Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Divorce Law are a Joke and Dads are the Punch Line

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Hanging On
    Ok, I'm only adding my two cents to something but there seems to be an idea out there by some dads (or moms) paying child support that the amount is purely for the kids stuff - food, clothes,ect...But, correct me if I'm wrong, isn't child support about making sure they can live by the same standards that they have been used to/or that the other parent can give them? For example, a similar size home? Therefore, child support would go to a portion of the rent/mortgage/heating/utilities, ect?? You are not supporting your wife/husband's "standard of living" but the KIDS standard of living. If Dad lives in a 200,000$ home while Mom has to live in an apartment, even if she is getting 1000$ a month but doesn't have a great job and can't afford anymore, there is a great discrepancy in the children's lifestyles while they are with each parent. When you get married and have children, you have a responsibility to maintain what they have become accustomed to, don't you?.
    You are correct in one of the main costs in child support is maintaning a standard of living. In fact, they call it household support, in the Justice Report on developing the child support guidelines (1997). Let me quote from the Report:

    "First, it is assumed that within the principal residence of the children, the parent and the children will share the same standard of living. "

    Right there, in b/w, the opening line states that the paying parent's (PP) SOL is not concern, only the receiving parent (RP) and the children.

    Lets further see what the report states. Let me quote:

    "The following model, and the mathematical equation derived from it, makes the technical assumption that the household of the paying parent has one member: the paying parent. The receiving parent is also assumed to be single; the household of the receiving parent is made up of one parent and all the children of the marriage. "

    I shall return to those two statements in a moment. One of my issues with the way finances are split in a divorce is the fact that each component is dealt in isolotation. Lets begin with assets: So, through the Equalization formula, it is basically done 50-50. There is no consideration for age, length of marriage, who contributed what, the contributions based on incomes or careers, or who did what during the marriage. I think the formula works fine for the long term marriage or the long-term marriage where one parent stayed home (like my mom). Fair enough. But in this day of short marriages, duel career tracks, etc., one person can really be wiped out. So immediately you have a huge fiancial loss. And I can gautantee it is almost impossbile with out remarriage for Dad to live in a $200,000 house and mom live in an aprtment. Most likely the other way around.

    Now we set aside this division of assests, and see who has the kids. It is a distinct financial advantage to have the kids. Why, because you will get support, and lots of it. Thus begins the custody and access fight. But I'll save that for another discussion.

    The awarding of child support will always be from the higher earner to the lower earning, and is at least the table amount unless proven otherwise. Even 50-50 may not get you a break (as our recent SCC decision stated). Unless you can get the offset amount, the table amount only use your income. That means, with the same income, you could be paying the full amount of support. I know many guys that are doing this. Or your ex can be making more than you. As long as she has the children more than 60% of the time, you will pay the full amount. Even at 50-50, with any difference in income to your benefit, you will pay. So, if the objective is to equalize the SOL, how can one parent pay the full amount regardless of the other parent's income? And, this payment does not take into consideration the assets split above or the ramifications of that split.

    To top all this off comes spousal support. Awarded for various reasons as stated in the Divorce Act, and adjusted up if there are children (double-dipping?). No b/w rules on how awarding works, but suggestions are a short term marriage may allow you to revisit terminating the support quicker. Most likely your combination of CS and SS will be 60% of your net income. Again spousal support is awarded in almost complete isolation of other factors like asset division or various considerations given during a marriage. It is factored with child suppotr and children.

    So there appears to be a lot of money going one way to ensure one parent (the custodial parent) retains a SOL. But not the paying parent.

    Lets put the cherry on the cake. You are the involved parent. You have been lucky enough to get 50-50. Now, all the above is still true. You may, I repeat MAY, get a break on child support, but don't count on it. So, where are those children living when they are with you? I assume in your house. Well, who paid for all that? You did. But who is ensuring your and the children's standard of living. No one. The laws don't no how to deal with all this. Money goes A to B. That's it. Any variation, and we are in in front of the SCC. To make matters worse, you also have to feed, cloth, provide an infrastructure for the children. You pay twice for everything. All those day-to-day expenses can kill you. Mine is currently running around $400 per month. And that does not include food, shelter or utilties (hey those children take baths, showers, have dirty laundry, have dirty dishes, etc).

    On top of tall this you get hit with extra expenses. Again not factored in anywhere and dealt in total isolation of all other monetary awards. So, daycare, medical for sure you pay (well your portion based on income). But you will also be hit with lessons, birthday parties, presents. You can make a choice though, not to pay for things. Or go to court over every extra expense.

    I have never said people should not take care of their children... but this is madness.

    Comment


    • #32
      ahhh - and thus the reason my ex refuses to spend a single dime on the kids -even when they are with him. In his words "your mother will pay for that - I pay child support"

      Whatever.

      Comment


      • #33
        Double dipping?

        DecentDad,

        On you comments re spousal support,

        adjusted up if there are children (double-dipping?)
        Do you mean that support payors pay more in spousal support because they also pay child support?

        Lindsay

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Sk8r
          Child support is for the child.

          Why would you not want your child to have everything you have to offer?

          Could I support them on my own? YES. But with their father's contribution they get to have some niceties - like their own rooms; and new clothing and sporting activites and the occasional vacation.

          I would (and do) spend every last penny I earn on my children - even if they were not in my primary care.

          It seems to me that those who complain about CS, complain because they don't like to see their EX getting the money and having control over how it is spent.
          Ah, but there's the great contradiction. I would like my kids to have things, but why with no say.

          I would love to be getting a cheque from the ex each month, and proudly state, I am buying the best life for my kids, at my full descrietion without boundaries, consequences and complete freedom. But, really, who lives like that?

          A common mistake made is that the involved parent does not also buy that great life. But why twice. Why through support and then again?

          What if I enjopyed knitting and I wanted my daughter to have knitting lessons and knitting supplies. It is something that she is interested in. I approach the ex and she is indifferent and does not care and will not pay. What do I do. Or the ex says yes, and does not pay. What do I do? Or, what if the ex buys knitting equipment, but won't allowit to leave her house when the daughter is with me. Am I controlling for being pissed at this?

          Comment


          • #35
            Is there a solution(s) outside of the law?

            Some lawyers have commented to me how 'financially devastating ' divorce can be on some families.

            I'm no expert on Family law ... and times do change, you would think it would be written in such a way as to allow for both parents to maintain a decent SOL if having the kids both 50/50?

            Many arguements seem to be over finances ...

            A friend once told me "Unless you've walked in their shoes, do not be judgemental" in other words, try putting yourself in the payors shoes or receivers shoes to experience what the 'law' is doing to some families ...

            Based on some reactions, it appears the law is letting families down, especially the opportunity for children to grow with both parents.

            Solution: Both spouses work to hammer out a financial plan that works in boths favor?

            Until the laws are changed, what do others feel would be a solution to ensuring SOL is maintained at both homefronts?

            Hubby

            Comment


            • #36
              Bend over backwards...

              I must say that it is sad that these issues become a competition...it is a shame that two people who created wonderful children cannot seem to work together..on these things..
              SKR8 I feel for you...I would bend over backard to be able to spend every cent I have on my kids.. and see them more......especially for B-Days and such..
              I know it must be hard for some to be able to get along and split these issues up.. but I must say that i feel quite protected by the laws...some of you might think I am nuts but the truth be told..it sure is alot better than it was ten years ago..
              Anger --comes from fear... and fear is a driving force behind much anger and hurt..I know that it may seem unreasonable to get along with one whom has made you suffer through the court system.. I have not been there and hope I do not go there...my heart goes out to those of you that are dealing with that issue at this time...
              I think that there is a stigma for some Dads thats for sure..but there is for women too... My Wife used to brag about how great a Dad I was.. and other Moms used to think I was out of the ordinary as well....I used to see it as my way.. it was just me contributing to our kids wlefare and well being and adjusting to a family life...a great life.. I miss being there.. and doing the day to day things more than anything else..more than playtime...
              I miss all the hardwork...the sleepless nights ..the sick days.. I miss parenting period...I cannot imagine what my ex is going through looking after the two of them and working full time--I want to contribute all I can to her to help which is reasonable....for her and them...THE KIDS...
              Cheers...
              Aden

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Lindsay
                DecentDad,

                On you comments re spousal support,

                Do you mean that support payors pay more in spousal support because they also pay child support?

                Lindsay
                No. They would pay more when children are involved. I get this is from case laws and the decisions given by judges. But doe sthis section also not state that?

                15.2(6)(b) apportion between the spouses any financial consequences arising from the care of any child of the marriage over and above any obligation for the support of any child of the marriage;

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Decent Dad
                  A common mistake made is that the involved parent does not also buy that great life. But why twice. Why through support and then again?
                  See my above post. Because my ex pays child support - he refuses to spend a single penny above and beyond that for the kids. And he does not pay ANY section 7 expenses because I do not ask him to.

                  I think what he pays in Child Support is adequate, but I get tired of hearing him complain about it.

                  And for the record - he sees the kids every other weekend and half of all holidays. So no 50-50 scenario here.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Well besides his poor attitude with/to the children, I assume you mean he does not buy things. Like items. Because he must feed them at least and provide the basics of life when they are with him.

                    So I must ask, do you feel he should be buying things. Books? Toys? DVD's? Am I to understand you feel he should buy those things, and pay full support.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      As the stomach turns

                      Good discussion going here today everybody is providing some good words for thought
                      I think Decent held back a bit on his list of inequalities with regard to total financial support to the Custodial parent. I wrote a big speil with all these other intangible benefits ,a long list, but for some reason it didn't post and lost the whole text.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by hubby
                        Until the laws are changed, what do others feel would be a solution to ensuring SOL is maintained at both homefronts?
                        Hubby
                        That's the problem. No law or act can ever do that. What if one person re-marries. Inherits $200,000. Becomes unemployed. Layed off. Downsized. Wins the lotto. Works towards a better career. Takes two jobs. Sloths on the couch all day. Refuses to rreturn to work to maintain support. What if one person is older and must retire sooner than the other parent. And on and on.

                        The entire concept of equalizing SOL is a pipe dream. BTW, not all states or countries use the SOL equilization model. Canada does, but not everyone. Some base it on the income of both parents. Some include percentage of time regardless of some mystical 40% rule. There are other models.

                        We must though, get this access factor out of the formula to prevent people fighting over the kids to skew their support payments. Either by giving default 50-50 access or removing that time as a driver of the formula (e.g. the 40% access barrier).

                        Personally I would like to see the money go into a 3rd party bank, that each parent contributes based on their income and can draw from it to pay for things. Any left over rolls into an RESP. And the amount is based on actual child raising statistics... not lifestyle.

                        Oh... and about lifestyle. That should be a different support to the other parent. Like spousal support. But with clear rules on amount, termination, etc. and a goal to really raise the persons ability to get a better SOL. But it does not have to be the same SOL.

                        Anyway...

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by bearall

                          Sometimes it takes a wise person to play the fool !! Aesops Fables)[/B][/COLOR]
                          Who's the more foolish, the fool, or the fool who follows him?

                          Pretty soon Jeff is going to start a new forum for exchanging quips and retorts...

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by hubby
                            Until the laws are changed, what do others feel would be a solution to ensuring SOL is maintained at both homefronts?
                            Hubby
                            I forgot to mention another killer: new children. There is no Law that protects their SOL. Interesting society we are that states one set of children deserve a certain SOL, but not the other.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by sasha1
                              Sk8r, I think you're absolutely right!

                              DecentDad, if you think my story "doesn't add up", ask me questions. What do you want to know? Where's the confusion? And yes, I think if he's bringing home $7000 on average, his $1010 warrants an "only" in front of it. Again, if that doesn't make sense to you, ask me why I feel that way; don't just assume there's a 'back story' that I'm not disclosing. IMO, support and advice is meaningless if it's given to someone who is not upfront about detailing their situation.

                              Could you not take him to court to get your support raised?

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Decent Dad
                                Who's the more foolish, the fool, or the fool who follows him?

                                Pretty soon Jeff is going to start a new forum for exchanging quips and retorts...


                                Haha, well I guess I could give you an application or analogy quip with my retort.

                                In the game of poker and stock markets and legal shenanigans and life. You sit around the table and spot the fool, once the fool is targeted the remaining players work against him, the fool eventually loses his position, and of course the other players divy up the profits. RULE:if at any time "you" can't spot the fool...... you are it !

                                Know where you are in the pecking order when you sit down at the table...knowing your weakness makes you stong !!!....Aggravates the sh#t out of the other players too

                                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