Tweet
Originally posted by Berner_Faith
View Post
-
This is spot on! Any child of mine will not be fed with a silver spoon. Everyone has their own views on how to teach their children work ethic, and the quote above mirrors my perspective. Sadly, if I ever became an NCP, the government will force me to act against what I believe. -
Driving in does not mean driving themselves. If their primary caregiver can afford a mid tier car instead of continuing to drive an unreliable vehicle then this is beneficial to the children. It is not intended that one party has a substantially better lifestyle than the other following a long term marriage.A child driving a nice car is importantComment
-
I stand by what I said... just an example in my case... bf and I both have used vehicles, yes they take some maintenance, but we also do not have any monthly car payments. Now my bf's ex bought a brand new car a few months ago... her car payments are over $500 a month...Originally posted by OrleansLawyer View Post
We are able to afford to put away $200+ a month in an account for the children, we are able to provide the children with a lot of opportunities, however, even with the CS money the ex receives, she has trouble making ends meet, things that SHOULD be covered under CS are often paid by us, she has cut off her home phone (not a huge deal) and cable because she simply cannot afford them.
You tell me what is in the better interest for the child? A parent that drives an older vehicle but can still provide above and beyond, or a parent that drives the children around in a brand new car for the "social status" but when at home the children are lucky to have clothes that actually fit them?Comment
-
Parents will spin this, whatever way they want. It's not something we can control. :-(
When it comes to the primary or custodial parent, spending the "child support" they receive, or their "means" - the answer is always "I'm free to spend child support as I see fit". The non-custodial parent doesn't have any control over this.
I understand your frustration Berner_Faith, as I see this as well, with my daughter's mom. When one can't supply proper underwear for my daughter, (that's why she gets child support from me), or she'll argue with me, about having to front the cost of the non-covered cost of a prescription ($20 or under), but she will have money for the latest, and greatest, brand new smartphone, to send me nasty messages from, that can be frustrating. lol.Comment
-
I can see your frustration and it's unfortunate that these games are played. I know my x's current wife had a conniption that I got $200 hair cuts (it's a long story). What she didn't know was that I only got my hair done twice a year and my mother paid for it (one cut was timed at my birthday and the other coincided with another holiday).Originally posted by dad2bandm View Post
In his house everyone has an ipad & iphones (mine have second hand netbooks and the cheapest smart phones available), step daughter was bought a car and my daughter was told she'd be given the same if she moved in with them. Made a big deal of offering to chip in to help pay for drivers ed, etc. They all have brand new luxury cars, we drive second hand cars.
My new husbands ex would send the kids in the worst clothes they owned - worn out undies, socks that were more holes than material, floods, stained shirts, etc. I'd go out and buy them new clothes for our home & most times we wouldn't make them change to go home. She took advantage of any social program she could find like the snowsuit fund, food bank, etc. She made more money than me and had a new husband. 20 years after the fact she requested his portion of CPP so her disability (another long story) payments would be higher. She has tried to get him to sign other documents as well but when we said we'd have a lawyer look over them she dropped the issue quickly.
IF people were fair and honest there wouldn't be a need for this board. There are jerks on both sides.Comment
-
The system gives people the opportunity to be good parents. It cannot force them - that is their life choice.You tell me what is in the better interest for the child?Comment
-
I get a kick when I see the "recipient" spouse whining about how the "payor" spouse has a better lifestyle than them. I'll let you in on a little "secret" on how you can enjoy the same thing... It's called GET a F****** JOB !!!!!
Some people's sense of entitlement never ceases to amaze me. Amazing how divorce brings out the parasite in some people....Comment
-
And the recipient spouse was often the main caregiver during the marriage having their career potential put on hold to do the caregiving while the other spouse advanced. Even having a job (which most do) they are at a disadvantage career-wise from their former spouse, the payor.Originally posted by shellshocked22 View PostComment
-
I don't think it matters whether you are the payor or the recipient... the fact is, the children should be cared for by both parents... CS is the right of the child, and the payor has a responsibility to pay for the child, but the recipient also has a responsibility to ensure that the CS money covers what it is suppose to cover and not seek more money, simply because the recipient is unable to balance their finances... this holds true for the payor as well when they try to diminish their CS obligations because they "can't afford" the CS.Comment
-
To our esteemed moderators comment...
Why is it always assumed the "stay at home" parent gave up a promising career as a brain surgeon ? Let's "assume" that the stay at home parent had no post secondary education (years before having kids) and to be blunt would always have a low paying job. Doesn't matter how many years of seniority at a McJob you'll never make 6 figures.
So, if the stay at home parent, to be blunt, enjoyed a MUCH better lifestyle than he/she ever would have on their own while married, and didn't "lose" earning potential/seniority of any significance, then please explain why they are entitled to be a parasite for decades off the hard working spouse.
Why is it that someone who commits the horrific crime of marrying below their income equivalent is screwed over financially ?
Again, I can appreciate our theoretical brain surgeon who gave up a promising career, but I really doubt that's the norm. SO if the stay at home parent did NOT give up a promising career, and did NOT suffer any lack of advancement/seniority, why are you defending their right to mooch off the working spouse ?Comment
-
Wow! Maybe you need to learn how to comprehend what you read.Originally posted by shellshocked22 View Post
In many cases the recipient has a job (I for example am in the same field as my x). I am a few years behind him in work experience because we had decided I'd stay at home and raise the children (Take Note: this was so he would have the flexibility to further his career without worrying about the daily children's needs)
I have had to limit my chances to advance to the same extent due to being available for the child. I'm the one who takes off to take them to Dr's appointments or when they are sick or wanted a parent to accompany on school field trips. I didn't have every evening free to take night classes because evenings are spent shuttling the children to the activities such as sparks, soccer, etc or helping with homework, baths (when they were younger), etc then laundry and maintaining the home doesn't leave much time to study & staying up late is not an option when in the morning you have to get up, get ready, then get the children ready for school with breakfast eaten,lunches made & a plan for dinner all before getting them on the bus or to day care, all of which is done before you put in a full 8 hour day. I can't just travel at a moments notice or work Over Time unless I have made arrangements ahead of time.
So please tell me again how I'm not pulling my weight and how I should be grateful for a any CS he deems is sufficient.Comment
-
Originally posted by shellshocked22 View Post
Interesting that you assume the opposite: that a CS recipient is an unemplyed mooch who is living off their former spouse. If one spouse contributed to the career advancement of the other and made it possible for them to advance in their career while taking a hit on their own career potential then yes, it is an unfair disadvantage to them.
Why is it you assume that all CS recipients or stay at home parents are mooching off the payor? Bitter much?Comment
-
1 - Whatever they were doing before, they could have sought a better career but for the relationship.Again, I can appreciate our theoretical brain surgeon who gave up a promising career, but I really doubt that's the norm. SO if the stay at home parent did NOT give up a promising career, and did NOT suffer any lack of advancement/seniority, why are you defending their right to mooch off the working spouse ?
2 - It isn't just their loss, but also the gain from the payor parent. But for their contribution to the household, the working parent would have been home more and thus been behind in their career.
You have entered into a financial union with someone. Why should the courts deprive either party of the consequences of their decision? You are always able to show an intention to the contrary through domestic contracts.Why is it that someone who commits the horrific crime of marrying below their income equivalent is screwed over financially ?Comment
-
Sounds like shellshocked22 is one of those people who are simmering in their own bitter stew. That's a very sad and destructive way to live.Comment
-
When I buy shares in Apple, they don't increase in value or pay dividends according to my education or job skills. I have a proportionate share in the corporation, and I get a proportionate share in the profits, and I get a proportionate share of value of the firm when I sell.Originally posted by shellshocked22 View Post
A marriage is a financial partnership. If you don't want that, don't get married. You have signed a contract that your partner has a 50% share in the total of what you both are able to contribute over the years. That includes a share in the long-term value of your career.
If you don't get the issue of future value, when I sell my Apple shares, I'm selling based on how well I know the company is GOING to do, that is part of the value.
This is just an analogy, I'm sure we could pick it apart, but the point is that a partnership isn't the same as hiring a housekeeper. Your career is part of your assets (just ask the bank manager when you want a bigger mortgage) and that value can be part of what is shared.
The way it is shared is called spousal support. If our education and careers were assessed and given net values and this was split through equalization maybe it wouldn't cause so much bitterness.
No, it probably would still cause bitterness.Comment
Comment