Divorce Law are a Joke and Dads are the Punch Line

[4thechildren]

Hey Decent Dad,
I have to totally agree with you. In MOST cases there is not much mercy for men in your situation as the payor. It is time Canadians wake up and smell the coffee. You are absolutely right in regards to the unfair laws that exist in family law. They are nothing short of prejudice, and most Dads are treated as 2nd class citizens. People need to start seeing the severity of this.
There are many stories that people are unaware of in this country where men have been treated so unfairly, and end up so broke, that they commit suicide. How sad. If anybody doesn't believe this, try googling Suicide commited by fathers that have been pushed to despair and often robbed of their rights to parent their own children.

[Max22258]

Ok I have got off of child support kept all 3 vehicles and the house, But i do have to pay spousal support, which I ogffered last year $500 a month for 5 years, got $1350 for 2 years. wow there is one for the book

[midnightvampyr]

Men, or women for that matter, who have no access to the children, either by choice or "the decisions of others", should email their provincial politicians or federal politicians if it is a divorce/separation situation.

Only by collectively challenging the stupidity of the current family law "rules" can things be changed.

If you live in the GTA, kindly contact me as I am interested in organizing a political protest at Queen's Park...

I maintain that if there is NO ACCESS there should be NO EXTORTION under any circumstances.....

[got2bkid]

Good luck. This is one area that really irks me, if the CP feels like the other parent isn't good enough to be in their childs life, and doesn't "allow" access, why is the NCP's money good enough?!

No access, no money!

[tyra]

Originally Posted by Sk8r

My ex-spouse and I together decided to have 2 children and support and raise them.

Our marriage didn't work out.

He decided to marry a single mom of 2.

Why should my kids suffer because he now has 2 more children to support. Obviously they were being supported before by their mother. (and presumably a father somewhere)

I get what you are trying to say, but he married into 2 more responsibilities KNOWING his existing responsibility to his own children. Why should he get a break on CS?

My husband signed on to be with his ex-wife for life and had a child with her. Then she decided to sleep with another man and end their relationship so does that mean that he isn't entitled to go on with his life? Why should he not have the right to remarry and have another family. He supports his child and his exwife. Why should our children not have what his first child has? You situation is unfortunate and we have a system that doesn't place blame to the party responsible for the breakdown. Understood. But to expect another not to go on with their life and reach happiness..... not fair. If his ex-wife married a millionaire tomorrow....does the support payments stop? No, he is still responsible to look after those children....as he should. I just think it should be fair..if he now has three chilren why can't there by equalization? Fairness.

[Ihave2kidsIcannotsee]

Originally Posted by Hanging On

Ok, I'm only adding my two cents to something but there seems to be an idea out there by some dads (or moms) paying child support that the amount is purely for the kids stuff - food, clothes,ect...But, correct me if I'm wrong, isn't child support about making sure they can live by the same standards that they have been used to/or that the other parent can give them? For example, a similar size home? Therefore, child support would go to a portion of the rent/mortgage/heating/utilities, ect?? You are not supporting your wife/husband's "standard of living" but the KIDS standard of living. If Dad lives in a 200,000$ home while Mom has to live in an apartment, even if she is getting 1000$ a month but doesn't have a great job and can't afford anymore, there is a great discrepancy in the children's lifestyles while they are with each parent. When you get married and have children, you have a responsibility to maintain what they have become accustomed to, don't you?.

Umm you expect to maintain the same standard of living yet you are now living apart how is that even possible? Something has to give you cannot have 2 houses that are 200,000 just to maintain the same standard of living, it doesn't work. life is unfair and sometimes things are not perfect, we try our best and that is all that anyone can do, to expect the payor to keep your standard of living the same as it was before is absoultely crazy then you shouldn't get a divorce lol! Maybe the mother in the apartment should get a job or do daycare to suppliment her income. When you get a divorce you have to expect many changes to lifestyle that is just called common sense. I think child support payments are too high and don't take into account the non-payors income which is totally unfair. If the custodial parent re-marries and her new spouse makes 60,000 a year and she makes 30,000 a year and the payor only makes 30,000 a year yet he has to pay her because she doesn't have enough money to raise her family? come on this makes no sense, all the money that is given in support is just used for fun and all the while the Payor is struggling to make ends meet? Is this fair? I think that the laws have to change, someone needs to start looking at both sides instead of just the custodial parents Support payments. If we are to try to keep standard of living the same then why is the custodial parent allowed to have a huge house and all the toys while the payor is stuggling?????? there are two sides to the support issue and usually the payor is left with the bad deal! I agree every parent need to pay support for their children but when the custodial parent is making good money and so is her new partner then the support money should be put into a trust account for the child that would be fair according to me.

[momof3]

I have to agree that the laws are definately not set up in the best interest of the children. Are they skewed against men, well I don't know so much about that as they are biased against the higher wage earner.

I'm a mom who is getting asked for a ton of money so my ex can live the same lifestyle we did prior to our divorce. Ummmm, I don't live that same lifestyle because we don't have two incomes coming in anymore. Yes, i bought the house from him so the kids could maintain their home (and he wouldn't buy it from me and wouldn't agree to sell), and now I'm mortgaged to the hilt trying to do so. Shouldn't he have some responsibility to go out and make an effort to make more $. Currently he turns down about 30 hours of work a month so that his income is less than mine so he can go after me for child support.

Other cases I'm aware of that make it difficult for parents to try and be parents and not just banks designed to look after kids:

My stepfather is required to pay my mother $600 a month to look after my brother. He tried to negotiate with her a lower amount so he would have some funds to be able to take my brother once in a while and buy him some clothes or something She wouldn't budge. So, now he has to magically come up with some extra $ from who knows where to try and do anything for my brother, because conceiveably, the one parent deserves to have 100% of the $ the other parent "should" be contributing to his life. I know too many people in this situation and it really is ridiculous.

Take a logical look at the whole thing. OK, as a parent I may spend $1700 a month on my mortgage and $300 on a care, and furnish my home, which my children benefit from. Yes, they benefit from its use, but who at the end of the day owns everything. Let's be realistic, when one parent receives child support for their child they are likely receiving more than is needed to raise the child or maintain an equal home. They are receiving $ that can go towards their mortgage and a home they own at the end of the day. In the lower table amounts this is not likely very true, but certainly in the higher table amounts it appears to be.

Plus, if we were still parenting together and I was making enough that the table amounts indicated I should be spending $1000 a month to raise my child, would the law come after me and force me to spend more on that child if I wasn't? Easy answer, no. Parents choose to spend as much as they want on their children, and I'm no overly sure why after separation the law thinks they have a right to force them to provide their children with luxurious lives while they then have to barely scrape by.

It is a biased situation that really benefits only the parent who gets the $ and not the children as far as I'm concerned.

[Paytable2]

Originally Posted by god knows the truth

Decent Dad
Regarding your statement that if parent's incomes were combined, your children would receive OVER $2500.00; you obviously pay at least $1250.00month. Why couldn't I have have married and divorced YOU? That's a nice chunk o' change!!
I'm only joking; trying to put a smile on your face.After reading your posts, sounds like you need a chuckle.

While Lindsay may have stated her points eloquently I feel she views the system through rose colored glasses in that what she says is the way it is supposed to work but in reality, the true results are quite adrift from the intended path.

The fact is that the bulk of payors are fathers and there is still a very real bias in the court system nation wide toward mothers in regards to with whom the children 'belong'. As such the bias is in favor of the mother the majority of the time and the father is simply a wallet to be picked clean. The problem IMO with the system stems from 7 little words that give license to rape the 'payor', those words as we have all come to learn are "in the best interests of the children!"

Judges have been given free reign to play Robin Hood armed with those words. How could anyone argue with a ruling based on these words, it's akin to taking candy from a baby, and an argument against, no matter how just, only causes those holier than thou judges to stare down their noses in righteous indignation.

Common sense, heck even common decency have no place in family law as it stands now. The system IS broken, sick and twisted heavily in favor of those that can position themselves as the "payee". Fairness is but a pipe dream.

The quote above strikes home as I am in that bracket that she calls "a nice chunk o' change". My custody is joint, my parenting time is 45%, my X is re-married so family income is higher than mine BEFORE factoring in the $20 grand a year I give her and yet I pay full table amount.

To add insult to injury, paying $16,000 per year after tax $, she also gets to claim all the tax breaks, equivalent to spouse (well at least until next year since she re-married), Fed tax credit etc etc. Rounded up to pre tax $ I'm paying about $22,000/yr for 2 children plus her income plus she has all the tax breaks, she makes MORE than I do once that is figured in...!
NEVER in my wildest dreams could 2 younger children cost $22,000 out of pocket NEVER.
Bottom line is, as stated here before, it's PAYEE support, the children are NOT the focus of the support. I suggested to my X that I would pay 100% of all the children's expense, clothing, food school you name it, all of it, of course that was flat out refused as we all know that the TRUE cost would be a tiny fraction of the table amount.

What it comes down to in 99% of cases is that MONEY is what's in the best interest of the children...PERIOD. The system needs to be scrapped and a new model adopted that revolves around common sense and fairness rather than 'entitlement' and greed.
What lobby group do you think would scream the loudest if that were to be tabled? I'm no expert but I'd be willing to bet the only noise you hear would be the screams of radical women's groups!... wonder why

[CISTEAD]

I find it revolting that so many can justify basically living off the backs of others, because they make less money than their ex. Guess what? If you make less money, you get less stuff. End of story. If you want your kids to have all the "extras" and you can't provide it, give them to the parent who can.

[blinkandimgone]

Wow. So essentially, you're saying moms who postponed furthering their careers to stay home and care for the children while their husbands got experience and promotions should be forced to hand over their children to the husband since he makes more money BECAUSE she stayed home with the children so he could have a good career? (and vice versa) That's priceless.