Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Remarriage and child support

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by billm View Post
    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.
    It is the argument of the court generally that is presented. Many litigants go into court waving fingers because the other parent has a new partner/spouse who either has money or makes a significant amount of money.

    To be successful you have to (a) establish unjust enrichment and (b) parental status and responsibility of the new partner to the children.

    Both are incredibly hard to be successful with before the courts. You basically have to admit to the court that the other paying party you are trying to go after (new spouse/partner) is a parent and has the same responsibilities of a parent.

    It is a "backwards" argument to make if you apply the logic in general for parents to expect that if the other parent gets married that new person is responsible for the children too. If that was the case no one would get remarried and there would droves of EOW parents taking matters back before the court trying to have CS reduced.

    If Family Law was about "change" CS would be adjusted with every paycheck automatically. But, alas, it is done yearly for a reason.

    Good Luck!
    Tayken

    Comment


    • #17
      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?
      I'm not sure that I follow. The payments from the biological parent revert to original offset amounts upon the end of the new marriage. I don't even see how it is a tricky situation.

      Either way, this is not an objection to the point that I raised, which, I will state yet again, is that support is the right of the child, and support should be in the best interests of the child, not a parent or some other random adult.

      So, again, how is it in the best interests of the child in a 50/50 custody situation for a parent to be paying child support to a household with higher income?

      Every argument so far has touched upon the rights of the adult (parent) CS recipient, and the new spouse, but nobody seems to care about the interests of the children. Which is curious, since I thought that was the entire point of the family law legal system.

      The best way to handle it...? Make the parents, the actual parents, be responsible for their children.
      That is the easy way, and the way it works now, but in the situation I described, I still have not heard a good argument as to how it is in the best interests of the children.
      Last edited by Janus; 07-13-2012, 09:59 PM. Reason: editing the edit reason :) it was a change of phrasing, not a typo. I had typo on the brain for some reason

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Janus View Post
        I'm not sure that I follow. The payments from the biological parent revert to original offset amounts upon the end of the new marriage. I don't even see how it is a tricky situation.
        Offset even though it "reduces" the payment is still a payment in formula. So, technically, if the new spouse were to leave the marriage how would the "offset" go against them?

        Remember, the "offset" calculation identifies the parent.

        So what you are recommending is the offset be calculated as:

        Parent A (income) + New Spouse A (income) = total house hold income
        Parent B (income) = total household income

        "Offset" calculations just don't work that way under the guide lines. The only situation in which you can go after New Spouse A is to demonstrate an unjust enrichment. To do this Parent A would have to claim an income of 0$.

        Read the Guide Lines carefully.


        Originally posted by Janus View Post
        Either way, this is not an objection to the point that I raised, which, I will state yet again, is that support is the right of the child, and support should be in the best interests of the child, not a parent or some other random adult.

        So, again, how is it in the best interests of the child in a 50/50 custody situation for a parent to be paying child support to a household with higher income?
        It is... Just not the parent's new spouse.

        Originally posted by Janus View Post
        Every argument so far has touched upon the rights of the adult (parent) CS recipient, and the new spouse, but nobody seems to care about the interests of the children. Which is curious, since I thought that was the entire point of the family law legal system.
        Parents are defined in the Family Law Rules and CLRA. Read how they are defined. A new spouse after divorce is not a parent unless the other parent is absent totally. (See the SCC ruling on that one.)

        Originally posted by Janus View Post
        That is the easy way, and the way it works now, but in the situation I described, I still have not heard a good argument as to how it is in the best interests of the children.
        If you want, you can go out and marry a high income earner too, win the lottery or get a windfall from a family estate. All this is protected form the other parent making claims against you. The "buck" stops at the actually parents to the children.

        You seem to be upset because you want the equation to work in your favour to reduce what you have to pay. To fix it, simply marry someone who is rich and beat them at their own game.

        Good Luck!
        Tayken

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Tayken View Post
          You seem to be upset because you want the equation to work in your favour to reduce what you have to pay. To fix it, simply marry someone who is rich and beat them at their own game.

          Good Luck!
          Tayken
          Sigh

          It should not be a game, it should be in the best interests of the children.

          Comment


          • #20
            The best interests of the children seem to be mostly $$$ based, after all.

            Otherwise why would Dad's be left with 1000-1400 per month to live off while the Mom collects 2-3 times that without even working.

            Comment


            • #21
              ^ Slug's "answer" to absolutely everything... Your ex must have been a real train wreck to lose custody to you.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Janus View Post
                Sigh

                It should not be a game, it should be in the best interests of the children.
                And it is... It is the parent's responsibility to support their children both emotionally and financially. The dispute is that the system doesn't work the way you want it to in your situation.

                But, if you reversed the roles what would you do?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Tayken View Post
                  And it is... It is the parent's responsibility to support their children both emotionally and financially. The dispute is that the system doesn't work the way you want it to in your situation.

                  But, if you reversed the roles what would you do?
                  Probably try to continue to extract as much money as possible from my ex-spouse. Actually, possibly not, I'm the sucker who rarely negotiates once I believe that a deal is "fair", and feels bad taking money from insurance that is greater than the value I place on the item.

                  Either way, it is irrelevant what I would do in a situation. The system should assume that both people are going to do the wrong thing, and should ensure that things work out in the best interests of the children. Currently, it does not.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    How about this for a solution:

                    Caveat: this would only apply in offset situations

                    1) Impute a dollar amount to the reduction in living costs the spouse who has remarried has to pay (functionally this would have to be worked out to fit in the formula, but it would be doable).

                    2) Consider this amount as income of that parrent (not of the parent's new spouse) for the purpose of the offset calculation of CS.

                    3) The imputed dollar amount gets removed from the CS calculation if the relationship fails.

                    The responsibility would still only be with the two actual parents but it would recognize the actual living conditions of the child.

                    It only works for offset situations because there would have to be the potential of an equal effect to both sides (also it would look like NCPs were being punished by the legislation for remarrying).

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      All of this assumes that the new partner of the ex has a financial responsibility for the children of the marriage.

                      He or she does not. If they choose to contribute - great. That is the same as your ex receiving a gift, inheritance or other windfall which in no way would impact your child support obligations.

                      Another way to think of it - if your ex had not made a fortuitous alliance, you would still have the same child support obligations but your children would, while with your ex, be in a lesser financial position. Consider the benefit of the ex's new partner to be a bonus for the children, because it certainly is not an entitlement.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by OrleansLawyer View Post
                        All of this assumes that the new partner of the ex has a financial responsibility for the children of the marriage.

                        He or she does not. If they choose to contribute - great. That is the same as your ex receiving a gift, inheritance or other windfall which in no way would impact your child support obligations.

                        Another way to think of it - if your ex had not made a fortuitous alliance, you would still have the same child support obligations but your children would, while with your ex, be in a lesser financial position. Consider the benefit of the ex's new partner to be a bonus for the children, because it certainly is not an entitlement.
                        So eloquently put and right on the "money". Welcome to the forum OrleansLawyer!

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          But the new partner does financially support the child. They pay half the rent/mortgage, food bills, entertainment and travel because at the end of the day once re-married everything is split 50/50.

                          For example, if a new family takes a trip that cost $1500, new partner pays half of that, not 1/3 because 3 people are going.

                          By saying the new parent is not financially responsible is that not the same as a CEO taking a small salary to keep taxes and CS low and using his company to write off all expesnes (cars, travel, food, entertainment, etc)?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Canadaguy View Post
                            But the new partner does financially support the child. They pay half the rent/mortgage, food bills, entertainment and travel because at the end of the day once re-married everything is split 50/50.

                            For example, if a new family takes a trip that cost $1500, new partner pays half of that, not 1/3 because 3 people are going.

                            By saying the new parent is not financially responsible is that not the same as a CEO taking a small salary to keep taxes and CS low and using his company to write off all expesnes (cars, travel, food, entertainment, etc)?
                            Really? 50-50 only applies to marital assets and there could be a pre-nuptial agreement to totally something different. There are many people who are married that have different agreements and arrangements for their finances.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              I'm not sure how mixed families do it, but would love to hear. I know families with no pre-nup the law is 50/50 no matter what the salary of either partner is.

                              I know some families that have their own bank accounts and contribute amounts to the family expenses. But without a prenup it is still 50/50 at the end of the day.

                              Just doesn't make sense now adays to have one pot of money like my folks did.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Hi, I'm new and this is my first post. But this thread caught my eye because my partner is going through a separation right now and I have asked him (and his lawyer) this question numerous times: Does my income impact how much money he has to give her? (a lot of smart responses in here, though.)

                                The short answer was that it's a remote possibility, but that he hasn't seen that happen in over a decade.

                                She's a single mother and they have a split custody arrangement right now, and he has a good job where his gross income is close to $80k. I make around $45-50K. She's claiming under $10k, so I was freaked out that she'd be able to petition the court for my financial records so that she could get enough child support out of him to match our combined income... using some bogus claim like, "I can't provide for them in the same way they're used to at their dad's house."

                                And honestly, even though I chose to move in and become a part of not only his life, but his kids'... I am not forking over any of my money to support her, and I refuse to pay all the bills so that she can suck more out of him. I'd move out before that happened. I worked too hard in my life to get to where I am, even though it's not all glitz and glamour, and it's not even that high-paying of a job. I'm here to support THIS house - not hers. I don't think we should have to give her another $1000 a month just because I'm here. That's ridiculous.

                                You also never know how the $200k is being spent. It looks like a lot on paper, but who knows... maybe he has a huge mortage. Maybe he's paying support to an ex. Maybe he's a big spender and has a lot of things to pay off that cost a lot of money. That's his business. In my case, my being here might bump the household income up to $130k, but I have student loans and a line of credit, and insurance, etc... and so does my guy. His two kids eat like machines haha, so they're expensive enough to feed as is. Plus he has support payments. So between the two of us, there's not a lot left over. But if you looked at our combined income, you'd think we're doing great.

                                I see where you're coming from, but if you were her new spouse, do you think you'd want to assume all the financial responsibilities of the father just because you happen to have a great income? Choosing to do so because you want to is one thing, but having the courts dictate such is so out of line if you're not the biological parent. They can't enforce that, because they only care about the two people who are the parents. I understand how you feel, because it would be terrible to lose a big chunk of your income when you know they live in a $245k household. But technically, it's you who they regard as taking care of them, not him... and that's why it doesn't matter.

                                I just hope all that money you give is actually being used in full on the kids, because I'd say she and her new husband have more than enough to take care of themselves. At least your kids will know you provided for them, right?

                                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