responsibility towards him, if not in order to show the children generosity and that their parents get along. If it were me i would let him stop the payments and i would make sure that he had somewhere nice for our children to go to spend time with their dad. I would make sure he knew that this was for the children and that it would be an idea for him to treat them of his own accord. I think that wanting £200 when you have all of that is petty and that sh should allow him to give the children shomething they can see so that they know he cares instead of paying money direct to her which the children probably know nothing about.

I won't touch it Sweets.I can see both sides of the story.I also can see that they both need to grow up and put their children first and stop trying to get even with each other.I can not believe any father would allow his children to live in a homeless hostel if he could do anything to prevent it.I also do not understand her using her children to bleed him dry! Their kids are most likely the grown-ups in this family! xoxoxo

From reading the article, the ex husband did not seem to care about his kids becoming homeless so I sort of understand where the woman is coming from. She has obviously had her heart broken and being left with 3 kids to look after and no home, she most probably is very angry. However, if I was in her position I don't know whether I would still ask for the money, as this would not be the most important thing now. I would prefer he was a good dad and played a leading role in his kids lifes. Also he had always paid out alot of money to her, which was deemed as too much, so he had made sure his kids were alright in that way. Maybe the debt she had got into was down to her greed, I don't know as it does not give a reason in the article. Winning over 8 million though, it is definately a personal vendetta against her ex, and if she views him as a pig, I'm sure she doesn't care if he is skint for the rest of his life. Good discussion +

It should not be who gets the money or how much but to maintain the childs quality of life if she won that kind of money then should should be making sure that when the child visiits dad that the child has the same opportunities as if when the child is with her and vice versa. Just casue mom and dad are divorced there is no reason the child should suffer or have less at oen place than the other.

Mummymo, I think he should still pay some sort of maintenance though maybe not so much since she won the lottery. I think she isn't being greedy, rather just making sure he maintains his responsibility. There is also the possibility that since she has so much now, that she could say 'no, stop paying'.

oh ,my ,it is unbelievable.

I think she is right , I am all for the kids being spoiled by their mum , but if after you read the link you will agree hes a pig . She asked him to help her and the kids and he refused . she could put his money in the bank for the kids under their name and if she ever spent all of hers then at least they would have something for their futures , , I think he should pay but not to her as she doesn't need it now , I think its a shame he doesn't see his kids as it's not their fault Mum and Dad dont talk , xx

That is greedy and crazy. He does not want responsibility for the children say to Hell with him. She has money now, she can take care of her children on her own.

Ummm I really dont know. If it was me I probably wouldnt even bother about the maintenance. Id just make sure that he provides good at christmas or birthdays.

I disagree with you. In this case, the father's responsability and commitment can be shown visiting his child and caring for his needs, not with money, because the mother has more than enough to provide for him. The problem is that normally in divorce conflicts parents use the kids as weapons against each other, so now the woman is saying "ok, i am rich but you pay again, bastid". Really some people should get a grip.

Oh, that is a vengeful woman there, isn't it? Can he not sue her now for spousal support? I agree it is very greedy and wonder what the real dirt is behind that story!

in this case its not about the child's welfare or the money ...its about her punishing Him ...personally i dont like her choices ...and she is hurting her child by example ToriaT

I think that is really petty. To me a father's responsibility is not just to be the financial support. They both had a deal in the conseption of the children. He's other responsibility is to be a supportive father and to actually BE THERE as a father and see his children through all the dificult and happy stages of their lives. To me that is more important than financial support. Even if my husband and I had to sepperate and we're not on a good foot with each other, I will never keep them from him, or bad mouth him. Just my honest opinion ...-Ronelle Fulton

I think 8.4 million pounds is enough for her to take care of her children. Having 8.4 million pounds is being a financially free person. Its just a matter on how you invest it or spend it..

No I think he should still have to pay. Her lottery win has nothing to do with him and so what if he's "cash-strapped" as the article says - he's still the children's father and is still responsible for providing for them. I have to say he does sound like a bit of a louse anyway - what sort of father would let his children live in a homeless hostel when he could possibly have done something to prevent it? I think there's maybe a little karma at work here lol!! I'm sure there's probably faults on both sides and neither of them are being that mature but I don't really blame her for pursuing child support and to be honest if he had any self-respect he would still want to contribute to his childrens upbringing no matter what their mothers financial situation was.

I feel that he is responsible for his children no matter how much she has. The two are totally irrelevant of each other. I feel that all noncustodial parents are obligated to pay for thier childrens support no matter what and that goes for the noncustodial moms as well. I even laced into my brother when he wasn't paying his support payments even though he darned well had the money to do it.

I think that he should still have to pay her. She was lucky that she won the lottery but I don't think that releases him from any responsibility. It's more of a matter of principle that the actual money. You make a baby, you help pay for raising it.

i read the story and i think she is pure greedy. i suppose that is a good point that they are his kids and he should pay but he should be exempt from paying while she has that much amount of money as it is loads. he should pay once her money is going less than £1,000

I think if I won that kind of money I would not demand child support. I think I would suggest he open a banck account for them and make deposits for them when they are older. The only reason I would persue payments would be if I needed the money to help support the childen. With that kind of money I would be more concerned that the children knew when they were older that they knew their dad did care enough to put something away for their future.

i think that this woman is being greedy although i do agree with you. the father has a responsibilitie but if she won 8.4 million why would she need any extra??? she has enough to buy a house and proberly pay her bills a few years in advance with money still left over, while the dad has no where near the same amount as her.