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
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 07-17-2012, 09:06 AM
hadenough's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,468
hadenough is on a distinguished road
Default

^ Slug's "answer" to absolutely everything... Your ex must have been a real train wreck to lose custody to you.
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 07-17-2012, 10:44 AM
Tayken's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,472
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
Sigh

It should not be a game, it should be in the best interests of the children.
And it is... It is the parent's responsibility to support their children both emotionally and financially. The dispute is that the system doesn't work the way you want it to in your situation.

But, if you reversed the roles what would you do?
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 07-20-2012, 12:03 AM
Janus's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,294
Janus will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tayken View Post
And it is... It is the parent's responsibility to support their children both emotionally and financially. The dispute is that the system doesn't work the way you want it to in your situation.

But, if you reversed the roles what would you do?
Probably try to continue to extract as much money as possible from my ex-spouse. Actually, possibly not, I'm the sucker who rarely negotiates once I believe that a deal is "fair", and feels bad taking money from insurance that is greater than the value I place on the item.

Either way, it is irrelevant what I would do in a situation. The system should assume that both people are going to do the wrong thing, and should ensure that things work out in the best interests of the children. Currently, it does not.
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 07-20-2012, 08:26 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 353
SingingDad is on a distinguished road
Default

How about this for a solution:

Caveat: this would only apply in offset situations

1) Impute a dollar amount to the reduction in living costs the spouse who has remarried has to pay (functionally this would have to be worked out to fit in the formula, but it would be doable).

2) Consider this amount as income of that parrent (not of the parent's new spouse) for the purpose of the offset calculation of CS.

3) The imputed dollar amount gets removed from the CS calculation if the relationship fails.

The responsibility would still only be with the two actual parents but it would recognize the actual living conditions of the child.

It only works for offset situations because there would have to be the potential of an equal effect to both sides (also it would look like NCPs were being punished by the legislation for remarrying).
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 07-20-2012, 09:40 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,678
OrleansLawyer is a jewel in the roughOrleansLawyer is a jewel in the roughOrleansLawyer is a jewel in the rough
Default

All of this assumes that the new partner of the ex has a financial responsibility for the children of the marriage.

He or she does not. If they choose to contribute - great. That is the same as your ex receiving a gift, inheritance or other windfall which in no way would impact your child support obligations.

Another way to think of it - if your ex had not made a fortuitous alliance, you would still have the same child support obligations but your children would, while with your ex, be in a lesser financial position. Consider the benefit of the ex's new partner to be a bonus for the children, because it certainly is not an entitlement.
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 07-20-2012, 09:46 AM
Tayken's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,472
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 OrleansLawyer View Post
All of this assumes that the new partner of the ex has a financial responsibility for the children of the marriage.

He or she does not. If they choose to contribute - great. That is the same as your ex receiving a gift, inheritance or other windfall which in no way would impact your child support obligations.

Another way to think of it - if your ex had not made a fortuitous alliance, you would still have the same child support obligations but your children would, while with your ex, be in a lesser financial position. Consider the benefit of the ex's new partner to be a bonus for the children, because it certainly is not an entitlement.
So eloquently put and right on the "money". Welcome to the forum OrleansLawyer!
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 07-20-2012, 01:32 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 420
Canadaguy is on a distinguished road
Default

But the new partner does financially support the child. They pay half the rent/mortgage, food bills, entertainment and travel because at the end of the day once re-married everything is split 50/50.

For example, if a new family takes a trip that cost $1500, new partner pays half of that, not 1/3 because 3 people are going.

By saying the new parent is not financially responsible is that not the same as a CEO taking a small salary to keep taxes and CS low and using his company to write off all expesnes (cars, travel, food, entertainment, etc)?
  #28 (permalink)  
Old 07-20-2012, 01:48 PM
Tayken's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,472
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 Canadaguy View Post
But the new partner does financially support the child. They pay half the rent/mortgage, food bills, entertainment and travel because at the end of the day once re-married everything is split 50/50.

For example, if a new family takes a trip that cost $1500, new partner pays half of that, not 1/3 because 3 people are going.

By saying the new parent is not financially responsible is that not the same as a CEO taking a small salary to keep taxes and CS low and using his company to write off all expesnes (cars, travel, food, entertainment, etc)?
Really? 50-50 only applies to marital assets and there could be a pre-nuptial agreement to totally something different. There are many people who are married that have different agreements and arrangements for their finances.
  #29 (permalink)  
Old 07-20-2012, 01:57 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 420
Canadaguy is on a distinguished road
Default

I'm not sure how mixed families do it, but would love to hear. I know families with no pre-nup the law is 50/50 no matter what the salary of either partner is.

I know some families that have their own bank accounts and contribute amounts to the family expenses. But without a prenup it is still 50/50 at the end of the day.

Just doesn't make sense now adays to have one pot of money like my folks did.
  #30 (permalink)  
Old 07-22-2012, 11:54 PM
teezy's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Southern Ontario
Posts: 74
teezy is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Hi, I'm new and this is my first post. But this thread caught my eye because my partner is going through a separation right now and I have asked him (and his lawyer) this question numerous times: Does my income impact how much money he has to give her? (a lot of smart responses in here, though.)

The short answer was that it's a remote possibility, but that he hasn't seen that happen in over a decade.

She's a single mother and they have a split custody arrangement right now, and he has a good job where his gross income is close to $80k. I make around $45-50K. She's claiming under $10k, so I was freaked out that she'd be able to petition the court for my financial records so that she could get enough child support out of him to match our combined income... using some bogus claim like, "I can't provide for them in the same way they're used to at their dad's house."

And honestly, even though I chose to move in and become a part of not only his life, but his kids'... I am not forking over any of my money to support her, and I refuse to pay all the bills so that she can suck more out of him. I'd move out before that happened. I worked too hard in my life to get to where I am, even though it's not all glitz and glamour, and it's not even that high-paying of a job. I'm here to support THIS house - not hers. I don't think we should have to give her another $1000 a month just because I'm here. That's ridiculous.

You also never know how the $200k is being spent. It looks like a lot on paper, but who knows... maybe he has a huge mortage. Maybe he's paying support to an ex. Maybe he's a big spender and has a lot of things to pay off that cost a lot of money. That's his business. In my case, my being here might bump the household income up to $130k, but I have student loans and a line of credit, and insurance, etc... and so does my guy. His two kids eat like machines haha, so they're expensive enough to feed as is. Plus he has support payments. So between the two of us, there's not a lot left over. But if you looked at our combined income, you'd think we're doing great.

I see where you're coming from, but if you were her new spouse, do you think you'd want to assume all the financial responsibilities of the father just because you happen to have a great income? Choosing to do so because you want to is one thing, but having the courts dictate such is so out of line if you're not the biological parent. They can't enforce that, because they only care about the two people who are the parents. I understand how you feel, because it would be terrible to lose a big chunk of your income when you know they live in a $245k household. But technically, it's you who they regard as taking care of them, not him... and that's why it doesn't matter.

I just hope all that money you give is actually being used in full on the kids, because I'd say she and her new husband have more than enough to take care of themselves. At least your kids will know you provided for them, right?
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 04:45 PM
Going back on agreement andagain Divorce & Family Law 2 03-21-2011 11:05 AM
Spousal Support - agreement to a minimum term noblefather Financial Issues 1 04-30-2010 12:38 PM
UK to Canada, remarriage, extra dependants and child support.. josiebrown Divorce & Family Law 4 01-07-2008 03:22 PM
Impact of Remarriage of the Payor Anne Financial Issues 10 10-17-2005 07:15 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:18 AM.