Second families, here we go, again....

[Sara08]

I don't want to be way out of line, but I have a question (that I hope doesn't start a backlash, it is not my intention) Would it be considered a human rights violation/discrimination against my children as not having equal rights to financial support from their father (as he pays support as per guidelines for 1 child since that childs birth) only because we are an intact 'second' (which I hate to use) family? I don't want to any child be left behind no matter what birth order they came in. I have watched the family law system rip numerous intact 'second' families apart due to the lack of visability they recieve under the current system. And please, don't give me the argument that 'if he can't afford them, he shouldn't have had them', it just makes me upset that people think that one child should be put above another just because the law 'entititles' them more money. I am speaking of EQUALITY, not entitlement.

[dadtotheend]

Originally Posted by Sara08

Would it be considered a human rights violation/discrimination against my children as not having equal rights to financial support from their father

Not legally.

[standing on the sidelines]

there is one way to look at it, your child has both parents together, the child from his former relationship doesn't have both of his/her parents together at home. Where is the equality in that??

[Mess]

Undue hardship
10. (1) On the application of either spouse or an applicant under section 33 of the Act, a court may award an amount of child support that is different from the amount determined under any of sections 3 to 5, 8 or 9 if the court finds that the parent or spouse making the request, or a child in respect of whom the request is made, would otherwise suffer undue hardship. O. Reg. 391/97, s. 10 (1).
Circumstances that may cause undue hardship
(2) Circumstances that may cause a parent, spouse or child to suffer undue hardship include,
(a) the parent or spouse has responsibility for an unusually high level of debts reasonably incurred to support the parents or spouses and their children during cohabitation or to earn a living;
(b) the parent or spouse has unusually high expenses in relation to exercising access to a child;
(c) the parent or spouse has a legal duty under a judgment, order or written separation agreement to support any person;
(d) the spouse has a legal duty to support a child, other than a child of the marriage, who is,
(i) under the age of majority, or
(ii) the age of majority or over but is unable, by reason of illness, disability or other cause, to obtain the necessaries of life;
(e) the parent has a legal duty to support a child, other than the child who is the subject of this application, who is under the age of majority or who is enrolled in a full time course of education;
(f) the parent or spouse has a legal duty to support any person who is unable to obtain the necessaries of life due to an illness or disability. O. Reg. 391/97, s. 10 (2).

2(d) is pretty much what you are describing, he has a legal duty to support the child of your own marriage. One of the tests for undue hardship is that the NDI of your household is below the NDI of the ex's household.

That being said, I have read that undue harship is extremely hard to show in court and less than 1% of cases going to trial have a finding of undue hardship in the end.

So in principal you have a point, but the threshold is very difficult to meet. The fact that this clause exists would seem to prevent raising some kind of appeal based on human rights, etc. The Act acknowledges the rights of the second family. The problem is that the threshold for adjustment is out of reach of most second families.