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
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 06-26-2008, 01:25 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 170
Suchislife is on a distinguished road
Default

I am a second wife. Well, spouse as the divorce is taking 4+ years!
I think the original point was veered away from as the discussion turned to the right to procreate!

What we need to alter is the 'FIRST FAMILIES FIRST' that gets thrown in our faces. It makes me feel as if my toddler doesn't 'count' or something. Right or wrong I found myself unexpectedly pregnant. Also, I didn't realize how some father's got slammed in court and how the divorce process never ends!

My partner pays half his income in combined S.S & C.S. He should not be bound to support his ex wife for the remainder of his days. And we just have to let it go when the 2 children come to us wearing clothes far too small while extensive renovations go into the matrimonial home of which she now has ownership.

It is also wrong that parents with joint custody have to set up a new home for children with no extra money when some of their possessions could actually be divided or at least travel back and forth. I.E. toys, DVD's, clothes.

It does seem unfair to pay C.S to the other parent when you have the kids but it is based on the whole year divided by 12 months. Hard to come up with it to send out of the home and ALSO feed and entertain the child(ren) at the same time.

Why the government does not take into consideration the support going out of your home when calculating tax breaks, I'll never know! I would like to qualify for GST rebates, a Child Tax Benefit of more than $60, daycare subsidies etc...

Helpful also, would be a government program automatically adjusting the C.S payments for the next year when taxes are filed for people with fluctuating incomes. This would save a court appearance to vary support.
Also, C.S tables that took into consideration OTHER minor children that need food and shelter.

Fortunately we have had alot of things given to us from clothes to toys to dressers to bedding... WE ACCEPT ALL DONATIONS!!

I raised my adult son myself, started out with nothing and still have most of it left! I do however feel very sorry for my partner who has lost his home and everything in it, battles to see his children as court ordered, is still battling over the NFP, has gone into debt for the first time in his life and has a lower standard of living then his ex. All because she filed for divorce and said she didn't want him anymore! She just wanted the house and his money every month!
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 06-26-2008, 02:44 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 324
got2bkid is on a distinguished road
Default

Could you clarify this for me. Are you saying that everyone has the right to more kids except for the ex in your case??

It was a joke. Of course she has the "right". Sarcasm doesn't always come off well on emails.
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 06-26-2008, 02:45 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 324
got2bkid is on a distinguished road
Default

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?

I am not sure why it matters, but he has 2 children with ex. We have twins together. So yes, that makes 4. Is there a problem with this?
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 06-26-2008, 03:15 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 324
got2bkid is on a distinguished road
Default

to Suchislife,

So good to hear from others in our shoes. Nobody seems to understand that the children of second families have the right to support from both their parents too!

What REALLY bothers me is what you talk about. The tax situations where CP's get all the breaks and NCP get no breaks. This is not taken into consideration by our courts, and the impact this alone has on a 2nd family. I mean to give your ex 10K/year in child support, you are really giving her 13000 or 14000/year off gross. It bothers me that CS is based on gross income, which nobody actually has to live on. And then the payor gets NO benefits for that money given. Another jab.

But what is totally unbeleivable ( in a country that porports to want to eradicate child poverty) is that SECOND CHILDREN SUBSIDIZE FIRST CHILDREN.

Why is the Can. Child tax benefit for 2nd children based on gross income, without taking into consideration the child support that directly leaves the house to support the 1st children. That means the 2nd kids get a lower "share" of CCTB based on the TRUE income in that home. And then the 2nd childrens CCTB gets calculated on the CP's income, NOT including the child support recieved. So they get a bigger proportion based on true income in that household.

And it is the same with every gov't benefit. We don't qualify for GST/HST, day care subsidies, health and dental stuff. Not that I want to work the system, I don't, but when I see the 1st kids get all the tax free money (CS and their "extras" paid for), then another 7000 tax free (in CCTB), another 700/yr in GST/HST, FREE day-care, FREE legal aid (mother), university subsidies (mother), about 2600 tax break (for having the 2 kids), I see how incredibly lop-sided all these additions add up to.

2nd kids subsidize first kids and 2nd families that TRULY need some tax relief or some gov't benefit for THEIR kids don't qualify cause it looks (on paper) like they have much higher income than they do (cause CS and extraordiary expenses are not allowed to be deducted).

It is a crime and I am sure these is a huge class of children living in poverty out there due to these issues, but of course they wouldn't even be COUNTED, as there is no record of the TRUE situation in that household.

I even contacted the Government "Child Poverty" group, the ones supposidly "helping" children. I explained this problem to them. They never have gotten back to me and don't return my calls. I am not doing this for ME, I am doing it because the DEPTH of the injustice in the family law system in this country literally makes me sick.

The attitude of custodial mothers is another thing hard to stomach. Second families scare them sooooo much. They base all their thoughts about this subject on their FEARS. Their fears of losing out, losing some cash, losing an argument. But these are REAL kids we are talking about. REAL kids with real needs that deserve the support of BOTH their parents just as much as the first kids do.

The Custodial mothers squash discussions about this as quick as they can, without realizing THERE ARE WAYS BOTH FIRST AND SECOND FAMILIES CAN BOTH BE TREATED WITH RESPECT AND EQUALITY. There are CS systems all over the world that have made great progress in ensuring ALL children are treated fairly under the law. Is there something wrong with that?
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 06-26-2008, 10:59 AM
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ontario
Posts: 3,943
logicalvelocity has a spectacular aura aboutlogicalvelocity has a spectacular aura aboutlogicalvelocity has a spectacular aura about
Send a message via Yahoo to logicalvelocity
Default

This is interesting. For the most part of this thread; emphasis has been placed on how second family obligations are treated differently than first family obligations.

However, I know of a few situations where first family obligations have suffered and have gone without because of second family obligations.

For instance, what if you have custody of the first family child. In the second family breakdown, you are basically an NCP and payable child support with NO consideration that you have a previous child and obligation to support such. Is it not appropriate to suggest that a notional amount of support should be affixed to the first family child when determining second family obligations.

My point is that there are significant flaws in the child support guidelines and they have come up significantly unfair with consideration to multiply families whether its first family obligations or second family financial obligations. I do think reform is required of the guidelines to reflect the modern trend that there are many individuals with more than one family obligation.



lv

Last edited by logicalvelocity; 06-26-2008 at 11:29 AM.
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 06-26-2008, 11:25 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 108
phoenix is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by got2bkid
I am not sure why it matters, but he has 2 children with ex. We have twins together. So yes, that makes 4. Is there a problem with this?
No... not a problem at all... I'm just trying to figure out my opinion/feelings on your situation that you are complaining about.

Personally, in your situation, I think the unfair part is how long the spousal support has gone on for. If she is a young-ish woman, it is time she stood on her feet on her own. I do agree with that. The goal of spousal support is to help the person provide for themselves.

I know you are looking for support for your feelings on the amount of child support your ex has to pay. You are entitled to that. I'm just giving my "other" side/opinion of support for "first" families. As a CP of "first" children I know full well the child support amounts for Canada are meagre at best. The schedule amounts my ex sends certainly do NOT cover half of all my children's expenses. Who makes up the difference? Me. Because they live with me I won't see them go without, and he knows it. (I know -- we all have it bad when families break up.)

I still believe that in an ideal world, people would consider VERY carefully before creating a second family. I still believe that having a baby is not a right, new marriage or not -- sure it's easy to get pregnant, but that doesn't make it a responsible thing to do. That is why average families these days have 1 or 2 children instead of 7 or 8 like they used to a generation ago when providing for a family wasn't so costly. (I know you know that, I'm just soap-boxing here)

I also believe that most children have 2 parents... and in this day and age both father and mother should be working to support those children. Your husband's ex should be working to provide for her kids, and you should be working to provide for your kids.

Obviously my opinion is in the minority... but for me, it is my perspective as the CP of "first children".
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 06-26-2008, 04:02 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 324
got2bkid is on a distinguished road
Default

for the record, my husband does NOT pay spousal support. He pays CS and 100% of "extra-ordinary expenses" which include day-care, braces and health and dental insurance right now. He is giving his ex 50% of his net income, which would NEVER happen in an intact family. Maybe if you can't afford to live on what your ex gives your for CS you should live within your means.

And for the record as well, I DO have a job. And this post isn't to "support my feelings". It is to get the TRUTH out there. But I shouldn't have to support my children 100%, you don't. They have a father that WANTS to help support them to, but is unable to due to the huge demands from the "first" family.

But I notice you avoided all the REAL issues. The ones that have nothing to do with you seemigly "high and mighty" ideals like telling the world who can and who can't have kids. So am i to assume that anyone that doesn't "fit" your ideals and gets pregnant would be forced into having an abortion? Any man or woman without a "set" income should be sterilized. Nice world to bring up kids in. (that comment was sarcastic).

Anyway, you avoided the REAL issues once again, the tax breaks, the 2nd children SUBSIDIZING the first kids benefits and go't programs. The system is completely favored for the CP's and the first kids, and many CP's can't/won't acknowledge this and never will. That is why the title of the post is "Second wives need to band together". We KNOW what your arguments will be, they are the same every time. A real problem exists in which kids need help, not judgements that never solve anything.
  #28 (permalink)  
Old 06-26-2008, 04:59 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 170
Suchislife is on a distinguished road
Default It's a showdown, folks!!!

In regard to Phoenix's comments, they are understandable but posted in the WRONG forum!
I too, have been on that end of the stick. I was ordered $167 a month in C.S and never got it. I never asked for S.S as I don't believe in it. You don't have the man, you don't get his money. Personal view.
Now as a SECOND WIFE I agree with you, got2bkid. The issue is not about a man NOT wanting/willing to support the children of a prior union but the unreasonable demands made upon his disposable income.
  #29 (permalink)  
Old 06-26-2008, 06:33 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Kitchener Ontario
Posts: 5,242
standing on the sidelines is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by got2bkid
for the record, my husband does NOT pay spousal support. He pays CS and 100% of "extra-ordinary expenses" which include day-care, braces and health and dental insurance right now. He is giving his ex 50% of his net income, which would NEVER happen in an intact family. Maybe if you can't afford to live on what your ex gives your for CS you should live within your means.
That last remark was kind of nasty.
  #30 (permalink)  
Old 06-26-2008, 07:16 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 324
got2bkid is on a distinguished road
Default

yes, it was kinda nasty. what it is in reference to is that everybody has a definition of "enough". Some people are frugal by nature, some people are spenders by nature. Sending money to someone you know doesn't know how to manage money (the hubby's ex has declared bankrupcy in the past) is adding salt on the wound.

With the CS table amount, say both parents are making 55K and they have 2 kids. So he gives 9600 CS and she "gives" 9600 CS. Say the kids have dental working costing 5000, add that on top. Now the amount of money that goes directly to 2 kids is 24,200 for that year, AFTER tax.

Do 2 kids REALLY cost 2000/month? We all know they don't. So when a CP says the table amounts are not enough, ususally it is becasue they are not "chipping in" the amount they are supposed to "in the spirit of the guidelines" based on their income, or they are spending way too much on their kids.
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 12:46 PM.