Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > Divorce & Family Law

Divorce & Family Law This forum is for discussing any of the legal issues involved in your divorce.

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #141 (permalink)  
Old 10-19-2012, 12:24 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 363
Unevenplayingground is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pursuinghappiness View Post
Sure, I agree....lots of bad, unfair things happen in divorce. You'll find a thousand stories on this forum about people who's ex's played the system...both men and women. Screwed their ex-partner out of money...out of custody...left them in bankruptcy. In fact, a lot of this forum discusses the need to change things that are unjust...and its not gender specific. There's a lot of screwy things in family law.

So, I didn't make the argument that some things might not need to change. I specifically responded to your situation as you described it. In your situation, you're trying to control the lifestyle of your husband's child by a previous relationship. In YOUR situation, YOU are the one trying to do something unfair. That other people may be doing the same jackass things doesn't make you right...it makes you just as bad.

My opinion is that you did some bad planning....like a lot of us do...and instead of sucking it up and dealing with it...you're trying to find excuses.

You chose to have a lot of kids...you CHOSE it. I really don't see you or your kids as victims, at all. I've seen people have situations they REALLY couldn't chose or control. For instance, people that get really sick...or have terrible things happen to them...life sucks sometimes. I think you're very lucky to have the joy of a big family.

Its funny though...the difference between a happy life and an unhappy life is that some people deal with difficulties and come out stronger in the end..and some people want to sit around and whine about it all day.
I don't think you are reading all of my posts, and to be able to say the things you are, you need to read them all. I also think you would need to ask me questions. You need the full picture to make some of the comments you have.

I was asking for advice on undue hardship because things are bad because of unexpected things, that nobody could have predicted. We new life would change for us, but that we,prior to everything, would still be comfortable.

I have also stated that we are not claiming undue hardship. I actually am starting a part time job in November. A big reason we are not claiming undue hardship is because of the advice I received on here. Now I took the advice from people that offered advice, minus the ignorance. People tend to actually take in what you are saying when you aren't acting like an arse.

I am not whining about it, i'm looking for advice and have to tell my story, mind you I have heard you whine a few times about not having enough money to have more children. Well go get a second job, that is what I had to do.
  #142 (permalink)  
Old 10-19-2012, 12:30 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 84
wife#2 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HammerDad View Post
Wife#2

Lets be clear about one thing, it isn't the system that has cost you in legal fees etc., it is an unreasonable ex. Your husband can and should request costs if his ex is being unreasonable.

It is virtually impossible to prevent someone from engaging in prolonged and expensive litigation if that person is deadset on doing so. It would be nice to be able to put up barriers, but the reason why there are none as it may prevent legitimate claims from being put forth. And our system is one that it would rather deal with a multitude of nuisance claims, than deny one legitimate claim.
Well, I agree and disagree with you. Yes, its her unwillingness to settle based on the guidelines, but it is also the system and all the case laws that make this possible to fight to the death for everything. Example. My husband was rewarded 50/50 time share with his 10 year old son. So we assume this means he will pay the set off amount in child support. Is this not reasonable?? His ex refuses, based on MY income and says he should pay full amount still, because our household income is higher. I have read posts here dealing with this issue in the reverse. A women remarries and a man wants a deduction in child support based on his income. Well, everyone jumped down his throat. But let me tell you, his ex won! She got more child support based on my income, so why can a father (or payor parent) not do the same? And you say this system is fair to both sexes? So basically, the way I look at it, the court has ordered me to support his children! But these are the types of things that is allowed in our system. So do I blame the ex for being a pathetic loser and asking me to support her kid? Or do I blame the system that allows this to happen? There is case law both ways. Same issue with his adult child who does not have any contact with him. Some judges will say they don't care, he's your kid, pay. Others will say he is an adult and choses not to speak with his father, he doesn't have to pay. In both cases, to avoid court, my husband actually offered her a small increase in child support and agreed to pay half the amount for the adult child who does not speak with him. Offer rejected. Court, again. Judge decision was half way between the sides. He has to pay more because of my income, but not full amount (close to full amount).
  #143 (permalink)  
Old 10-19-2012, 12:36 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 363
Unevenplayingground is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wife#2 View Post
Well, I agree and disagree with you. Yes, its her unwillingness to settle based on the guidelines, but it is also the system and all the case laws that make this possible to fight to the death for everything. Example. My husband was rewarded 50/50 time share with his 10 year old son. So we assume this means he will pay the set off amount in child support. Is this not reasonable?? His ex refuses, based on MY income and says he should pay full amount still, because our household income is higher. I have read posts here dealing with this issue in the reverse. A women remarries and a man wants a deduction in child support based on his income. Well, everyone jumped down his throat. But let me tell you, his ex won! She got more child support based on my income, so why can a father (or payor parent) not do the same? And you say this system is fair to both sexes? So basically, the way I look at it, the court has ordered me to support his children! But these are the types of things that is allowed in our system. So do I blame the ex for being a pathetic loser and asking me to support her kid? Or do I blame the system that allows this to happen? There is case law both ways. Same issue with his adult child who does not have any contact with him. Some judges will say they don't care, he's your kid, pay. Others will say he is an adult and choses not to speak with his father, he doesn't have to pay. In both cases, to avoid court, my husband actually offered her a small increase in child support and agreed to pay half the amount for the adult child who does not speak with him. Offer rejected. Court, again. Judge decision was half way between the sides. He has to pay more because of my income, but not full amount (close to full amount).

Wow, your story shocks me. Funny how the step-parent's income comes into the picture, but go ahead and make a dr's appointment for one of his kids, his ex would be down your throat faster than you can say cs!! Did his ex claim undue hardship, is that how your income was included?
  #144 (permalink)  
Old 10-19-2012, 12:45 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,809
Pursuinghappiness will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Also, maybe I am pissed that for 2 years they have refused to provide proof of his full time enrollment in school, but we still pay!
By all means, you deserve proof of enrollment. And if you have to file motions for disclosure for this...I assume you're asking for costs. I hope you win.

Quote:
We never thought we would have to pay, nor was it an issue as he was living away from home, in school part time, where my husband helped him financially, until he decided he did not want to speak to his father anymore.
I'm not a big fan of putting relationship conditions on CS. A parent should always support their child. One of my kid went through a phase in life when she got really mouthy. I didn't stop financially supporting her because I didn't like her attitude. Stuff happens with kids..they go through a lot of phases in life...your financial obligation to them shouldn't change.

Quote:
There is a lot of debate on this forum regarding post secondary education, not just mine. I agree that this should be a family decision, not a court decision. I know families who work as doctors who don't pay a dime of their kids education because they feel it should be up to the child (adult). While I do not take this drastic a view, I do think they should take some responsibility.
Kids are required to pick up a portion of their tuition. These types of expenses are supposed to be split between the ex-spouses and the kid. I think you're suggesting that that's not happening in your case? I'm not sure why that would be.

On another note, I chose not to have more children that I very much wanted because kids are expensive. They get more expensive as they get older. I still help with my oldest child...she's in her early 20's and graduated from University but the job market sucks and she's struggling to become independent. Under divorce, my ex's obligations are cut-off.... and that's fair, I have no issue with that. However, for me....there is no cut-off date. I will help my child if I see her working really hard, being responsible and working towards her independence.

Quote:
So, while my husband is happy he is in school, as am I, my only point was to understand the hardship that these changes can put on second families.
Divorce is an unfortuate situation. Its nice if you can move on from it and have more kids. But you have to understand you always have an obligation to your exisiting children first. And that obligation doesn't come with absolute guarantees. Kids NEVER do.

You've got two choices. Don't have more kids in your new relationship (that's my choice...between me and my new partner, we have enough kids to take care of)....or be well-prepared to deal with both the emotional and financial issues of a blended family.
  #145 (permalink)  
Old 10-19-2012, 12:48 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 84
wife#2 is on a distinguished road
Default

No, she did not claim undue hardship. Just claimed that it was unfair that our household income was much higher and that this made the standards of living to different between the households. This is what you do before claiming undue hardship, from my understanding. Her income is 42k a year, plus her child and spousal support BASED ON GUIDELINES would have been approx 60k a year. Hardly undue hardship. But we pay even more now.
  #146 (permalink)  
Old 10-19-2012, 12:57 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 84
wife#2 is on a distinguished road
Default

I agree with you for a minor child (under 18), but not an adult. Time to grow up, this is the real world. In the real world people don't pay your way when you treat them like pieces of crap! And, in an intact family, I can't imagine it being any different, which is meant to be the point, or so I thought, of family law. Would any husband and wife send money into a child's bank account that they had not spoken to, seen, heard from, seen report cards, proof of school, etc in 2 years? I think not!! Think about that.

Last edited by wife#2; 10-19-2012 at 01:04 PM. Reason: quote wrong
  #147 (permalink)  
Old 10-19-2012, 01:01 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,809
Pursuinghappiness will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
I am not whining about it, i'm looking for advice and have to tell my story, mind you I have heard you whine a few times about not having enough money to have more children. Well go get a second job, that is what I had to do.
I'm not whining about not having more children. My comment was that I would have enjoyed more children but I planned adequately for my financial and time obligations. If I had made the decision to have more children and consequently work more to afford them, it would have cost me time with all of them which doesn't make sense to me. I could have more children...I still choose not to.

You're obviously hostile and angry because I don't agree with you but my point remains....you live with the decisions you make. You come off as very controlling. If you don't get an agreement to your warped position, you get pretty angry.

Anyway, its good that you're moving on with life...its just a shame that you're doing it complaining all the way. In my opinion, nothing about your situation is unfair...you just have a lot of financial turns and twists because you have a big blended family. We all deal with stuff...that's life.
  #148 (permalink)  
Old 10-19-2012, 01:28 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,809
Pursuinghappiness will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
agree with you for a minor child (under 18), but not an adult. Time to grow up, this is the real world. In the real world people don't pay your way when you treat them like pieces of crap! And, in an intact family, I can't imagine it being any different, which is meant to be the point, or so I thought, of family law. Would any husband and wife send money into a child's bank account that they had not spoken to, seen, heard from, seen report cards, proof of school, etc in 2 years? I think not!! Think about that.
Again, you absolutely deserve proof of the child's enrollment. It sounded like you have requested this and are pursuing it in court. I truly hope you don't find out that they've defrauded you out of money.

However, I think one the biggest pros and biggest cons with divorce situations and kids is that once you go through this process...the obligations to your children become determined by a family law standard.

Its a "pro" because for the kid because it ensures that in a case where the parents are at each other's throats and use the kid as a weapon...the financial obligations to the child are met regardless of whatever behavioral issues may be going on due to the massive conflict.

Its a "con" because it the law system acts to a standard...not individual beliefs. And consequently that removes some parental discretion when it comes to things like tuition. Some parents pay their kids tuition, some parents think its better to make the kid work and pay their own tuition...and in divorces often you get two people who have differing positions. I think there are a lot of very good arguments to support both positions.

The litmus test then becomes pretty simple. The system considers what's in the best interest of the child. And in this case, they've determined that overall the best interest of the child is to have his tuition and CS paid until he is out of post-secondary education.

The problem with any system like this is that they consider the WHOLE and not always the details of one particular case.

Consider that you may have an extreme bias against this kid, as its not your kid...but his mother might feel very much differently and have a whole other story to tell about what's going on.

I know you may feel mistreated...Its hard to tell for someone not involved in it. But provided this ex isn't engaging in fraud and this kid is actually in school and getting educated...its a good thing even if your husband doesn't get to enjoy a relationship with him now. Things with kids change...and he might come around...be patient. There's a lot of baggage in divorce for kids.
  #149 (permalink)  
Old 10-19-2012, 03:49 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 363
Unevenplayingground is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wife#2 View Post
No, she did not claim undue hardship. Just claimed that it was unfair that our household income was much higher and that this made the standards of living to different between the households. This is what you do before claiming undue hardship, from my understanding. Her income is 42k a year, plus her child and spousal support BASED ON GUIDELINES would have been approx 60k a year. Hardly undue hardship. But we pay even more now.

Well i'm sorry that happened. I really feel, in my own opinion, that was handled the wrong way.
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ex is claiming Undue Hardship... representingself Financial Issues 32 10-24-2012 02:43 AM
section 10 Undue Hardship IAMTheWiser General Chat 3 01-26-2012 11:29 PM
Undue Hardship MommaMouse Divorce & Family Law 6 08-26-2011 05:54 PM
Undue hardship in 50/50 custody! What do I do... Brianfox Financial Issues 27 12-03-2010 05:12 PM
Undue Hardship hubby Financial Issues 3 01-26-2006 12:57 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:07 PM.