Not a promising start
Saddam’s execution on the international news front and haggling over the Ledra Street crossing at home didn’t make for an optimistic start to the New Year. Still, there was some good news in the last few days of 2006, such as the Moldovan girl finally being allowed to stay in the country, or the Cypriot court for once taking the side of abused women and declaring the ex-ambassador to Sweden guilty of sexually harassing his secretary.
However, these few sparrows didn’t make spring, especially when one read another story, published just before the year’s end, of a divorced father who went to the newspapers over an “unjust” court order forcing him to pay £160 maintenance a month for his five-year-old son.
Christopher, who owns a small boutique in Ayia Napa, claimed that he can’t afford such alimony (his family and friends help him to meet his obligation), that the court didn’t check his finances properly, that his ex-wife earns a good living in Paphos (I guess this is supposed to imply that she therefore doesn’t need any extra money) and that as, according to the court decision, he spends an average of 72 days a year with his son that should be deducted from his financial responsibilities.
Also (what a classic!), he said that when his son visits him on he can’t see any evidence of new clothes or toys, which is obviously proof that the £160 is not being spent on him. He also complained because he has to pay the alimony while waiting for his appeal to be heard (Wouldn’t it be better for his son not to receive any money till justice is done?), is threatened with jail if he doesn’t, and because the only true saviour in this situation appears to be the President of the Republic.
“We read in the papers recently that the President intervened on behalf of man so that he would not go to prison for not paying child maintenance. The thing is, why should it come to that – aren’t there any fail-safes in the law?” Christopher refered to a similar story, also made public in December, in which a father continuously avoided paying alimony had his imprisonment suspended twice by the President and the Vice-President.
Christopher, you have finally made a valid point. The whole situation should have never come to this.
To start with, I believe, should the President ever exercise his right to intervene in such cases he should do it on behalf of the down-trodden ie the kids, and not healthy adult men quite capable of earning a living. The argument that the government put forward was that often such fathers eventually pay their dues, providing they have the opportunity to do (and obviously they don’t if they are behind bars). But we also know that the man in question had his imprisonment suspended twice over the course of six months and still didn’t start contributing towards the well-being of his kids. So what is the conclusion? Most likely that such solutions, even if taken at face value, are simply not working.
Secondly, I don’t know Christopher personally and can’t judge his capabilities to pay £160 a month but I guess the 46-year-old owner of a boutique in Ayia Napa must be living below the poverty line that in 2000 (I don’t have the present data) was £5,500 per capita per year. If this is the case, how come he is still in business? Wouldn’t it be better to change profession to offer his son a better future?
Thirdly, as a businessman (even if not very successful), is it realistic to think that the £160 only goes towards the child’s new clothes, toys and outings? Is Christopher unaware that small kids also eat, need a roof over their head, and even use electricity? Also has he not taken into account the fact that next year the boy will go to school and then his expenses will at least double? What then?
Finally, if he really loves the little boy as much as is claimed, is all this haggling over how much is spent on him during visits a convincing expression of his feelings?
As I said before, I don’t know this man and have no idea how much he can afford. But did he ever consider the other side of the coin, ie how many problems the mother of the boy most probably has?
??
??
??
??
