Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > Political Issues

Political Issues This forum is for discussing the political aspects of divorce: reform to divorce laws, men's rights, women's rights, injustices in the divorce system, etc.

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 01-05-2009, 05:33 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 324
got2bkid is on a distinguished road
Default

As I said before:

"I really can't stand it when people say my children ought not have been born if we couldn't "afford" it. My husband could easily afford ALL his children if he paid a REASONABLE amount and if OUR FAMILY wan't held finacially accountable for HER POOR choices."

If BOTH parents were held financially accountable for their children after a divorce my husband would have NO PROBLEM providing adequately and equally for ALL his children.

In our case, the exes poor choices were made AFTER we had children, which DOUBLED the amount of CS we pay. "Second" families do not have crystal balls in which they can look into the future and see what POOR choices the ex wives may make down the road for which OUR family will suddenly become financially responsible.
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 01-06-2009, 06:18 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

Without causing further argument, the basic purpose of this is to demonstrate that the math behind the calculations for the "first" family are fundamentally flawed on many levels. Which in turn causes financial hardship regardless if the non-custodial parent remains single or moves on to another relationship, with or without children. Although it has solved some issues around support for the first family it does not allow for the individual to move on and have any level of a decent life. Moving on in life has huge financial ramifications for support paying parents. Which sends the wrong message. It basically tells individuals that once you have been divorced your future is already carved out for you by the Family Law system. You no longer have the luxury of making your own choices unless those choices accommodate your former family “first”.
You will remain in a life of solitude, hold a minimal place of residence, adequate enough for access yet small enough to facilitate maximum transfer of “disposable” income to your former family. You will maintain minimal expenses as a result for the same reasons, and you will not enter into a relationship with another partner with children, or intend to have future children. You will not be afforded the luxury of retuning to school to upgrade to gain a potentially higher paying job unless you can do so and still maintain support at the pre-study employment rate. As a catch 22, if you can afford to maintain the employment support level and still cover the costs to return to school, apparently your support is too low, and will be re-evaluated. You will continue to pay for all children once they have reached college age and will be stripped of the choice to have them help support themselves as you would have, had you remained in the relationship.

Bottom line is the math is flawed, it needs to be reviewed to make it fair and hold both parents accountable for the wellbeing of the children that they “BOTH” brought into this world. Both parents/families should be allowed the basics of life and the freedom of choices without having to forfeit their desires and beliefs in the process. We live in a country of freedom of choice, but that seems to end if you are divorced and are the paying parent.

So if you agree that the calculations are flawed you support this cause, if not, and feel everything if ok, or needs to be increased, then you do not want to support this cause.
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 01-06-2009, 08:35 AM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 23
Sara08 is on a distinguished road
Default

Thank you FL, you said it perfectly, and a lot less confrontational than I was thinking in my head......(sometimes this arguement drives me crazy)
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 01-06-2009, 09:31 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 311
About_Time is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by got2bkid View Post
I really can't stand it when people say my children ought not have been born if we couldn't "afford" it. My husband could easily afford ALL his children if he paid a REASONABLE amount and if OUR FAMILY wan't held finacially accountable for HER POOR choices.
Well ideally sure - I 100% agree with you - but the reality is that this isn't the current system. I'm all for change and support you on that point, I'm just saying that given the current state of family law it would be lunacy for me to have more kids. It shouldn't be that I have to make decisions like that, but it is what it is right now.
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 01-06-2009, 11:24 AM
billm's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,430
billm is on a distinguished road
Default

My two cents,

If someone wants to have more kids, their financial ability to support all their kids should be distributed evenly. The more kids you have, the less money per child, simple. That is the way nuclear families operate, no one tells them they can't have more kids unless they can maintain the standard of living for the ones they currently have.

Financial obligation to kids that are not bilogically yours - that's trickier, but I suppose it essentially the same. No one questions the fact that when married couples adopt, the standard of living of the exiting kids mathematically goes down. The decision and rules for when you are taking on a permanent financial responsibility for kids that are your new partners, need to be fair and known by all though.
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 01-06-2009, 01:47 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 311
About_Time is on a distinguished road
Default

I'm not suggesting that people be banned from having more kids, I'm just saying that - for me personally - I won't be having anymore. Under the current system, I can barely afford the two I have. It would be irresponsible all around to add to that by having more kids.
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 01-06-2009, 03:22 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 885
#1StepMom is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by billm View Post
If someone wants to have more kids, their financial ability to support all their kids should be distributed evenly. The more kids you have, the less money per child, simple. That is the way nuclear families operate, no one tells them they can't have more kids unless they can maintain the standard of living for the ones they currently have.
I agree!

I think we are all is such different situations, and the courts only see one situation, with the three assumptions that Got2bkid listed:

1) the man has no other children in his care to support
2) he is a bachelor and has minimal expenses
3) he spends no other money on his kids (ZERO) after child support.

But that is so far from the truth in most families.

For example, take myself and my husband. He was never married, nor in any long term relationship with anyone before I came along. He made one "mistake" his first year in university, and that was that he was stupid and had a drunken one night stand with who is now his son's mother. Although he wasn't careless, and used a condom, nothing prevented it from breaking and from him finding out 8 months later that there was a possibility of him being a father. His whole life changed in a split second. To this day, he has regrets and resents his son's mother for the outcome of their carelessness. But, he stepped up to the plate and is a wonderful father to this child.

So here we are now, the both of us, in love and wanting nothing more than to have a family of our own. Neither one of us had a "first family" that we're responsible for. We've been together since before his son was born and have managed to get through the parternity tests, mediation sessions, court dates, etc. together. We want to be able to have a life together, like any young newly married couple. But, the lack of money is stopping us. And it's the only thing stopping us. And as a result, we are both starting to resent everything and everyone involved with child support.

Not only do we pay the table amounts monthly, we also provide my stepson with a fully furnished bedroom, full wardrobe including clothing for all seasons (winter coats, boots, rainjackets, etc), toys and educational supplies, sporting equipment (skiing, skating, biking, etc) and everything that a normal child would have in their home. We are paying DOUBLE. We are paying for the bio-mom to provide the child with these necessities (not that she does) as well as providing them for our home.

Money is our biggest argument. It is our only argument. And quite frankly, IF the courts were aware of everything we pay for in order for this child to have a normal life, I doubt we'd be having to pay the amounts in child support we now pay. It really feels like a punishment.

Just my personal vent! ;-)
  #28 (permalink)  
Old 01-06-2009, 04:55 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 324
got2bkid is on a distinguished road
Default Just more thoughts........

I agree 100% with how FL Needs to Change wrote it. The calculations were originally designed for only for welfare families and they create huge inequities for middle income families. The government has never seriously reviewed this, or how changes in the guidelines (such as more extras, university tuition and taxation changes) have made the guidelines even more onerous for the payor.

As for a the argument that a man should not be able to have a normal life after divorce, but must stay alone, anticipating what moves his ex-wife may make and what increases he may be responsible for in the future, that is absurd.

Most divorced people, both the men and the women, usually end up in other relationships. It is human nature to want to be part of an intact family (for the most part). Usually it's the mother who has primary custody of the children after divorce, so if the father is to be part of an intact family again, he more often has additional children with his new partner. There is nothing wrong with this.

I cannot imagine my husband living alone so that he can pay his ex-wife what-ever she demands, and getting to see his kids 2X/year because they live accross the country. Most men are made to be "dads" and are happiest when with their children. At least the ones I know.

And the guidelines should be changed so it is the divorcing adults who acknowledge that, once divorced, the other is free to get on with his/her life and changes are inevitable over time. As an adult, you should understand that the other is free to have more children, and the guidelines should clearly state up-front how the "pie" of money will be shared equally between all children (first and second etc.) in the event that happens, just like in an intact family. (If both parents were made to pay "support" then both parents would get a break on child support when they had additional children.)

And as #1StepMom said, many paying parents are paying TWICE for the "first" kids already. So even if the guidelines were only changed to acknowledge the paying parents expenses, on top of child support, many payors could live normal lives and be able to afford to have more kids! It breaks my heart to think of #1Step Mom's situation, where expenses for one child are preventing them from having a family. This is a serious problem with the guidelines, that they are based on "welfare" cases where the dad took off and never saw the kids again, so never spent a dime on them on top of CS.

#1StepMom you can vent all you want. We hear you!!
  #29 (permalink)  
Old 01-06-2009, 06:11 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 108
phoenix is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by #1StepMom View Post
Neither one of us had a "first family" that we're responsible for.
Yes... your husband DID. He had sex with another woman and created a child with her. That is his first family. It is a hard price for one foolish evening, but it is what it is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by got2bkid View Post
As for a the argument that a man should not be able to have a normal life after divorce, but must stay alone, anticipating what moves his ex-wife may make and what increases he may be responsible for in the future, that is absurd.

Most divorced people, both the men and the women, usually end up in other relationships. It is human nature to want to be part of an intact family (for the most part). Usually it's the mother who has primary custody of the children after divorce, so if the father is to be part of an intact family again, he more often has additional children with his new partner. There is nothing wrong with this.
Yes there is something wrong if he can't afford the extra babies he made. Nobody is saying anyone should be alone (I am in a new relationship and we are NOT having any more children) but as a previous person said, if he can't afford MORE children he shouldn't be making more. Where would it end?

As for being "part of a normal family"... families come in all shapes and sizes and children are not what defines what a 'family' is. A "family" can also be a loving relationship between a man and a woman. Nobody is stopping him from doing that.

How many babies are we, as human beings, ENTITLED to create?

I have been going over and over in my head but cannot come up with an answer. I do appreciate that this is a hardship for second marriages, but I am stumped as to what a reasonable solution would be.

As a mother of the children from the "first family", I would have NO PATIENCE if my ex went out and made yet another child that he cannot provide for. Thank goodness he hasn't -- yet.
  #30 (permalink)  
Old 01-06-2009, 10:51 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 170
Suchislife is on a distinguished road
Default

I think we need to look past the fact that a support payor had another child.
Were they right? Are they entitled? Are they stupid?
The fact is that they did. The children exist. They share a parent. They are entitled to live the same standard.

In family law both parents are to maintain the same standard of living after divorce.
A sad fact is that although a payors responsibility to his first family should be 35-45% of his disposable income in many cases it is 50%+.
The recipients financial responsibility is sometimes far less.

I'm sorry for women who have been the recipients of CS (and found themselves NOT receiving) and raising children on their own. Been there, done that.

I also feel for women who find themselves seeing their new child living an entirely different lifestyle then their half-siblings. Been here. Doing it.
Am I right or wrong or just plain stupid?

When setting up a home for visiting children, why is it that a support payor must start from scratch w/o as much as a single toy or piece of clothing divided between the homes?

I also feel that SS needs to be addressed as well. There is no incentive for a woman to provide for HERSELF and equally for the children if there is no cap or end in sight.
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
Post Secondary Education Ginger_Mallow Divorce & Family Law 39 12-11-2012 08:18 PM
Interesting Article on Joint Custody Grace Political Issues 23 03-20-2012 10:35 AM
press release: Ontario's Family Responsibility office Peggy Parenting Issues 8 10-22-2010 10:20 AM
What Were They Thinking........ FL_Needs_To_Change Divorce & Family Law 6 05-25-2007 09:47 PM
Good Parents Pay Denisem Political Issues 34 03-08-2007 09:16 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:58 AM.