When support exceeds 50 percent of gross income

[Links17]

Legislation is child centric not fault of new children that their father is a spreader of sperm.

However intact familes are out of the jurisdiction (generally) of family court so courts don't care but the spreader will be best off divorcing again and so there will be CS orders for each kid. It , stupid but true.

[HammerDad]

The families aren't intact though.

With your proposal CS is reduced per child based on how much unprotected sex the payor has.

I'm not sure why existing children should suffer financially because dad can't wrap it up and be a responsible adult? But with your proposal above CS is a constantly decreasing amount because dad has no morals or responsibility. Talk about punishing a child over and over and over agan.

Should an individual have children with multiple partners and be required to support them, the hardship is shared by all the children simply due to social implications. You can't have one child of the same parent living comfortably while the other child struggles with poverty. It is to balance out the lifestyles of all of the children and maintain a level of consistency.

I don't believe that someone should have more kids if they can't afford them as it just brings everyone involved, and even those who aren't involved (ie. the taxpayer) down. But in the interests of fairness, it is a much better approach to give each kid an equal piece of the pie than allowing one sibling to live a better life than the other (assuming all other aspects are equal).

[MS Mom]

Should an individual have children with multiple partners and be required to support them, the hardship is shared by all the children simply due to social implications. You can't have one child of the same parent living comfortably while the other child struggles with poverty. It is to balance out the lifestyles of all of the children and maintain a level of consistency.

I don't believe that someone should have more kids if they can't afford them as it just brings everyone involved, and even those who aren't involved (ie. the taxpayer) down. But in the interests of fairness, it is a much better approach to give each kid an equal piece of the pie than allowing one sibling to live a better life than the other (assuming all other aspects are equal).

When the payor makes a claim for undue hardship with only one of those children though, he is deciding to make the financial circumstances of his own children different.

Either he has undue hardship due to his support obligations or he doesn't, but he can't place all the burden on one family, by decreasing only one child's support and not the other.

[MS Mom]

Legally speaking a child that is from divorced parents > new child from still composed family.

Neither child are with their father. He chose to leave his last child to pursue another woman - who came to Canada from the US without any ability to support herself or a work permit.

So, my ex made the logical decision of supporting two children and a wife that doesn't/can't work.

If he has undue hardship now it's due to the fact that he supported an adult for over two years, paid for immigration lawyers and immigration applications, etc. Had a wedding he couldn't afford.

Now that her PR has been denied, his hardship is over as he moved to her hometown and remains gainfully employed and she should have no trouble earning the $85K she claimed in her immigration paperwork she did before she left the US.

[Toutou]

Father doesn't really have a choice but to do it one child at a time. I don't beleive that he can apply for hardship at same time for both children as that would involve bringing you and his other ex to court at the same time.

But when you say that it is not fair for first children to get less CS because their father is has children with other parents, would you think that the following would be fair:

Let's say that you have a child with your ex, your ex earns 100,000$ and pays support based on that income Let's say $1,000. Let's say, you earn $60,000 your notional child support is about $600. So every month you are supposed to spend $1600 on your first child.
then you have another child with your current spouse, who earns $45000, now, you cannot really afford to spend another $600 from your salary and your current spouse, based on his salary can only spend 450$ on his child.

what would you do? Treat your kids differently? Will make sure that you spend the money you gaet from your ex and the amount of notional CS for your first child and get that chiold everything, and then whatever you can spare for your second. I don't think so. But we do expect payors to treat their children differently.

[MS Mom]

Father doesn't really have a choice but to do it one child at a time. I don't beleive that he can apply for hardship at same time for both children as that would involve bringing you and his other ex to court at the same time.

But when you say that it is not fair for first children to get less CS because their father is has children with other parents, would you think that the following would be fair:

Let's say that you have a child with your ex, your ex earns 100,000$ and pays support based on that income Let's say $1,000. Let's say, you earn $60,000 your notional child support is about $600. So every month you are supposed to spend $1600 on your first child.
then you have another child with your current spouse, who earns $45000, now, you cannot really afford to spend another $600 from your salary and your current spouse, based on his salary can only spend 450$ on his child.

what would you do? Treat your kids differently? Will make sure that you spend the money you gaet from your ex and the amount of notional CS for your first child and get that chiold everything, and then whatever you can spare for your second. I don't think so. But we do expect payors to treat their children differently.

I don't have another child because I decided I couldn't afford one.

That's what I do.

[HammerDad]

When the payor makes a claim for undue hardship with only one of those children though, he is deciding to make the financial circumstances of his own children different.

Either he has undue hardship due to his support obligations or he doesn't, but he can't place all the burden on one family, by decreasing only one child's support and not the other.

Which is why I believe any application for undue hardship should be applied/joined across all families involved.

No one family should be adversely burdened. Everyone should share in the pain, thus minimizing the pain to any one particular family.

[MS Mom]

Father doesn't really have a choice but to do it one child at a time. I don't beleive that he can apply for hardship at same time for both children as that would involve bringing you and his other ex to court at the same time.

But when you say that it is not fair for first children to get less CS because their father is has children with other parents, would you think that the following would be fair:

Let's say that you have a child with your ex, your ex earns 100,000$ and pays support based on that income Let's say $1,000. Let's say, you earn $60,000 your notional child support is about $600. So every month you are supposed to spend $1600 on your first child.
then you have another child with your current spouse, who earns $45000, now, you cannot really afford to spend another $600 from your salary and your current spouse, based on his salary can only spend 450$ on his child.

what would you do? Treat your kids differently? Will make sure that you spend the money you gaet from your ex and the amount of notional CS for your first child and get that chiold everything, and then whatever you can spare for your second. I don't think so. But we do expect payors to treat their children differently.

Yes, he can do it one child at a time. But, his claim for hardship is in response to my Motion, it isn't a motion he filed. So, if the undue hardship is granted by the judge, then he is, in fact, maintaining both his children with different CS amounts.

So he can argue that his CS needs to be reduced due to hardship, and bring his motions accordingly.

However, to only "realize" the hardship now, after 4 years of increasing salary on his part isn't logical. Especially since he now has a working wife and lives somewhere with lower expenses (he bought a 4 bedroom house with a pool for $150000 - where in Canada can you do that?) and a lower marginal tax rate.....

[Toutou]

So MS mom, we are talking about your ex again.

I just gave a general example to demonstarate how unfair it is that payors have to treat their kids differently, payors in general, not your ex, while support receipients or parents in intact families don't have to.

Because, lets be honest, in any family, when the second child comes, there is less money available for the first child. It does not mean that parents cannot afford two, three, four children, it just means they will spend less on them. Like no expensive trips, or expensive toys, or clothes, maybe only one sport instead of 5 different activities.

In my opinion, the solution is simple, and I believe that in Australia it is already done this way, you take parents income, how much based on income the parent can spend on kids and divide that amongst the kids who might or might not live with the parent. Every child is treated the same.

[billm]

I believe the premise of current child support legislation (I'm certainly not experienced in this area) is that you are expected to provide for your children after the failure of the marriage. Your decision to have more children should not negatively affect your first children. In other words, spreading one's sperm does not equate with 'sharing the wealth.'

Stupid comment.

I spread the sperm with my first wife and had 3 children and I 'share my wealth' with them equally.

My first child was financially negatively affected by my decision to have more kids.

CS for 3 kids is NOT 3x CS for one kid, nor should it be.

And in this case CS for 2 kids should not be 2x CS for one kid.

[arabian]

Polygamists believe in sharing income with all their wives.

Isn't the basic idea behind CS so that the child doesn't suffer by parent's divorce and CS is to keep the child in a similar standard of living as if parents were not divorced?

[MS Mom]

So MS mom, we are talking about your ex again.

I just gave a general example to demonstarate how unfair it is that payors have to treat their kids differently, payors in general, not your ex, while support receipients or parents in intact families don't have to.

Because, lets be honest, in any family, when the second child comes, there is less money available for the first child. It does not mean that parents cannot afford two, three, four children, it just means they will spend less on them. Like no expensive trips, or expensive toys, or clothes, maybe only one sport instead of 5 different activities.

In my opinion, the solution is simple, and I believe that in Australia it is already done this way, you take parents income, how much based on income the parent can spend on kids and divide that amongst the kids who might or might not live with the parent. Every child is treated the same.

You asked me what I would do. And, I wouldn't have another child I can't afford. Quite a simple decision really, despite having a new partner.

You can't pull money out of your ass just because your "new partner" wants to have children, and your existing children shouldn't financially suffer because a parent has a "new family". If my current husband wanted more kids, he wouldn't be my current husband, he'd be a date I had a few years ago.

[MS Mom]

Stupid comment.

I spread the sperm with my first wife and had 3 children and I 'share my wealth' with them equally.

My first child was financially negatively affected by my decision to have more kids.

CS for 3 kids is NOT 3x CS for one kid, nor should it be.

And in this case CS for 2 kids should not be 2x CS for one kid.

All 3 children have the same mother. All three children reside together.

The problems come into play when your three children have three different mothers. Then it is CS for 1 child x 3 (unless of course all three of your exes share the same home, which I highly doubt).

All three of your kids won't be treated equally anyway since they all have different mothers with, presumably different incomes. But, at least YOU are treating them all the same.

[MS Mom]

Polygamists believe in sharing income with all their wives.

Isn't the basic idea behind CS so that the child doesn't suffer by parent's divorce and CS is to keep the child in a similar standard of living as if parents were not divorced?

If a person has children with multiple partners, then it is the parents of the child in question that determines the standard of living.

The proposal of taking CS for three kids, despite the number of households they may reside in and splitting it equally between these kids feels very much like polygamy.

What my ex chooses to do (ie, have more kids, buy boats, etc) after we separate should have no bearing on my child.

If I even considered giving input into the choices he made after we split the overwhelming consensus would be that it is "none of my business". So, it's none of my business. It shouldn't become my business over child support either.

[Rioe]

When an intact family contemplates having another child, they make the decision together, based on many factors, one of which is financial. They decide together if having more children and less money for each one is acceptable to them.

When a divorced parent makes a decision to have a new child with a new partner, the ex is not consulted about it in any way. Therefore the decision should NOT affect them financially. The CS should remain the same, and the fact that it will remain the same should be part of the consideration the parent and new partner make when deciding to have a child together.

I think I calculated it once that someone would have to have ten children by ten different exes to have their entire income taken up by CS. Obviously this is taking things to the extreme, but why should those previous children be financially punished for one parent's irresponsible decision to keep reproducing?