Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > General Chat

General Chat This forum is for discussing anything that doesn't fit into another forum, or for discussing things that are off topic, or just for general venting.

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 06-24-2008, 09:17 AM
FL_Needs_To_Change's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Northern Ontario
Posts: 1,261
FL_Needs_To_Change has a spectacular aura aboutFL_Needs_To_Change has a spectacular aura about
Default

http://www.canlii.org/en/sk/skqb/doc...01skqb120.html

From the above case;

Second families and the associated legal duty to support a child of that family, are not uncommon. The assumption of such new obligations may by necessity create a certain degree of economic hardship. That hardship is not however necessarily "undue". Similarly, the mere fact that an applicant's household standard of living is lower than that of the other spouse, due in part to the applicant's legal duty to another child, does not automatically create circumstances of undue hardship.

The CP in this case had a notable higher standard of living, yet the judge would not remove the CS obligation but did agree to reduce obligation to ½ the table amount to enable the second family to make other arrangements to meet financial obligations.
And ordered CP to pay a substantial portion of the costs associated to facilitate access.

http://www.canlii.org/en/sk/skqb/doc...01skqb158.html

in this case, the CP also has the higher standard of living, and wanted to include the GST and CTC the NCP received in reaising his second family.
The judge did NOT use any tax credits in calculating household income, and the request for CS was dismissed in favour of the NCP raising 8 children in a second family Versus CP raising 2.

http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc...anlii6246.html

In this case although undue hardship was determined and the CP did have a higher standard of living, no change in CS was allowed even though the high debt was directly related to the costs of raising/caring for the second family.

There are a lot of cases on this topic, and although the outcomes do not always serve the second family I think the judges in these particular cases did recognise that the second family deserved consideration. The undue hardship claim is probably one of the hardest to win since there are so many factors that could play against a parson in hardship. It is very important to clearly define “all” financial areas, and clearly outline how they directly affect the second family. IN some of the cases I have read where hardship was determined but no deviation from the table amount of CS was awarded I feel that there could have been greater emphasis on the ramifications of the CS amount on the second family rather then leaving these to “assumptions” and “common sense”.

This has proven to be a very sensitive topic, each having their merits, but at the end of the day we live in a “free” society, and the choices we make bare their unique responsibilities. No person should be forced to live alone or unhappy. No one person has the right to impose their beliefs on another (not that anyone here is doing that). Everyone deserves a second chance at happiness, and because we do not have a crystal ball to show us how our choices will play out we are bound by those choices, but that does not mean if they fail a second time they should be shunned or punished for it, we’re all human!
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 06-24-2008, 01:53 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 324
got2bkid is on a distinguished road
Default

phoenix - to your comment

"Creating a child is not a right... it is an ominous 25-year (and beyond that) emotional and FINANCIAL responsibility and obligation."

Exactly. My husband FULLY supports his kids. Is 25K/year (after tax) not enough to raise 2 kids in elementary and junior high? It is the EX that shouldn't have had the right to have kids. She "goes to school" for years on end, being selfish and CHOOSING to make her kids poor. She already has 2 diplomas, but quit a good job as she wanted a "degree". How selfish.

Then she moves her children away from their birth province and FATHER, taking AWAY his right to be there for them daily, which he WANTS to do.

In her selfishness, she DIRECTLY impacts our second family by not contributing AT ALL to the high extra expenses, braces and flights.

My comments are about how the SYSTEM often allows a female custodial parent to get away with this, and even supports them to do it! The amount of tax breaks and benefits she gets is staggering.

Meanwhile, my hubbys income is reduced by 50%, that is ALOT for 2 children. He could be able to HELP SUPPORT ALL his children if she didn't take such a huge percentage and not work. Again, the system supports this.

You seem to insinutate that we are poor and/or uneducated for making the choice to have a family. Actually I was far more responsible than 90% of the people out there. Before I even had kids I saved substantial amounts of money. However, my point is the CS and EXTRAS are too expensive for the husband, and impoverish many second families. Why should I have to support my kids 100% while the first wife is guaranteed that her ex support her kids 100 and she can contribute 0%? It is wrong, unfair and in MANY situations impoverishes the second family.

My husband pays 1/2 his net income for 2 kids. How crazy is that? I AM NOT LEGALLY FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR HER KIDS TOO, BUT AFTER PAYING OUR BILLS, I HAVE TO CONTRIBUTE TO HER FROM MY SAVINGS.
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 06-24-2008, 01:57 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 324
got2bkid is on a distinguished road
Default

Oh, I also agree EVERYONE has the right to have children. (My comment about the ex not having a right to have children was just based on her irresponsible behavior.) But we cannot limit who and who cannot have children. That is totally absurd and speaks volumes about anyone who actually thinks a society like that would even be a good place for a child to be raised in.
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 06-24-2008, 03:27 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 324
got2bkid is on a distinguished road
Default

to phoenix,

You say you are married to a man who has other children to support, and you yourself already have children of your own (aren't twins wonderful!!!).

Anyway, my twins are my FIRST children. Was I to give up the chance of having kids with my husband becasue he pays 100% for his first kids and the wife contributes nothing? Was he to live a life alone, with his children accross the country, because his income is depleted by CS and extras? How fair and sensitive is that? Should the system really be giving that much power to the Ex wife?

Wether or not I had money is irrelevant. I have a right to have kids and have a right to have the father contribute financially to their upbringing just as much as the first wife does.

Thinking it's OK to let the system impoverish a payor to such and extent that he can never enjoy children in his life daily again is PUNISHMENT. Why, when 2 people get divorced, society thinks its OK to punish one for 18 years (or more) is beyond me.

I realize not everyone has the costs we do, but it seems the system is whacked when GOOD men who DO and WANT to support their 1st (and 2nd) kids can LEGALLY get taken to the cleaners, and their ex wives, LEGALLY, can contribute NOTHING.
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 06-24-2008, 03:27 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 72
Fair4All is on a distinguished road
Default Choices

Ooh... I like debates like this!

To digress from the "second family" vs. "first family" argument.... I think the crux of the argument is due to who has choices. From personal experience (and I know a lot of people will disagree), the CP (a woman) has the choice to either stay at home, or work, or do part of both, or go to school, or to travel, etc. etc. Whereas, because there are children, the NCP (a man) has no choice but to work. If he wants to change careers, he can't. If he wants to take a sabbatical, he can't. Now, I know there are those who will say, "but he has to support his family." Last time I checked, it takes two parents to have a child. Why isn't the CP told "sorry, you can't go to school for 10 years; at some point you have to contribute financially to your child's well-being"?

Women fought for years to be treated equally in the workforce. There's still a ways to go, but there are inroads being made - except in Family Law. In Family Law, the woman is still treated as though she cannot be expected to contribute financially to supporting her children. Many women do not fit in this mold and do contribute financially; however, it is very easy for a woman who "doesn't feel like" working to continue to receive support - even after the children have grown up, become educated and self-sufficient themselves and have moved on.

Interesting link: www.ifeminists.net

"Ifeminism" = Individualist feminism, or ifeminism, advocates the equal treatment of men and women as individuals under just law. The core principle of individualist feminism is that all human beings have a moral and legal claim to their own persons and property. It is sometimes called libertarian feminism.

Sounds good to me!
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 06-24-2008, 04:17 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 324
got2bkid is on a distinguished road
Default

To Fair4ALL,

That is EXACTLY the point I am trying to get accross, but you said it in such a great way! Family Law in Canada is archaic, assuming that the women is the "victim" in every situation and allowing her liberties and choices that would never be allowed the man.

A lot of women don't play "victim", but if they want to, they have the full support of the family law system behind them. And they have excuses, usually agreed to by judges, for all of their actions. Excuses that would never fly for a man.

When is family law going to step up and understand women are competent and capable human beings and as such should be held to the same legal and financial standards that men are?
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 06-24-2008, 11:01 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 108
phoenix is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by got2bkid
My husband pays 1/2 his net income for 2 kids.
Quick question... is that "1/2 income" amount SOLELY child support, or are you including spousal support in your statement?
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 06-24-2008, 11:10 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 324
got2bkid is on a distinguished road
Default

It includes the table CS amount and "extra-ordinary" expenses.
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 06-25-2008, 06:35 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Kitchener Ontario
Posts: 5,201
standing on the sidelines is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by got2bkid
Oh, I also agree EVERYONE has the right to have children. (My comment about the ex not having a right to have children was just based on her irresponsible behavior.) But we cannot limit who and who cannot have children. That is totally absurd and speaks volumes about anyone who actually thinks a society like that would even be a good place for a child to be raised in.

Could you clarify this for me. Are you saying that everyone has the right to more kids except for the ex in your case??
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 06-25-2008, 09:07 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 108
phoenix is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by got2bkid
It includes the table CS amount and "extra-ordinary" expenses.
Again, not to be a nuisance and I want to be sure I'm getting this, your husband has 4 children, 2 with his first wife and 2 with you?
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



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:10 AM.