Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2nd wives need to band together

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 2nd wives need to band together

    Are there any other 2nd wives out there who have seen the injustice of the Federal Child Support Guidelines at work? Have seen their husbands lose access to their kids, have seen them live in poverty, trying to keep up with CS payments and "extra-ordinary" expenses that are not based in reality?

    Have seen the ex wife move the kids accross the country, taking his kids away becasue she has some sob story about how she wants to move "home"? Have seen your husband pay thousands and thousands in flights just to visit his children, without any monetary input from the ex who moved away?

    How there is no accoutability for the CP to provide where or how she spends the money sent for the kids? How (as in our case) she can go to "school" for over 5 years, using all the CS sent for the kids, all the Canadian Child Tax benefits and all the other "low income" subsidies available to her, simply because she doesn't WANT to work?

    And how about the second children, that are not entitled to any support from their father, just whatever is "left-over" after the first kids get (in our case) 1/2 their fathers net salary? And what about when your husband does "better" financially, the first kids get to benefit from this, but when your husband isn't doing so well, she will impute him a higher income, so her kids don't have to share in the misfortunes, only the good times.

    What about the tax consequenses? The second family bears the brunt of the taxes, but when any gov't benefits or programs are calculated for the "second" children, they do not even take off the money paid to the first children when assessing any needs the second kids might have.

    How many second wives are tired of first wives saying "I need the money to keep us the home for the child?" Do they forget that the NCP must also have a home for their children? How many second wives are tired of their husbands paying the ex CS for the children for two months in the summer, when the children live with them? So now the ex gets a 2 month paid holiday without her kids? Oh right, they NEED the money those 2 months, to keep up the "family" home.

    Men (and NCP's in general) are getting bashed around by the system. If the so-called feminists could influence the system so much, maybe they only listen to womens voices? Maybe they will listen to women who want a fair system, where a man can support his CHILDREN fairly, but his ex wife can support HERSELF.

  • #2
    YES, I have.

    I am the "second wife". We have two beautiful children.
    Dad has jumped though flaming hoops for his first family.
    She went back to school too, then had two subsequent marriages, and is earning more than the both of us together (and we have relatively good incomes). Yet she has been permitted by the courts to make unrealistic requests that were granted on no evidence, and even if we had clear documentation to show her totally out to lunch, status quo prevailed.

    She moved literally thousands of miles away, denied access until it was emotionally and financially impossible to go on.
    It was literally a case of do we bankrupt and impoverish our family for a mere day of visitation each month?
    How do we tell the children they cannot get new shoes because Dad needs to put fuel in the car to go and see X? We thought long and hard, and attended councilling to help us with our decision that we could not sacrifice the second for the first. The first is not wanting for anything, in fact the one child has more then enough for half a dozen children since mom has enough to give the child all and more then the child could ever "need" or want. Some day (hopfull) will come back and ask WHY? As hard as it was to make the decision, and how much we hate to have made it, and we suffer each and every day for it, it was the "best intersts of "ALL" the children.

    Its heart breaking, but the courts turned a blind eye on these children. They are not less deserving, Dad is not reneging on his obligation to his first family, he just wanted a break, a break that would allow him the opportunity to love “ALL” of his children, and not just the first ones. The courts have not caught up to society and the fact that most relationships are the second time around, and for some, the third.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by got2bkid
      how about the second children, that are not entitled to any support from their father, just whatever is "left-over" after the first kids get
      Creating a child is not a right... it is an ominous 25-year (and beyond that) emotional and FINANCIAL responsibility and obligation. Unless your husband kept his first children a deep-dark secret from you until you were already pregnant, you knew what you were signing up for when you married him and created a baby with him. I don't mean to sound harsh... but your children have TWO parents too. If your husband can't afford all the children he has created, perhaps you should get a better job in order to support your own children better.

      I've said it before, but I believe it is true: if someone (ANYONE -- second marriage or even FIRST marriage or NO marriage) can't afford another baby, they shouldn't be making another baby. It sounds as though your husband couldn't afford to have another baby. I'm sorry for your tight financial situation.

      Comment


      • #4
        Typical reply from a woman CP. That her ex has no "right" to have more children, that we should have "known better" than to have a family of our own, because he has other children to support. I am sorry, but this argument is a lame cop-out.

        My argument is with the fact that people, in this day and age when many families are seconds or thirds, actually think it is OK to impoverish a CS payor to such an exent that he can't AFFORD to have another family!

        That attitude is EXACTLY what 2nd wives have to deal with. A system in which their concerns don't count. Where the ex thinks, becasue she's had kids with someone, she now OWNS his life forever and ever. What kind of country do we live in where the 2nd wife has to be 100% financially responsible for her kids, but the first wife is "guaranteed" support from both of them? Who thinks this is OK? Only very greedy people I am afraid.

        If you want to use the "shoulda know better" argument, well then mabye the CP's should have known that when they got divorced in the first place and wanted custody, that they would have to share EQUALLY in their kids upbringing.

        When they complain that they have a "deadbeat husband", do we say "you should have known better, too bad for you"? No, we try to help them.

        Do some CP's really think 2 incomes that used to support one household can now support 2 households at the same level? Who came up with that wisdom the CP's tend to beleive?

        I don't want to take away from the first kids. There just needs to be a system where BOTH parents are held accountable for financally raising their kids. I know in our case we pay 25,000/yr for 2 kids, and the ex uses that money to go to school. Why is she not held accountable?

        Why don't we just do what Australia is now doing? Change the "tables" so that when a second family is involved, you subtract an amount from the payors income to support the 2nd kids, then base the CS on his salary minus that amount. It is not rocket science, and the CS amounts are still very agreeable.

        Why not allow the NCP to get more tax breaks? This doesn't "take away" from the 1st kids. Why not base benefits for the 2nd kids on an income MINUS support sent for the first kids? Why are the second kids "subsidizing" benefits for the first kids?

        This knee-jerk reaction "don't have kids if you can't affford them" does nothing to solve REAL problems. It is an easy out. I am not saying "well, don't get divorced and take custody of your kids if you can't support them yourself". I believe that ALL kids should be supported by BOTH their parents, 1st and 2nd.

        Comment


        • #5
          FL Nedds to Change, I am sorry to hear of the problems you have had too, and what you had to do for the "best interests" of the children. I fear we will be going down that path soon. Paying close to $4000/year in flights, we've spent 20K in the last 5 years for my husband to see his kids, with not one dime from her. When the kids are here for 2 months, we are still paying her 1600 in support.

          It broke my husbands heart when she was allowed to move. But what kind of debt should you get into for the first kids? We are paying for orthodontics this year, so this year is bascially costing us 9000/year more than normal.

          The argument that "we should have known better" than to have a family with a man who has kids, is cold-hearted and wrong. How could we have predicted all the things that change over the years, ex's moving away, going back to school etc. You can never plan for all these things.

          So many families are out here have these issues. Did you know it was basically 2nd wives who changed the system in Australia for the better? I think because women are more verbal (and sometimes more full of drama) they get "listened" to more. We have a beautiful happy family, but my husband and I are getting worried that getting into debt for the 1st kids (we have $10,000 of airfare on credit cards) is not fair to the second.

          Maybe second wives can get someone to listen. I am sure there is a better way to make sure ALL kids are fairly treated. Do you think there is hope?

          Comment


          • #6
            I was a second wife but my ex was not a good father to his first family. When it was figured out what child support he would have to pay he was unemployed so it was not that much. When he got a fairly good paying job do you think the sent extra to his kids, no way. He was paying only 100.00 a month for two kids. When we got together he would figure out his budget for the week and for child support he put the the word "bitch money". He was buying tools, guns etc for his own use instead of sending money to his ex. When she finally found out he was working at a good job she took hiim to court and he was putting all of our expenses down as his own even though I paid half of rent etc. He ended up paying an extra 40.00 a month.

            After seeing how he treated his first family there was no way I was having kids with him. Last I heard he had three more kids with three different women after me and never got married again. He is one of these men that give the guys trying to be good fathers a bad name.

            Comment


            • #7
              Phoenix,

              "if your husband can't afford all the children he has created, perhaps you should get a better job in order to support your own children better"

              Do you really believe your own comments, perhaps you may wish to read again, that is a pretty sad comment.

              Comment


              • #8
                Phoenix,

                Your comments on people not having the right to have children are very confusing, perhaps you may be of the opinion that people should be of a certain income level in order to have a child.

                Contrary to you comments If I am not mistaken everyone has the right to have children no matter where they sit on the socio economic ladder. It is our right.

                Generally speaking there are rsponsibilities that go along with having children, most of us take on these rsponsibilities with pleasure.

                It it a proven fact that most parents try and do support thier children to the best of thier abilties.

                I have read your prior posts and find these comments suprising, uneducated and insulting to myself and the vast majority of persons who try to support thier children.

                Contrary to what it appears you would hope for there is no legislation demanding a certain incomee level for a man to have a child, but the womens movement is extremely strong and politicly connected so lobby hard you may get you wish. Of course this would not apply to women right?

                In short your comments were harsh and out of line, very sad indeed.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by today
                  Phoenix,

                  Your comments on people not having the right to have children are very confusing, perhaps you may be of the opinion that people should be of a certain income level in order to have a child.

                  Contrary to you comments If I am not mistaken everyone has the right to have children no matter where they sit on the socio economic ladder. It is our right.
                  Most everyone has the ABILITY to procreate, but I will admit, yes, I am of the opinion that not everyone SHOULD be procreating. Yes we do all have the freedom to make babies. However I do respectfully disagree with you about whether or not it is a right... I work too hard 6 days a week, paying taxes through my nose to say that making babies is a 'right'.

                  As I said before, and I still stand by it: Creating a child is not a right... it is an ominous 25-year (and beyond that) emotional and FINANCIAL responsibility and obligation. Your husband agreed to that obligation and responsiblity before you and your children were part of his life.

                  As a matter of fact, I AM of the opinion (and it is my OPINION, nothing more) that in an ideal world people should be of a certain income to have a child. Hopefully basically smart people would figure that out themselves. I realize that we can't go around sterilizing the general population, we would end up with a "Handmaid's Tale" kind of world, which is not good. I would hope, however, that people with good solid common sense would consider their financial situation before they add another mouth to feed to their grocery list. That is pretty much what I said in my previous post: don't be procreating if you don't have the income. If you DO procreate (I mean "you" in a generic term, not you literally -- I am educated, contrary to your accusations) and your one income can't provide for the child you made, GET ANOTHER JOB. I did.

                  I'm not asking anything of anyone else that I haven't done myself. I have been the stay-at-home cookie-baking first-mom (I actually have twins myself.) I have scrambled to make ends meet all on my own while uneducated, I have educated myself (thank you, YES I am quite well educated now, thanks to my ingenuity and tenacious nature) and I am still raising my children almost completely on my own -- my children's "first-father" sends money when he can/does. Not ideal, and not necessarily the norm, but for me it is my situation.

                  I'm not saying my situation is yours... obviously it is not.

                  Believe it or not I am also in your shoes now... I am in a second relationship with a wonderful man who has children of his own from a previous marriage. We cannot afford children together. Sadly we will not be having children together. I would dearly love to have his child. I believe, and it is my 'belief', it is not our right to have more children when we can only afford the children we have right now. That is the way it is.

                  I am not demanding more from you than I expect from myself.

                  You chose to have children with a man who is financially strapped because of previous commitements he made in another lifetime before you came into his life. Making a baby/ies with him is a choice you made freely and willingly... so what I am saying is: either deal with it, or else one of you, or both of you, needs to get another job. Face it... he has a lot of children. The law is set up to make sure he doesn't bag out on his first commitment. Utter chaos would break out if men could impregnate women here and there and simply walk away from previously made families and commitments. (I'm not saying your husband did that... I'm just making a random statement.)


                  Originally posted by today
                  I have read your prior posts and find these comments suprising, uneducated and insulting

                  Please... I'm just giving my opinion as you have given yours... I am not putting you down, I'm just expressing my side of things. I don't appreciate you calling me "uneducated" -- I have worked too hard as a single mom to better myself to stand back and let you do that. I have always qualified my remarks to be my 'beliefs' or feelings. It doesn't make them right, it simply makes them what I have experienced. Same as yours.

                  How else can we learn if we don't share with each other and find a common ground?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Well we will have to agree to disagree, but I do now understand what you trying to get across in a sense. Although your words came across rather harsh to me.

                    There are many people like your self who are very responsible towards your children, most do the the best they can, regardless of income level and most children turn out just fine regradless of thier parnts financial background, I think we may both agree that money is not the key factor (it sure helps though). It is the time and emotional investment we make towards our children that counts more than anything, this is why I feel money should not be a deciding factor in having children.

                    Just as a side note I am not in a second relationship, I am a single father of 2who enjoys a week to week regime with my children. Of course I do have strong opinions about what I feel is the injustice to second family children as viewed by the family law system.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      http://www.canlii.org/en/sk/skqb/doc...01skqb120.html

                      From the above case;

                      Second families and the associated legal duty to support a child of that family, are not uncommon. The assumption of such new obligations may by necessity create a certain degree of economic hardship. That hardship is not however necessarily "undue". Similarly, the mere fact that an applicant's household standard of living is lower than that of the other spouse, due in part to the applicant's legal duty to another child, does not automatically create circumstances of undue hardship.

                      The CP in this case had a notable higher standard of living, yet the judge would not remove the CS obligation but did agree to reduce obligation to ½ the table amount to enable the second family to make other arrangements to meet financial obligations.
                      And ordered CP to pay a substantial portion of the costs associated to facilitate access.

                      http://www.canlii.org/en/sk/skqb/doc...01skqb158.html

                      in this case, the CP also has the higher standard of living, and wanted to include the GST and CTC the NCP received in reaising his second family.
                      The judge did NOT use any tax credits in calculating household income, and the request for CS was dismissed in favour of the NCP raising 8 children in a second family Versus CP raising 2.

                      http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc...anlii6246.html

                      In this case although undue hardship was determined and the CP did have a higher standard of living, no change in CS was allowed even though the high debt was directly related to the costs of raising/caring for the second family.

                      There are a lot of cases on this topic, and although the outcomes do not always serve the second family I think the judges in these particular cases did recognise that the second family deserved consideration. The undue hardship claim is probably one of the hardest to win since there are so many factors that could play against a parson in hardship. It is very important to clearly define “all” financial areas, and clearly outline how they directly affect the second family. IN some of the cases I have read where hardship was determined but no deviation from the table amount of CS was awarded I feel that there could have been greater emphasis on the ramifications of the CS amount on the second family rather then leaving these to “assumptions” and “common sense”.

                      This has proven to be a very sensitive topic, each having their merits, but at the end of the day we live in a “free” society, and the choices we make bare their unique responsibilities. No person should be forced to live alone or unhappy. No one person has the right to impose their beliefs on another (not that anyone here is doing that). Everyone deserves a second chance at happiness, and because we do not have a crystal ball to show us how our choices will play out we are bound by those choices, but that does not mean if they fail a second time they should be shunned or punished for it, we’re all human!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        phoenix - to your comment

                        "Creating a child is not a right... it is an ominous 25-year (and beyond that) emotional and FINANCIAL responsibility and obligation."

                        Exactly. My husband FULLY supports his kids. Is 25K/year (after tax) not enough to raise 2 kids in elementary and junior high? It is the EX that shouldn't have had the right to have kids. She "goes to school" for years on end, being selfish and CHOOSING to make her kids poor. She already has 2 diplomas, but quit a good job as she wanted a "degree". How selfish.

                        Then she moves her children away from their birth province and FATHER, taking AWAY his right to be there for them daily, which he WANTS to do.

                        In her selfishness, she DIRECTLY impacts our second family by not contributing AT ALL to the high extra expenses, braces and flights.

                        My comments are about how the SYSTEM often allows a female custodial parent to get away with this, and even supports them to do it! The amount of tax breaks and benefits she gets is staggering.

                        Meanwhile, my hubbys income is reduced by 50%, that is ALOT for 2 children. He could be able to HELP SUPPORT ALL his children if she didn't take such a huge percentage and not work. Again, the system supports this.

                        You seem to insinutate that we are poor and/or uneducated for making the choice to have a family. Actually I was far more responsible than 90% of the people out there. Before I even had kids I saved substantial amounts of money. However, my point is the CS and EXTRAS are too expensive for the husband, and impoverish many second families. Why should I have to support my kids 100% while the first wife is guaranteed that her ex support her kids 100 and she can contribute 0%? It is wrong, unfair and in MANY situations impoverishes the second family.

                        My husband pays 1/2 his net income for 2 kids. How crazy is that? I AM NOT LEGALLY FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR HER KIDS TOO, BUT AFTER PAYING OUR BILLS, I HAVE TO CONTRIBUTE TO HER FROM MY SAVINGS.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Oh, I also agree EVERYONE has the right to have children. (My comment about the ex not having a right to have children was just based on her irresponsible behavior.) But we cannot limit who and who cannot have children. That is totally absurd and speaks volumes about anyone who actually thinks a society like that would even be a good place for a child to be raised in.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            to phoenix,

                            You say you are married to a man who has other children to support, and you yourself already have children of your own (aren't twins wonderful!!!).

                            Anyway, my twins are my FIRST children. Was I to give up the chance of having kids with my husband becasue he pays 100% for his first kids and the wife contributes nothing? Was he to live a life alone, with his children accross the country, because his income is depleted by CS and extras? How fair and sensitive is that? Should the system really be giving that much power to the Ex wife?

                            Wether or not I had money is irrelevant. I have a right to have kids and have a right to have the father contribute financially to their upbringing just as much as the first wife does.

                            Thinking it's OK to let the system impoverish a payor to such and extent that he can never enjoy children in his life daily again is PUNISHMENT. Why, when 2 people get divorced, society thinks its OK to punish one for 18 years (or more) is beyond me.

                            I realize not everyone has the costs we do, but it seems the system is whacked when GOOD men who DO and WANT to support their 1st (and 2nd) kids can LEGALLY get taken to the cleaners, and their ex wives, LEGALLY, can contribute NOTHING.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Choices

                              Ooh... I like debates like this!

                              To digress from the "second family" vs. "first family" argument.... I think the crux of the argument is due to who has choices. From personal experience (and I know a lot of people will disagree), the CP (a woman) has the choice to either stay at home, or work, or do part of both, or go to school, or to travel, etc. etc. Whereas, because there are children, the NCP (a man) has no choice but to work. If he wants to change careers, he can't. If he wants to take a sabbatical, he can't. Now, I know there are those who will say, "but he has to support his family." Last time I checked, it takes two parents to have a child. Why isn't the CP told "sorry, you can't go to school for 10 years; at some point you have to contribute financially to your child's well-being"?

                              Women fought for years to be treated equally in the workforce. There's still a ways to go, but there are inroads being made - except in Family Law. In Family Law, the woman is still treated as though she cannot be expected to contribute financially to supporting her children. Many women do not fit in this mold and do contribute financially; however, it is very easy for a woman who "doesn't feel like" working to continue to receive support - even after the children have grown up, become educated and self-sufficient themselves and have moved on.

                              Interesting link: www.ifeminists.net

                              "Ifeminism" = Individualist feminism, or ifeminism, advocates the equal treatment of men and women as individuals under just law. The core principle of individualist feminism is that all human beings have a moral and legal claim to their own persons and property. It is sometimes called libertarian feminism.

                              Sounds good to me!

                              Comment

                              Our Divorce Forums
                              Forums dedicated to helping people all across Canada get through the separation and divorce process, with discussions about legal issues, parenting issues, financial issues and more.
                              Working...
                              X