Love And Marraiage...

Dave0301

The ex-husband of a woman who was awarded £230,000 on her divorce has been told by the Court of Appeal he must support her
for life.


Maria Mills, 51, was originally awarded £1,100 a month from 50-year-old Graham Mills after 13 years of marriage.


Appeal Court judges also ruled he should pay her £1,441 per month as she is "unable to meet her basic needs".


Mr Mills had argued he should not have to "pick up the tab" 15 years after the couple split.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-38891663

Now maybe I am missing something here, but that ruling must be pretty galling for the poor Mr Mills!

Seems a bit harsh that after 15 years of divorce he is told he has to pay even more.

This working for a living is a mugs game...I need to find myself a rich partner and divorce them :pac:

Arcade_Tryer

Go together like a Horse and Carraiage...

Barry Badrinath

This I tell you broooother

silverharp

she looks like she ate the divorce settlement, the UK courts are the pits for that sort of thing, she blew her cash and now gets to come back for more.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

That's mortifying. Imagine the lack of self respect one must have to beg someone else to support her. Someone who has to be sued in order to be forced to look after her. God forbid you get a full time job and support yourself instead of using your ex as a meal ticket. Scarlet for her

Birneybau

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Go together like a Horse and Carraiage...

Damn man, beat me to it.

MonkieSocks

Senor Fancy Pants wrote: »

This I tell you broooother

You can't have one,You can't have one

FTA69

I think there's a young child involved though, which changes things a bit if that child is going to suffer as a result. That having been said your one comes across as a dope.n

Dave0301

FTA69 wrote: »

I think there's a young child involved though, which changes things a bit if that child is going to suffer as a result. That having been said your one comes across as a dope.n

No doubt there should be maintenance payments, but it is not clear if the child is now an adult or not as they did split 15 years ago.

Just think it is pretty shocking that he has been told to increase the money he has to give her after all that time.

The fact that she went from living in Weybridge to a luxury flat in Battersea is not the best way to manage money...especially if relying on handouts.

matrim

FTA69 wrote: »

I think there's a young child involved though, which changes things a bit if that child is going to suffer as a result. That having been said your one comes across as a dope.n

The artical says they have "a now grown up son". Whatever about supporting her while she was raising the child. Now that he is grown up, any support from the ex-husband should stop.

foxy farmer

"The ex-husband of a woman who was awarded £230,000 on her divorce has been told by the Court of Appeal he must support her for life".

I'd put her on life support if she tried that with me.
She's an auctioneer ffs. Son is at least 20 now. Only thing she should get is a toe in the hole.

FTA69

matrim wrote: »

The artical says they have "a now grown up son". Whatever about supporting her while she was raising the child. Now that he is grown up, any support from the ex-husband should stop.

Didn't see that at all, that's a bloody joke. Sure what's stopping her blowing this on online gambling or whatever and coming back for two grand the next time?

Summer wind

Imagine having to live with that millstone around your neck for the rest of your life. I'd shoot the lazy bitch.

Sand

Its the Court of Appeal - can he take it any further or is that it? A ludicrous judgement, and a clear sign the UK needs to reform its laws if nonsense like this is permitted. At some point that woman is no longer his problem - and if its not 15 fecking years after their original split then when?

To be honest, in a scenario like that he could just liquidate all his assets quietly and just escape abroad with no forwarding address and enjoy his life elsewhere.

cnocbui

If the courts are going to do this complete nonsense then the provider of the maintenance should be given a veto on how any capital won in a settlement is invested or spent.

currants

LexieOnRale wrote: »

That's mortifying. Imagine the lack of self respect one must have to beg someone else to support her. Someone who has to be sued in order to be forced to look after her. God forbid you get a full time job and support yourself instead of using your ex as a meal ticket. Scarlet for her

She didn't beg him, she took him to court and the judge agreed with her. I'd say her self-respect is fully intact. She has health problems and cant work full time. She made a shrewd business decision for once
Other sources say he pays himself a 200k a year dividend, he's only forced to pay her 17k, he can well afford it, I wouldn't lose sleep over him.
Don't hate the playa.......

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

currants wrote: »

She didn't beg him, she took him to court and the judge agreed with her. I'd say her self-respect is fully intact. She has health problems and cant work full time. She made a shrewd business decision for once
Other sources say he pays himself a 200k a year dividend, he's only forced to pay her 17k, he can well afford it, I wouldn't lose sleep over him.
Don't hate the playa.......

lol


I have health problems too. Do you think if I sued him I could have him look after me? The fact she assumes she's entitled to his support after being divorced for 15 years is absolutely galling. There's absolutely nothing about her in this instance that's dignified. It is begging if he didn't offer. She is forcing him to take care of her needs because she's unwilling to take care of herself, as a grown adult.

currants

LexieOnRale wrote: »

lol


I have health problems too. Do you think if I sued him I could have him look after me? The fact she assumes she's entitled to his support after being divorced for 15 years is absolutely galling. There's absolutely nothing about her in this instance that's dignified. It is begging if he didn't offer. She is forcing him to take care of her needs because she's unwilling to take care of herself, as a grown adult.

If you were married and had a child with him and could only work part time then he probably would. Suing is not begging money, I'd say its more like demanding the share she should have been given originally, that settlement gave her 230k cash and maintenance but no mention of pension entitlements etc.
He was obviously happy for her to sacrifice her lucrative career to look after him and the child so why blame her now for what was a joint decision. Why should she live a drastically lesser lifestyle whilst he swans off with the benefits of a lifestyle she enabled him to build while they were married. Nobody's going to hire her as a part time estate agent in one of the busiest property markets in the world now so she's lost the opportunity to build her career.
She obviously presented convincing evidence to the court that she is unable to work full time, would it be more dignified for her to be on benefits? Lots of women give up careers with the agreement of their husbands so they can look after the home and kids and make his life run smoothly. They do it as they are promised the husband will support them financially. If he decides to run off with another woman then those women are up the creek. Its an age old scenario.

Plenty of wives have been told to get a job after divorce when all they will get is crappy low paid work like this woman. I don't think men realise the huge financial and personal sacrifice women make when they give up careers to run a house and mind children. Its disappointing to see a woman slating another woman for doing it and making the best of the poor outcome she got from that decision.
Her biggest mistake was giving up work in the first place.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Wibbs

currants wrote: »

She made a shrewd business decision for once

Marriage to some appears to be a career….

he can well afford it,

Ah well that's alright then. :rolleyes:

currants wrote: »

If you were married and had a child with him and could only work part time then he probably would. Suing is not begging money, I'd say its more like demanding the share she should have been given originally, that settlement gave her 230k cash and maintenance but no mention of pension entitlements etc.

"Pension entitlements"? Are you having a laugh? Yep sounds like marriage = career alright. Though far better than any job as one can claim payments fifteen years after you leave(she divorced him) and are in another job(she remarried too). Handy career choice alright.

He was obviously happy for her to sacrifice her lucrative career to look after him and the child so why blame her now for what was a joint decision. Why should she live a drastically lesser lifestyle whilst he swans off with the benefits of a lifestyle she enabled him to build while they were married. Nobody's going to hire her as a part time estate agent in one of the busiest property markets in the world now so she's lost the opportunity to build her career.

Boo bloody hoo. She took all the liquid assets in the divorce, made "unwise" business decisions one after another trying to live in a manner she wanted to become accustomed to, then expects her ex husband to cough up again as an insurance policy? Get off the stage. Where's the current husband and why isn't he "supporting" her? Though why he should be expected to. There's me thinking equality of the sexes. Apparently not.

She obviously presented convincing evidence to the court that she is unable to work full time, would it be more dignified for her to be on benefits?

Dignified? What the hell has dignified got to do with it? She's a full grown adult. Though apparently not if one possesses internal gonads according to some. All the "rights" afforded adults, but with fewer responsibilities.

They do it as they are promised the husband will support them financially. If he decides to run off with another woman then those women are up the creek. Its an age old scenario.

Up the creek? She got all his liquid assets and then flushed the lot. Now she's looking for another payment?

Plenty of wives have been told to get a job after divorce when all they will get is crappy low paid work like this woman.

She had a large nest egg and monthly maintenance. She squandered the former. Clearly her "career" in property was not best suited to her.

I don't think men realise the huge financial and personal sacrifice women make when they give up careers to run a house and mind children.

You have got to be kidding me.

Its disappointing to see a woman slating another woman for doing it

Here we go. Can't go agin the code of the "sisterhood". God forbid women may think that women should act like and be treated like adults.

And people wonder why grass roots movements like MGTOW and the red pill yahoos exist, or why a large chunk of so called "feminism" is starting to look like it's rotten at the core? With attitudes like the above I don't wonder.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

currants wrote: »

If you were married and had a child with him and could only work part time then he probably would. Suing is not begging money, I'd say its more like demanding the share she should have been given originally, that settlement gave her 230k cash and maintenance but no mention of pension entitlements etc.
He was obviously happy for her to sacrifice her lucrative career to look after him and the child so why blame her now for what was a joint decision. Why should she live a drastically lesser lifestyle whilst he swans off with the benefits of a lifestyle she enabled him to build while they were married. Nobody's going to hire her as a part time estate agent in one of the busiest property markets in the world now so she's lost the opportunity to build her career.
She obviously presented convincing evidence to the court that she is unable to work full time, would it be more dignified for her to be on benefits? Lots of women give up careers with the agreement of their husbands so they can look after the home and kids and make his life run smoothly. They do it as they are promised the husband will support them financially. If he decides to run off with another woman then those women are up the creek. Its an age old scenario.

Plenty of wives have been told to get a job after divorce when all they will get is crappy low paid work like this woman. I don't think men realise the huge financial and personal sacrifice women make when they give up careers to run a house and mind children. Its disappointing to see a woman slating another woman for doing it and making the best of the poor outcome she got from that decision.
Her biggest mistake was giving up work in the first place.

As a woman, being self sufficient is extremely important to me. Having respect for myself, and being independent are extremely important. My being a woman has nothing to do with the fact I find her expecting a man who has no obligation to her to take care of her.

If her job let her go, and paid redundancy, can she/should she sue the company for morecwhen the money runs out? She's disgusting.

currants

Wibbs wrote: »

Marriage to some appears to be a career….
Ah well that's alright then. :rolleyes:

"Pension entitlements"? Are you having a laugh? Yep sounds like marriage = career alright. Though far better than any job as one can claim payments fifteen years after you leave(she divorced him) and are in another job(she remarried too). Handy career choice alright.

While she was running the house and minding their child she was not able to accrue a pension for herself.

Wibbs wrote: »

Boo bloody hoo. She took all the liquid assets in the divorce, made "unwise" business decisions one after another trying to live in a manner she wanted to become accustomed to, then expects her ex husband to cough up again as an insurance policy? Get off the stage. Where's the current husband and why isn't he "supporting" her? Though why he should be expected to. There's me thinking equality of the sexes. Apparently not.

He agreed to give her all the liquid assets at that time in exchange for her giving up an interest in his business/pension, she could have held out for a lifelong stake in his profits 15 years ago but she didn't.

Wibbs wrote: »

Dignified? What the hell has dignified got to do with it?

I don't know, another poster mentioned dignity, ask them.

Wibbs wrote: »

She's a full grown adult. Though apparently not if one possesses internal gonads according to some. All the "rights" afforded adults, but with fewer responsibilities.

I think anyone who stays home to keep house and mind children is fully au fait with adult responsibilities, mind numbingly so.

Wibbs wrote: »

Up the creek? She got all his liquid assets and then flushed the lot. Now she's looking for another payment?

She had a large nest egg and monthly maintenance. She squandered the former. Clearly her "career" in property was not best suited to her. You have got to be kidding me. Here we go. Can't go agin the code of the "sisterhood". God forbid women may think that women should act like and be treated like adults.

She made bad property investment decisions, like millions of people in these islands did in the last 15 years- did they all squander their money too? Are you against women supporting older vulnerable women who made bad career decisions in the expectation they would remain married for life. She's in her 50's and renting with no pension accrual. She's in a very precarious position, above the line for benefits, below the line to afford private rental in her retirement.

Wibbs wrote: »

And people wonder why grass roots movements like MGTOW and the red pill yahoos exist, or why a large chunk of so called "feminism" is starting to look like it's rotten at the core? With attitudes like the above I don't wonder.

Yes its all women's fault that there are angry nutters in the world. Wanting to be recognised financially for earning potential lost by one partner and gained by another by one staying at home is not unreasonable. Men are free to seek maintenance from their ex wives if they decide to be stay at home Dads. But for some strange reason they aren't queuing up to do it.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Probably because they value their pride more than a monthly cheque from someone else's hard work?

currants

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Probably because they value their pride more than a monthly cheque from someone else's hard work?

In this woman's day somebody had to stay at home and keep house/mind kids, it was very common. Do you think women who give up work to take care of the family have no pride? Do they not work hard?

Is this woman's day? Her child is around twenty-ish. I have older kids and we both work d as was the norm.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

currants wrote: »

In this woman's day somebody had to stay at home and keep house/mind kids, it was very common. Do you think women who give up work to take care of the family have no pride? Do they not work hard?

There's only so long you can flog a dead horse. That was 15 years ago. Didn't go back to college? Didn't retrain? She had one child, not an army. Seems she's done nothing to help herself short of filing law suits against men that have nothing to do with her and playing the poor mouth in court. Answer her better if she put that effort into finding a job

Dave0301

currants wrote: »

In this woman's day somebody had to stay at home and keep house/mind kids, it was very common. Do you think women who give up work to take care of the family have no pride? Do they not work hard?

That is what maintenance payments and divorce settlements are for.

If you really believe that he should still have to pay her circa £1400 a month 15 years after their divorce and their child is now an adult you are deluded.

silverharp

her argument was that she had health issues so couldn't work? how is that an argument? if she had never married she would have had the same issues so it looks like she was never on a path to be a successful woman about town. The UK courts seem to be more about keeping the woman in the style to which she has become accustomed and not realistically where she would have been anyway. Even in Ireland that goes on, a couple in my kids school got divorced and by all accounts she was never the ambitious type yet she now has the family home which is a nice 4 bed in Clonskeagh plus I don't think the father gets to see the kids much. On her own she would never be in that position in a million years, it was the husband who has his own successful business.

currants

Dave0301 wrote: »

That is what maintenance payments and divorce settlements are for.

If you really believe that he should still have to pay her circa £1400 a month 15 years after their divorce and their child is now an adult you are deluded.

I believe she got a bad settlement in the first place and has seized an opportunity to make her life more comfortable. It doesn't make her a nice person but I don't believe she is lacking self-respect or undignified or disgusting or deserves to be beaten until she is on life support or shot.

There is a massive, lifelong opportunity cost in terms of earning potential involved in giving up work to keep house for anyone of any gender. Most people enter into it without fully realising this and are left high and dry financially in the event of marriage/relationship breakdown.
There are also unscrupulous people who marry wealthy people so they can divorce them and live off them. This woman certainly doesn't seem to fall into the gold digger category.

Dave0301

currants wrote: »

I believe she got a bad settlement in the first place and has seized an opportunity to make her life more comfortable. It doesn't make her a nice person but I don't believe she is lacking self-respect or undignified or disgusting or deserves to be beaten until she is on life support or shot.

There is a massive, lifelong opportunity cost in terms of earning potential involved in giving up work to keep house for anyone of any gender. Most people enter into it without fully realising this and are left high and dry financially in the event of marriage/relationship breakdown.
There are also unscrupulous people who marry wealthy people so they can divorce them and live off them. This woman certainly doesn't seem to fall into the gold digger category.

Before she brought him back to court, she received a settlement of £230000 pounds and a monthly payment of £1100, which over 15 years works out as an average of £28533.33.

The median average salary in 2015 in the UK was £27600. For the last 15 years she has been earning more from her divorce than a large proportion of other people in the UK, and this is before earnings from her own job and current husband are factored in.

She has brought her ex husband of 15 years back to court to force more money out of him.

Sounds like a gold digger to me.

currants

He tried to stop her maintenance payments and pay her off for good then she sued for more money. That's how they ended up in court. She hasn't remarried or entered a new relationship, if she had he wouldn't have to pay her anything:

https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/changes-that-may-affect-maintenance-payments

17k a year is hardly gold digger territory She'd nearly get that here on social welfare plus rent allowance.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Why don't you send her the 17k a year? By all accounts you'll be able to do it in monthly instalments. It's only peanuts sure. And you've the same obligation to her as he does.

Wibbs

currants wrote: »

While she was running the house and minding their child she was not able to accrue a pension for herself.

I can't believe I'm reading this…

He agreed to give her all the liquid assets at that time in exchange for her giving up an interest in his business/pension, she could have held out for a lifelong stake in his profits 15 years ago but she didn't.

Another "bad business decision" as you seem to see it. Never mind that he effectively bought her out of the business by handing over all the liquid assets of same. Let's take another angle - seeing as it's seemingly all about the business for you - business partners, gender irrelevant, but for fun make it two women. They decide to dissolve the business relationship and one partner buys out the other and agrees to pay a monthly dividend to same(which would be madness, except in marriage it seems). Roll on 15 years later and one has squandered the original payout and is another business partnership, but decides to go back to court to look for more money and a "pension". How much would the judge laugh at that? Oh but that's business not marriage? Sorry if your posts had me confused at the difference.

Indeed, one can look at this whole alimony thing from another direction. It stems from the old pre equality days when in the case of divorce a woman was vulnerable, was set adrift as such, because she couldn't be the breadwinner and almost always wasn't. That inequality was recognised in law and society so the husband was legally(and duty) bound to support her. These days when many families have the woman as the bigger earner and women can and do get well paying jobs/careers it's become out of step with reality. Though yet another example of so called "feminism" picking and choosing what rights and responsibilities that is having its cake and eating it.

I think anyone who stays home to keep house and mind children is fully au fait with adult responsibilities, mind numbingly so.

*Insert madonna and child pic here* And no, thats a nonsense. The world is full of parents that are barely out of the cot mentally themselves. Having a kid doesn't make you an adult. It should, but it is nowhere near a given.

She made bad property investment decisions, like millions of people in these islands did in the last 15 years- did they all squander their money too?

Do they get the chance to look for a handout?

Are you against women supporting older vulnerable women who made bad career decisions in the expectation they would remain married for life. She's in her 50's and renting with no pension accrual. She's in a very precarious position, above the line for benefits, below the line to afford private rental in her retirement.

My heart bleeds. You see this is what it means to be an adult with agency and responsibility. Unless you're a woman it seems. I'd bet the farm if the genders were reversed you'd remain quite silent on the matter, or given the oft lack of irony I have found with such opinions, would berate a man for doing similar.

Yes its all women's fault that there are angry nutters in the world.

Cases like these and attitudes like you appear to expose would make plenty of people who aren't "nutters" think twice.

Wanting to be recognised financially for earning potential lost by one partner and gained by another by one staying at home is not unreasonable.

It is when payment has already been made(and frittered away) and continues to be made and fifteen years later the hand goes out again.

Men are free to seek maintenance from their ex wives if they decide to be stay at home Dads. But for some strange reason they aren't queuing up to do it.

Pride? A feeling of personal responsibility? Lack of wider social support to make such claims when compared to women? The widespread societal notion that men are somehow more responsible and less "vulnerable" when compared to women(see above for historical reasons for this)? The general outcome of such divorces where it is overwhelmingly the man who has to dig into his pockets? That's just a few reasons off the top of my head.

Wibbs

currants wrote: »

She hasn't remarried or entered a new relationship, if she had he wouldn't have to pay her anything:

I read she has a new relationship. Though this is another example where she'd be expected to live off her new "employer" I suppose.

Wibbs

currants wrote: »

In this woman's day somebody had to stay at home and keep house/mind kids, it was very common.

Oh wait. No. You must be very young if you think 20 years ago was a time when women were so downtrodden, barefoot and pregnant and chained to a sink. Ahh the 90's. The time of steam and suffragettes *insert Hovis bread advert here". Jaysus.

valoren

Imagine a couple have divorced.
The husband agrees to pay a lump sum settlement to his wife with a 5 year old son of £230,000.
15 years later she seeks more money and wins a judgment against the husband.
The son is now an independent adult.

The issue I see is where did that money, a not insignificant sum of cash, go?
If it was spent on childcare costs, and there were receipts, bank statements to support that spending then there would be sympathy. Couple that with her being unfit for work, then yes, you could see where a judgment in her favour would be agreeable.

In this particular case, it appears that she squandered her settlement on lifestyle spending, and now that the money is gone, she is money grabbing. She didn't 'cut her cloth' so to speak by cutting her expenses, budgeting the money etc. She sees her ex-husband as a goose laying golden eggs.

In divorce settlements such as this, there should be stringent guidelines as to how lump sum cash settlements should be spent.
The money is for raising children, giving a certain standard of living (utilities etc). Not funding a lifestyle.
Essentially, you have agreed to a divorce and with the prospect of limited future income, you have received a lump sum settlement.
That money needs to be made to last, and should you feel the need for additional support, then detailed, itemised accounts of how the initial money was spent will need to be provided.

The judge can follow the money and make a judgement about how past cash was spent and use that as an indication of how future cash would be spent. If they were to see spending which suggests funding a lifestyle then they can rule against any more claims for maintenance thus stopping ex-husbands from becoming perpetual golden geese.

One of my OH's neighbours is a long time divorcee. She got a lump settlement years ago and on going maintenance. She is in her early 60's. A new car in the drive every other year and numerous holidays every year. And all at her ex-husbands expense, a man who by all accounts was driven to divorce by her own insufferable behavior.

foxy farmer

I imagine a lot of divorcees are reading about this case and thinking "I might have a second bite of the cherry ". It could set a precedent and then the floodgates would open.

osarusan

What I don't get is the 'she's entitled to it because he can afford it' argument from the judge.

theteal

Yup, I read this one in the Standard on the way home from work the other day, t'was fairly close to the front page iirc. Absolute madness. Just because she had ideas above her station and was a bit dopey trying to give the impression of living a lifestyle that she could never afford the bloke needs to cough up an extra ~£400 per month. . . .15 years later. Absolute madness!

Robineen

I cannot fathom this. They're DIVORCED. The child is grown up. How can she be allowed to hit him up for more money? Having health problems isn't a reason. What would someone who is single and was never married do in her position? They have to find a way to cope.

currants

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Why don't you send her the 17k a year? By all accounts you'll be able to do it in monthly instalments. It's only peanuts sure. And you've the same obligation to her as he does.

Why are you so angry about her?
I was never married to her, nor did she bear my child so why would I send her money?

AudreyHepburn

How on earth was this case even allowed to get to court?!

They are divorced 15 years, their son is a grown man able to take care of himself and she is grown woman who needs to learn how to do the same.

He owes her nothing. Why can't she do what the rest of us do and get job if she's that hard up for cash?

currants

Robineen wrote: »

I cannot fathom this. They're DIVORCED. The child is grown up. How can she be allowed to hit him up for more money? Having health problems isn't a reason. What would someone who is single and was never married do in her position? They have to find a way to cope.

They had an agreement originally that gave her a lump sum plus maintenance, which is paid for life in the UK unless you remarry/cohabitate. He wanted to cut off the maintenance payments and pay her off with a lump sum, she decided she wanted more maintenance and didn't want a lump sum. Given her previous history with the initial cash sum that was probably best for her.
Instead of agreeing between themselves in mediation they both decided to gamble by going to court. He lost, she won. That's the fairly common UK divorce story behind the headlines.
I don't understand all the hate for the woman. He changed his mind about paying regular maintenance, she changed her mind about the amount she wanted- she ended up with an extra 4k year because the judge found the law sided with her case. That's what has people on this thread wishing death and violence on her and blaming her (and me:D) for misogynistic men's groups.

Somehow UK divorce law, which is very different to Irish divorce law, will open some mythical floodgates of nasty, lazy, middle aged women wanting to cheat their poor, hardworking ex husbands and judges siding with them.

Ray Parlour got stung with this kind of bull**** as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Parlour#Personal_life

Personally I'd appeal all the way and I'd sooner burn the money than hand it over.

Robineen

currants wrote: »

They had an agreement originally that gave her a lump sum plus maintenance, which is paid for life in the UK unless you remarry/cohabitate.

Well that right there is just messed up. I can understand a settlement but maintenance payments for life? There should just be a settlement and then all ties severed apart from maintenance for a dependent child. Once the child is an adult, there is no reason for maintenance to pass between two people in a former marriage. That law needs changing!

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

currants wrote: »

Why are you so angry about her?
I was never married to her, nor did she bear my child so why would I send her money?

Well he's not married to her for over a decade and a half and their child is a fully grown adult now who is no longer legally reliant on parents to take care of him. So you being expected to send her money and him being expected to send money is equal.