Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Remarriage and child support

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

  • Remarriage and child support

    Situation: Kids are split evenly (50%). I make 65k, STBX makes 45k. She is remarrying a guy who makes 200k per year. My reading of this forum is that his income is completely irrelevant to the situation.

    My question is as follows: If the courts are looking out for the best interests of the children, how does it help them to have child support money going from my household (65k income per year) to a household with 245k income per year?

    Now, I'm not asking for support from them, I'm just trying to understand the reasoning as to how this child support that I will be expected to pay helps the children. STBX is not the "custodial" parent, we both are equal parents. We both will have the same expenses that will need to be covered.

    To address the first answer that I will get: Yes, the new husband is under no obligation to support my children. However, I thought that the courts were not terribly interested in what was fair vis a vis the parents, but rather what would produce the best outcome for the children. Is my understanding wrong in that regard?

    Obviously, if this marriage of hers broke down, I would be immediately expected (and would certainly) pay the full offset child support.

  • #2
    reverse it. Say you remarried to someone making the 200 k. Would you pay more money to your ex if she was still single and only had the 45k income??

    Comment


    • #3
      We are in the same situation over here Janus. I live with my girlfriend and her child (she gets a lousy $200 a month child support from her ex) The girlfriend works part-time because she chooses to raise her daughter, making under $20,000 a year.
      I made $41000 last year, but only seen $20,000 of it because the other half went to my ex for child support---as I have to pay her $1000 a month ($700 child support for 2 kids, babysitting expenses, extracurricular activities, etc.)
      It's the law---We have to pay it.
      My ex's income goes up to $80,000 a year with what she gets from me and the government added on to her employment.
      My income drops down to $20,000!

      Comment


      • #4
        Simply put - these are YOUR kids not his. Why should he have to pay for someone else's kids?

        Comment


        • #5
          What makes it even more "unfair" is if your STBX stops working (for whatever valid reason) and her income drops to $0, your CS drastically increases and she lives off her new hubby.

          I'm all for offset CS to help create equal homes for kid(s) but I am also in belief that a new partner that joins the picture takes on the lifestyle and responsibilities (aka a child of previous marriage) too.

          As Arabian said, they are not his kids but I know that if I lived with someone with kids from previous they become part of my life, part of our family. I would end up supporting them (roof, food, gifts, entertainment, etc).

          Comment


          • #6
            Simply put - these are YOUR kids not his. Why should he have to pay for someone else's kids?
            My question would be...what kind of man would want someone else to support his children? And how/why do you even know how much her new spouse makes?

            I pay offset support. If my ex gets a new person in his life..that has nothing to do with our obligation to the children we had together. I would never even know or care about her income.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Canadaguy View Post
              What makes it even more "unfair" is if your STBX stops working (for whatever valid reason) and her income drops to $0, your CS drastically increases and she lives off her new hubby.
              You have an income imputed to the ex and he/she pays based on the imputed income. If that means the spouse has to pay it on their behalf that's between the two of them and perhaps enough motivation for him/her to get off their butts and get a job.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by standing on the sidelines View Post
                reverse it. Say you remarried to someone making the 200 k. Would you pay more money to your ex if she was still single and only had the 45k income??
                Yes.

                Clearly, I would not use the full income of the new spouse in the calculations. After all, in this case her household income is substantially higher than mine, and I am not asking for child support (which would be the case if we included the new spouse's income).

                Also, many of the responses missed my point. I'm not asking about what is fair to me or to my wife or to the new spouse or to a new spouse that I may have, I am asking what kind of arrangement would be in the best interests of the children, and why would the courts not act in a manner that was in the best interests of the children.

                I will ask again, since I honestly want a good argument: How does it help the children for child support to be paid from the household with a lower income to the household with the higher income? Child support is the right of the child, is it not, so should the support not be in the child's best interests?

                (Also, I know salary from the sunshine lists )

                Comment


                • #9
                  Ahhh a communist.

                  As a former high income earner I can say that I pay more than enough in taxes and subsidies for all the have-nots out there. You wanna have a kid you pay. If I don't wanna have a kid then I don't pay. If I end up f***ing your old lady/man the kid is still yours.

                  If we accept your thesis then those people with money should definitely not associate with those without just like was common 80 yrs ago. You could be like the two lovers on the Titanic and sneak into the cargo hold to fornicate.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I think the OP is right, meaning that in his situation, the money used to raise the kids is not equaled between the two homes when he pays CS from his lower income home to his ex's higher income home.

                    Other posters have said that it is not the new spouses job to support the kids which is all well and good but ignores the reality that the new spouse mostly likely is - the amount of money used to raise the kids is higher in the other house which is exasperated by the OPs CS payment to that house.

                    The thinking that the new spouse is not required to support the kids and their income should not be considered when determining CS is not consistent with the other family law idea that a non biological parent can be ordered to pay CS if they assume a parenting role during a relationship - usually indicated by living with the children during that relationship.

                    All that being said, I am more comfortable that only the incomes of the parents be considered for CS for most cases (when incomes in both houses is high enough to raise the kids). However that conflicts with the idea of offset CS, the purpose of which is to balance the money for raising the kids in the two homes of single parents.

                    This comes back the OPs original question - why isn't this balancing done in all cases.

                    I think the answer is 'that's just the way it is'.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by billm View Post
                      This comes back the OPs original question - why isn't this balancing done in all cases.

                      I think the answer is 'that's just the way it is'.
                      Actually it is quite simple...

                      Just say we apply the theory that the new spouse should be responsible? The court orders that the new spouses income should be included and that person is put forward to the FRO for CS payments.

                      The new spouse now divorces the other parent... What to do? Do we still make this ex-spouse who, has no paternal rights to the child in question we now made pay child support continue to pay child support?

                      The best way to handle it...? Make the parents, the actual parents, be responsible for their children.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Tayken View Post
                        The new spouse now divorces the other parent... What to do? Do we still make this ex-spouse who, has no paternal rights to the child in question we now made pay child support continue to pay child support?
                        They already do this. One parent can collect c/s from multiple partners if it is found that they acted as a parent to the child(ren).

                        It is double (or sometimes triple or worse) dipping.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by HammerDad View Post
                          They already do this. One parent can collect c/s from multiple partners if it is found that they acted as a parent to the child(ren).

                          It is double (or sometimes triple or worse) dipping.
                          Only a handful of cases. No judge will order it today. Not much has come up in case law to support these requests that I have seen in a while.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by slughead10 View Post
                            then why do we have in in loco child support orders?
                            in loco parentis (proper terminology)

                            Which means stands in place of a parent. EOW parent paying child support would eliminate in loco parentis for the new spouse at a minimum threshold to have to "double pay" child support. (See below)

                            Chartier v. Chartier:

                            Supreme Court of Canada - Decisions - Chartier v. Chartier

                            Justice Bastarache, writing for a unanimous Court, held in favour of Sharon and stated that Gerald could not unilaterally severe ties to the child. To determine if a spouse is in the role of parent, the court must look at a number of factors including:

                            - whether the child participates in the extended family in the same way as would a biological child;
                            - whether the person provides financially for the child (depending on ability to pay);
                            - whether the person disciplines the child as a parent;
                            - whether the person represents to the child, the family, the world, either explicitly or implicitly, that he or she is responsible as a parent to the child;
                            - the nature or existence of the child’s relationship with the absent biological parent.

                            I highly recommend anyone having anxiety (fear/worry) about in loco parentis read the SCC decision carefully before saying it happens a lot. The threshold of evidence for establishing in loco parentis is INCREDIBLY high.

                            Parents are not getting married, divorcing after 2 years so they can get get in loco parentis child support. The threshold to establish is set forth by the SCC and not used very often.

                            Good Luck!
                            Tayken
                            Last edited by Tayken; 07-13-2012, 09:31 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Tayken View Post
                              Actually it is quite simple...

                              Just say we apply the theory that the new spouse should be responsible? The court orders that the new spouses income should be included and that person is put forward to the FRO for CS payments.

                              The new spouse now divorces the other parent... What to do? Do we still make this ex-spouse who, has no paternal rights to the child in question we now made pay child support continue to pay child support?

                              The best way to handle it...? Make the parents, the actual parents, be responsible for their children.
                              Tayken, you're at the top of my list for great responses but I find your reasoning here to be backwards.

                              Saying that the reason to not do something is because later there would be effort required to undo it should circumstances change is a weak argument.

                              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