child support payments to increase May 1

[workingthruit]

Originally Posted by sasha1

How can you say that? I don't understand your thinking on this one? I personally think forcing parents to pay for post-secondary education for kids over the age of majority is unfair, but the amounts? Not accounting for the differences of location between you and I, but if anything, I would say child support amounts are LOW. I would bet that if everyone added up the ACTUAL costs of raising their kids and compared it to the guideline amount set out for their income bracket, we'd find most parents (at least, those with an 'average' combined income) are spending more than the guidelines would indicate will cover a child's needs.

This is my thinking - and I don't expect you to agree, and that's ok too - but I try to be fair all the time - recalling I am one who believes Dad have equal rights!!!
I live in the GTA - one of the highest COL areas in the country. My child support is about $700 total a month for 2 children. That SHOULD only be half of what it costs to raise our children. I SHOULD be contributing the other half. Too many people seem to think that CS should cover the entire expenses of raising children. Do you know what I mean?

The 'guidelines' were set out to be simple, and anything more fair would be complicated.

The way the tables and guidelines are set out now is patently unfair to paying parents - they end up supporting their children 2x. Once at the other parents, and once at their house. (except in rare situtations where payor has NO costs associated with caring for children)

And I do understand what you are saying Sean - but I don't agree that we have to be stuck with the guidelines, and if we aren't careful, we could be stuck with something even more hateful and horribly unfair - the proposed spousal support guidelines.
One of the beautiful things about democracy is that we always have the right to fight what we disagree with ...

[Jenny]

[quote=workingthruit]I live in the GTA - one of the highest COL areas in the country. My child support is about $700 total a month for 2 children. That SHOULD only be half of what it costs to raise our children. I SHOULD be contributing the other half. Too many people seem to think that CS should cover the entire expenses of raising children. Do you know what I mean?[quote=workingthruit]

Are you saying you only spend 1400 more to clothe, feed, shelter( I doubt a 3 br place in TO is cheap and you would only have to get a 1 br otherwise) entertain, etc 2 children. Don't you think that if you were making 20 000 and your ex was making 100 000 that the children should suffer since in your opinion you HAVE to pay for half the costs of raising them?

[CatvsLion]

Well I agree with workingthruit... I end up supporting my daughter twice because when I have her I'm paying for all the expenses that CS is suppose to cover - in that sense it's unfair - because unless I have her 40% + then I don't get any relief.

Jenny - if you made 20 and x made 100 wouldn't Spousal Support bump up your income and therefor help you pay for half of raising children - and children wouldn't be suffering.

just my 2cents

[logicalvelocity]

The child support tables always did factor in cola. If ones income did increase, this increased amount was cross referenced against a new payable amount.

Once an child support order is in place and if a material change was to occur such as a payor's income to increase or decrease, it is up to the parties to vary the order.

[workingthruit]

Originally Posted by CatvsLion

Well I agree with workingthruit... I end up supporting my daughter twice because when I have her I'm paying for all the expenses that CS is suppose to cover - in that sense it's unfair - because unless I have her 40% + then I don't get any relief.

Jenny - if you made 20 and x made 100 wouldn't Spousal Support bump up your income and therefor help you pay for half of raising children - and children wouldn't be suffering.

just my 2cents

I am certain that $1400 a month is ample to feed, cloth, shelter, and entertain my children - I would have to pay rent/mortgage, phone, utilities, groceries, etc, etc whether I had children or not - they do not increase my monthly expenses by greater than $1400 a month.
My ex also pays half of S7 expenses, so it is literally just basic needs that are covered by CS. Child Support isn't for me - it's for the children.

Don't even get me started on Spousal Support Catvslion - the whole idea that a woman who is no longer in a relaionship with a man expects him to continue to support her, blows my mind.

[workingthruit]

Originally Posted by logicalvelocity

The child support tables always did factor in cola. If ones income did increase, this increased amount was cross referenced against a new payable amount.

Once an child support order is in place and if a material change was to occur such as a payor's income to increase or decrease, it is up to the parties to vary the order.

That is really my main issue with the amounts changing. Thanks for raising that point LV.

[beltane]

Originally Posted by workingthruit

Don't even get me started on Spousal Support Catvslion - the whole idea that a woman who is no longer in a relaionship with a man expects him to continue to support her, blows my mind.

Well... I'd like to add MY side to this...

At the beginning of our marriage, my STBX and I decided that I would stay home with our children and he would work to provide for the family we chose to have.

His career moved forward and flourished.

I raised our children and did his laundry, cooked his meals, cleaned his home... all very nice perks to come home to after a long day at work! We enjoyed a very happy family life for over 20 years. We had a very large family... all chosen.

Then: he chose to leave me.

NOW: after 27 years his career is VERY well established -- in fact he could probably retire soon. He has an excellent resume, experience and references.

I have: nothing. As a middle aged woman my work experience qualifies me for minimum wage work.

The law provides the option of spousal support to BALANCE things when a long marriage ends.

Me staying at home raising our children (which we BOTH agreed to) gave him the ease of coming and going from work. No running to day care centres to drop off, pick up kids. No running home to prepare meals after an exhausting day at the office. No spending his weekends catching up on laundry and cleaning a house.

So now, to balance this, the law allows for him to help ME while I begin a career, establish work experience or return to school, and not live in poverty while I do this.

In my opinion, spousal support is absolutely necessary and absolutely fair.

[sasha1]

100% agreed, Beltane!

How about the cost of childcare? Let's look at that, shall we? Where I live, I've been told that 40 hours per week of daycare for 2 children will cost roughly $850 per month.. this is low compared to the larger cities. The cost of a housecleaning service and catering service or personal cook would likely be all of that and then some. So, if Beltane's ex had to pay for all those services throughout the 27 year period (and we'll exclude the cost of daily counselling, because maybe he provided the same service to her), what do you think that monthly amount x 27 years would come to? Deduct from that 1/2 of the mortgage/rent, groceries, utilities, etc, to account for the 'expense' of Beltane being there (without looking at any additional monies that either spouse may have contributed). I'm guessing Beltane would likely have saved that spouse a lot of money in the long haul, by providing the services she did; now there's not a good-paying employer anywhere who gives a hoot about her 27 years experience of cooking, laundry, housekeeping, childcare, or general household management. How can anyone begrudge her an opportunity to build a better life? She's clearly contributed to her spouse's ability to advance his career, and in doing so, has done nothing to improve her opportunity for advancement. Why wouldn't the spouse now contribute to her ability to better her life and future? Isn't that just fair play?

[Jenny]

I agree beltane !!! well said!

Spousal isn't always awarded ... Workinthruit- you don't believe in spousal - are you saying you WOULD accept if your spouse was making 5 times as much as you - so you COULD pay for half your children's expenses? or would you just not eat so you could actually pay rent. Or do you expect your children to suffer in poverty?

How do you explain it then? I am very confused at how you come to this conclusion.


child support is for the children - but are you saying that a small one bedroom with utilities and groceries for one person is anywhere CLOSE to a 3 bedroom apt or house with the same utilities and groceries. UMMMM don't think so.

[workingthruit]

Originally Posted by beltane

So now, to balance this, the law allows for him to help ME while I begin a career, establish work experience or return to school, and not live in poverty while I do this.

In my opinion, spousal support is absolutely necessary and absolutely fair.

There are are some situations where time limited spousal support makes sense, I would say yours sounds like one of those Beltane, sorry to offend you. Also, kudos for seeing SS as a way to get your feet under you, not an automatic right.

When it doesn't make sense is in a situation where one partner is young, healthy, educated, and CHOOSES not to work. If you both agreed for one of you to stay home when you were together, you might have to change that decision once the circumstance changes. Spousal support shouldn't be a free meal ticket for the rest of your life. And with orders (in our area at least) trending towards indefinate periods, with no stipulations for attempting to become self-sufficent, that's what they are - a free ride.

And to answer your question Sasha1 - I did not ask for, nor did I expect a single penny in support for myself - and my x was making 3x what I was making when we split.
I obtained a student loan, and put myself through school - now we make almost the same amount - and I have the satisfaction of knowing that I did it myself, I am a great role model to my kids, which is more that someone who EXPECTS to be supported for life simply on the merit of bearing children can say. (I am not saying you - please understand, I am talking generalities)