Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > Financial Issues

Financial Issues This forum is for discussing any of the financial issues involved in your divorce.

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 07-13-2012, 04:00 AM
Tayken's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,563
Tayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by billm View Post
This comes back the OPs original question - why isn't this balancing done in all cases.

I think the answer is 'that's just the way it is'.
Actually it is quite simple...

Just say we apply the theory that the new spouse should be responsible? The court orders that the new spouses income should be included and that person is put forward to the FRO for CS payments.

The new spouse now divorces the other parent... What to do? Do we still make this ex-spouse who, has no paternal rights to the child in question we now made pay child support continue to pay child support?

The best way to handle it...? Make the parents, the actual parents, be responsible for their children.
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 07-13-2012, 09:51 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 3,726
HammerDad will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tayken View Post
The new spouse now divorces the other parent... What to do? Do we still make this ex-spouse who, has no paternal rights to the child in question we now made pay child support continue to pay child support?
They already do this. One parent can collect c/s from multiple partners if it is found that they acted as a parent to the child(ren).

It is double (or sometimes triple or worse) dipping.
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 07-13-2012, 10:20 AM
Tayken's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,563
Tayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HammerDad View Post
They already do this. One parent can collect c/s from multiple partners if it is found that they acted as a parent to the child(ren).

It is double (or sometimes triple or worse) dipping.
Only a handful of cases. No judge will order it today. Not much has come up in case law to support these requests that I have seen in a while.
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 07-13-2012, 10:29 AM
Tayken's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,563
Tayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by slughead10 View Post
then why do we have in in loco child support orders?
in loco parentis (proper terminology)

Which means stands in place of a parent. EOW parent paying child support would eliminate in loco parentis for the new spouse at a minimum threshold to have to "double pay" child support. (See below)

Chartier v. Chartier:

Supreme Court of Canada - Decisions - Chartier v. Chartier

Justice Bastarache, writing for a unanimous Court, held in favour of Sharon and stated that Gerald could not unilaterally severe ties to the child. To determine if a spouse is in the role of parent, the court must look at a number of factors including:

- whether the child participates in the extended family in the same way as would a biological child;
- whether the person provides financially for the child (depending on ability to pay);
- whether the person disciplines the child as a parent;
- whether the person represents to the child, the family, the world, either explicitly or implicitly, that he or she is responsible as a parent to the child;
- the nature or existence of the child’s relationship with the absent biological parent.

I highly recommend anyone having anxiety (fear/worry) about in loco parentis read the SCC decision carefully before saying it happens a lot. The threshold of evidence for establishing in loco parentis is INCREDIBLY high.

Parents are not getting married, divorcing after 2 years so they can get get in loco parentis child support. The threshold to establish is set forth by the SCC and not used very often.

Good Luck!
Tayken

Last edited by Tayken; 07-13-2012 at 10:31 AM.
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 07-13-2012, 12:24 PM
billm's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,430
billm is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tayken View Post
Actually it is quite simple...

Just say we apply the theory that the new spouse should be responsible? The court orders that the new spouses income should be included and that person is put forward to the FRO for CS payments.

The new spouse now divorces the other parent... What to do? Do we still make this ex-spouse who, has no paternal rights to the child in question we now made pay child support continue to pay child support?

The best way to handle it...? Make the parents, the actual parents, be responsible for their children.
Tayken, you're at the top of my list for great responses but I find your reasoning here to be backwards.

Saying that the reason to not do something is because later there would be effort required to undo it should circumstances change is a weak argument.
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 07-13-2012, 01:07 PM
Tayken's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,563
Tayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by billm View Post
Tayken, you're at the top of my list for great responses but I find your reasoning here to be backwards.

Saying that the reason to not do something is because later there would be effort required to undo it should circumstances change is a weak argument.
It is the argument of the court generally that is presented. Many litigants go into court waving fingers because the other parent has a new partner/spouse who either has money or makes a significant amount of money.

To be successful you have to (a) establish unjust enrichment and (b) parental status and responsibility of the new partner to the children.

Both are incredibly hard to be successful with before the courts. You basically have to admit to the court that the other paying party you are trying to go after (new spouse/partner) is a parent and has the same responsibilities of a parent.

It is a "backwards" argument to make if you apply the logic in general for parents to expect that if the other parent gets married that new person is responsible for the children too. If that was the case no one would get remarried and there would droves of EOW parents taking matters back before the court trying to have CS reduced.

If Family Law was about "change" CS would be adjusted with every paycheck automatically. But, alas, it is done yearly for a reason.

Good Luck!
Tayken
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 07-13-2012, 10:58 PM
Janus's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,341
Janus will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tayken View Post
Actually it is quite simple...

Just say we apply the theory that the new spouse should be responsible? The court orders that the new spouses income should be included and that person is put forward to the FRO for CS payments.

The new spouse now divorces the other parent... What to do? Do we still make this ex-spouse who, has no paternal rights to the child in question we now made pay child support continue to pay child support?
I'm not sure that I follow. The payments from the biological parent revert to original offset amounts upon the end of the new marriage. I don't even see how it is a tricky situation.

Either way, this is not an objection to the point that I raised, which, I will state yet again, is that support is the right of the child, and support should be in the best interests of the child, not a parent or some other random adult.

So, again, how is it in the best interests of the child in a 50/50 custody situation for a parent to be paying child support to a household with higher income?

Every argument so far has touched upon the rights of the adult (parent) CS recipient, and the new spouse, but nobody seems to care about the interests of the children. Which is curious, since I thought that was the entire point of the family law legal system.

Quote:
The best way to handle it...? Make the parents, the actual parents, be responsible for their children.
That is the easy way, and the way it works now, but in the situation I described, I still have not heard a good argument as to how it is in the best interests of the children.

Last edited by Janus; 07-13-2012 at 10:59 PM. Reason: editing the edit reason :) it was a change of phrasing, not a typo. I had typo on the brain for some reason
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 07-15-2012, 11:02 PM
Tayken's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,563
Tayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Janus View Post
I'm not sure that I follow. The payments from the biological parent revert to original offset amounts upon the end of the new marriage. I don't even see how it is a tricky situation.
Offset even though it "reduces" the payment is still a payment in formula. So, technically, if the new spouse were to leave the marriage how would the "offset" go against them?

Remember, the "offset" calculation identifies the parent.

So what you are recommending is the offset be calculated as:

Parent A (income) + New Spouse A (income) = total house hold income
Parent B (income) = total household income

"Offset" calculations just don't work that way under the guide lines. The only situation in which you can go after New Spouse A is to demonstrate an unjust enrichment. To do this Parent A would have to claim an income of 0$.

Read the Guide Lines carefully.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Janus View Post
Either way, this is not an objection to the point that I raised, which, I will state yet again, is that support is the right of the child, and support should be in the best interests of the child, not a parent or some other random adult.

So, again, how is it in the best interests of the child in a 50/50 custody situation for a parent to be paying child support to a household with higher income?
It is... Just not the parent's new spouse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Janus View Post
Every argument so far has touched upon the rights of the adult (parent) CS recipient, and the new spouse, but nobody seems to care about the interests of the children. Which is curious, since I thought that was the entire point of the family law legal system.
Parents are defined in the Family Law Rules and CLRA. Read how they are defined. A new spouse after divorce is not a parent unless the other parent is absent totally. (See the SCC ruling on that one.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Janus View Post
That is the easy way, and the way it works now, but in the situation I described, I still have not heard a good argument as to how it is in the best interests of the children.
If you want, you can go out and marry a high income earner too, win the lottery or get a windfall from a family estate. All this is protected form the other parent making claims against you. The "buck" stops at the actually parents to the children.

You seem to be upset because you want the equation to work in your favour to reduce what you have to pay. To fix it, simply marry someone who is rich and beat them at their own game.

Good Luck!
Tayken
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 07-16-2012, 11:55 PM
Janus's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,341
Janus will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tayken View Post
You seem to be upset because you want the equation to work in your favour to reduce what you have to pay. To fix it, simply marry someone who is rich and beat them at their own game.

Good Luck!
Tayken
Sigh

It should not be a game, it should be in the best interests of the children.
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 07-17-2012, 09:43 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 341
winterwolf7 is on a distinguished road
Default

The best interests of the children seem to be mostly $$$ based, after all.

Otherwise why would Dad's be left with 1000-1400 per month to live off while the Mom collects 2-3 times that without even working.
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 Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Divorce Law are a Joke and Dads are the Punch Line Decent Dad Political Issues 389 11-03-2012 05:45 PM
Going back on agreement andagain Divorce & Family Law 2 03-21-2011 12:05 PM
Spousal Support - agreement to a minimum term noblefather Financial Issues 1 04-30-2010 01:38 PM
UK to Canada, remarriage, extra dependants and child support.. josiebrown Divorce & Family Law 4 01-07-2008 04:22 PM
Impact of Remarriage of the Payor Anne Financial Issues 10 10-17-2005 08:15 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:11 AM.