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.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 03-12-2014, 08:02 AM
Hand of Justice
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: In the Shadows
Posts: 3,139
Links17 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Why would one child be less deserving than the other in your opinion?
Legally speaking a child that is from divorced parents > new child from still composed family.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 03-12-2014, 08:06 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 138
Toutou is on a distinguished road
Default

Then solution would be easy, to support both children equally, like parents who live in intact families do. Take amount for two children based on his income, and divide equally for both kids. problem solved! and it is fair to everybody.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 03-12-2014, 08:33 AM
arabian's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 9,854
arabian will become famous soon enough
Default

I believe the premise of current child support legislation (I'm certainly not experienced in this area) is that you are expected to provide for your children after the failure of the marriage. Your decision to have more children should not negatively affect your first children. In other words, spreading one's sperm does not equate with 'sharing the wealth.'
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 03-12-2014, 09:00 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,151
MS Mom is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by arabian View Post
I believe the premise of current child support legislation (I'm certainly not experienced in this area) is that you are expected to provide for your children after the failure of the marriage. Your decision to have more children should not negatively affect your first children. In other words, spreading one's sperm does not equate with 'sharing the wealth.'
Very well said Arabian.

If CS is reduced, how fair is that to existing children?

In my case, my ex chose to leave the mother of his other child in order to pursue a relationship with someone else, leaving that child and mother essentially homeless in his wake.

He could still be spreading his sperm - and therefore his paycheque - across the continent. If CS isn't set up the way that it is - ie, by household - then how fair is decreasing CS based on the promiscuity of dear old dad?
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 03-12-2014, 09:02 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,151
MS Mom is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toutou View Post
Then solution would be easy, to support both children equally, like parents who live in intact families do. Take amount for two children based on his income, and divide equally for both kids. problem solved! and it is fair to everybody.
The families aren't intact though.

With your proposal CS is reduced per child based on how much unprotected sex the payor has.

I'm not sure why existing children should suffer financially because dad can't wrap it up and be a responsible adult? But with your proposal above CS is a constantly decreasing amount because dad has no morals or responsibility. Talk about punishing a child over and over and over agan.
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 03-12-2014, 09:07 AM
Hand of Justice
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: In the Shadows
Posts: 3,139
Links17 is on a distinguished road
Default

Legislation is child centric not fault of new children that their father is a spreader of sperm.

However intact familes are out of the jurisdiction (generally) of family court so courts don't care but the spreader will be best off divorcing again and so there will be CS orders for each kid. It , stupid but true.
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 03-12-2014, 09:34 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 3,717
HammerDad will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MS Mom View Post
The families aren't intact though.

With your proposal CS is reduced per child based on how much unprotected sex the payor has.

I'm not sure why existing children should suffer financially because dad can't wrap it up and be a responsible adult? But with your proposal above CS is a constantly decreasing amount because dad has no morals or responsibility. Talk about punishing a child over and over and over agan.
Should an individual have children with multiple partners and be required to support them, the hardship is shared by all the children simply due to social implications. You can't have one child of the same parent living comfortably while the other child struggles with poverty. It is to balance out the lifestyles of all of the children and maintain a level of consistency.

I don't believe that someone should have more kids if they can't afford them as it just brings everyone involved, and even those who aren't involved (ie. the taxpayer) down. But in the interests of fairness, it is a much better approach to give each kid an equal piece of the pie than allowing one sibling to live a better life than the other (assuming all other aspects are equal).
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 03-12-2014, 09:50 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,151
MS Mom is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HammerDad View Post
Should an individual have children with multiple partners and be required to support them, the hardship is shared by all the children simply due to social implications. You can't have one child of the same parent living comfortably while the other child struggles with poverty. It is to balance out the lifestyles of all of the children and maintain a level of consistency.

I don't believe that someone should have more kids if they can't afford them as it just brings everyone involved, and even those who aren't involved (ie. the taxpayer) down. But in the interests of fairness, it is a much better approach to give each kid an equal piece of the pie than allowing one sibling to live a better life than the other (assuming all other aspects are equal).
When the payor makes a claim for undue hardship with only one of those children though, he is deciding to make the financial circumstances of his own children different.

Either he has undue hardship due to his support obligations or he doesn't, but he can't place all the burden on one family, by decreasing only one child's support and not the other.
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 03-12-2014, 09:55 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,151
MS Mom is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Links17 View Post
Legally speaking a child that is from divorced parents > new child from still composed family.
Neither child are with their father. He chose to leave his last child to pursue another woman - who came to Canada from the US without any ability to support herself or a work permit.

So, my ex made the logical decision of supporting two children and a wife that doesn't/can't work.

If he has undue hardship now it's due to the fact that he supported an adult for over two years, paid for immigration lawyers and immigration applications, etc. Had a wedding he couldn't afford.

Now that her PR has been denied, his hardship is over as he moved to her hometown and remains gainfully employed and she should have no trouble earning the $85K she claimed in her immigration paperwork she did before she left the US.
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 03-12-2014, 10:10 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 138
Toutou is on a distinguished road
Default

Father doesn't really have a choice but to do it one child at a time. I don't beleive that he can apply for hardship at same time for both children as that would involve bringing you and his other ex to court at the same time.

But when you say that it is not fair for first children to get less CS because their father is has children with other parents, would you think that the following would be fair:

Let's say that you have a child with your ex, your ex earns 100,000$ and pays support based on that income Let's say $1,000. Let's say, you earn $60,000 your notional child support is about $600. So every month you are supposed to spend $1600 on your first child.
then you have another child with your current spouse, who earns $45000, now, you cannot really afford to spend another $600 from your salary and your current spouse, based on his salary can only spend 450$ on his child.

what would you do? Treat your kids differently? Will make sure that you spend the money you gaet from your ex and the amount of notional CS for your first child and get that chiold everything, and then whatever you can spare for your second. I don't think so. But we do expect payors to treat their children differently.
Reply With Quote
Reply


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
Calculating Income for Spousal Support acpickering Financial Issues 5 12-19-2012 09:12 PM
Child Support - Based on Gross or Net Income Marcos Financial Issues 4 04-05-2012 12:26 AM
Other Party Requesting Personal Documents - Do We Oblige? #1StepMom Divorce & Family Law 21 07-06-2011 08:47 PM
Child Support: Guidelines vs "I Want Money!" #1StepMom Divorce & Family Law 25 12-22-2009 11:50 AM
Would my 2nd wife’s income be taken into account for child support? Michael Financial Issues 9 08-01-2009 09:32 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:19 PM.