Shouldnt heather get more for beatrice ?

Question

apparently the CSA would demand 20% of the fathers earnings for the child. so how much is 20% of pauls millions?

Answer 1

Beatrice will ALWAYS be very well provided for. I think the settlement that Heather is to receive is very generous. If their daughter ever needs anything, i think we can all rest assured that Paul will provide it for her.

Answer 2

She is greedy, 100%.  And she told untruths in her testimony.

I don't care what he or she does..........but being so greedy when there are millions starving and suffering in the world?  I give her or her daughter no sympathy.  I could live on a load less money than that even with 10 children.

Answer 3

No ones going to starve,why worry?

I think that the child has more than enough to get by and if needs be he wouldn't see her short.

Answer 4

No, I bring three kids up on less than 30K a year, I hardly think the child will be brought up in poverty, her Dad will be spending what's left of his fortune on her too.

Answer 5

heather shouldn't have got a penny to begin with. Now that she has more that enough of his hard earned money she can pay for anything the kid needs

edit: huh? did she have anything to do with anything the beatles EVER did? no, therefore it is not her money. he made that money before he met her. He did earn it...he sang the songs, he toured...he worked for it.that silly gold digger is not entitled to any of HIS money! the daughter will be fine. the w***e of a mother is now a millionaire and paul still has his money which i am sure he will give to his daughter if necessary.

Answer 6

he's giving heather £35k a year for his daughter, and its also up to mucca to pay for her upkeep and i think the £24 million she got will take care of that, the weekly intrest alone would pay my mortgage. so shut up you mongo and stop asking stupid question.

Answer 7

She's probably hopping mad.Pauls left her out on a limb.

Answer 8

How many 4 year old children need £34,000 a year to live well? And should her, now more than comfortably off, mother not reasonably also be expected to provide for her?

The judge in the case was in knowledge of far more of the facts than you or I, or anyone else, and made his decision accordingly.

I'd be inclined to think he probably got it generously right in favour of the ex Mrs. McCartney and the child, if only so that any criticism of his actions could be rebuffed if necessary.

Answer 9

why should she?? - her horrible mother has just got 24.3 million quid!!  christ...i think paul gave that miserable old tart a taste of the good life...now she has got plenty of money...nobody wants to know her.  the child will be loved & very comfortably off...paul has a great loving family around him to help!!

Answer 10

I read that the child would be recieving £35,000 a year I dont even earn that in a year and have to provide for a child. They are getting more than enough money

Answer 11

£35 K a year + he will be paying school fees and he she has a settlement of 24 Mil........ Think the kid won't starve.

Answer 12

I think she is a very clever lady!

Here we have a one legged ex p**n star with mental problems, who saw a way of earning a fortune by gatting married and opening her legs for a couple of years.

Once fully recognised as Mrs McCartney, she then decided to pull the plug on the marriage and head for the big divorce settlement.

Clever, very clever, the gold digging *****.

Answer 13

I think £35k is more than enough for a child per year, especially as he is also paying her school fees and providing a nanny. He has shared custody so that has a bearing on it.

Answer 14

Remember they have shared custody..........

Answer 15

heather shouldn't get a penny, the money ought to be put in a trust fund for beatrice with the 'interest' funding her schooling and other things, also any house bought by heather should be in beatrice's name with the bills being paid by heather ( who should be able to get a decent job by now, don't know who'd employ her though!).

Answer 16

I think £30,000 a year for a baby is a lot.

Answer 17

He's paying £35,000 for the child's up-keep.  He'll also be paying school fees, security, nannies, etc.  I think that's ample dosh for a four year old wean.  And let's face it, do you really think Mummy is going to be spending all that on Beatrice?

Answer 18

it is actually 15%!

Answer 19

Whether you see Sgt Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band for the masterpiece it is or not is irrelevant.  Miss Mills has been with him for less than 10 years.  Less than 1/4 of his money earning life.  Way after McCartney put in all the time and effort into making his money.  Yes Wings were a terrible, terrible mistake but one his wife at the time stood by him through!

There is no fool like an old fool thinking with his trousers but he's made his bed and is lying in it quite comfortably.  His daughter will be more than provided for.

Scottish Law has a better take on this divorce thing.  An ex wife is only entitled to fight over the proportion of money her partner has made in the time they were married - not the millions they he made without her supprt or help.

They have joint custody - 50-50 which means neither have to pay the other anything so your 'CSA' quote is irrelevent.  If the child is with each parent in equal measures they are both responsible for the financial security of that child.