The rights of the new spouse and child

[enoughalready]

Phonenix

I think you miss read my comment as per your statement "One person in this forum posted that the judge told them they knew what they were getting into when they married someone with children". I wasn't talking about marrying someone with children just getting married and having children.

If you get divorced and then get remarried and are happy and decide to have a kid the courts say thats your problem when the ex takes you to court. The support recipient can have an new child with someone else and isn't discriminated against and not told thats your problem when she asks for more money.

If you get divorced from the second marriage and have to pay support for the child of the second marrige then they take this into account when they are making the calculations.

Why is there such a difference when you are remarried. Do you not have to support the child living with you. Once again another case how they want you to get divorce again. I can start a whole new forum on how the system causes the divorce rate in this country.

[PhoenixRising]

I am just telling you that as of last month the fact was that no other CS payments for any other CS recipient was a factor in determining the table CS is my case. The T4 was presented, the table was looked at and the CS was set. Period! In fact I believe that the first CS recipient now has a case for having their own CS adjusted as it is a material change.

And to clarify the issue in regards to the other forum post I read. The person that posted was trying to have CS reduced based on the fact that they were now supporting additional children and a new spouse.

[enoughalready]

No set rules

The problem here is there are no set rules in the court system in this country. It is just rolling the dice to see what you can get. I have a real problem with that. If we continue to allow the support recipients just to throw out whatever they think they can get there hands on year after year then we are just going to have a bunch of screwed up kids and parents. Some Judges allow it and some don't how can there ever be any fair judgements. Case by case shouldn't be allowed. Set the rules and stick by them. You make this much $ you are entitled to this much for x amount of kids. This extra ordinary and whatever they want to call it needs to stop. It does nothing but cause headaches and ruins lives. The children suffer more from the fighting back and forth then the support recipient getting a few extra dollars. If the system was fair then there wouldn't be so many deadbeats out there. They would pay as per the tables and that would be the end of it. Being taken back to court every couple of years for this and that you get tired of it. Many just walk away and hide due to this unjust system. You can never please or satisy a support recipient they just keep coming and coming just like the energizer bunny. Where do they get their sense of entitlement?

[standing on the sidelines]

Just to point out I am in no way bitter about the situation and am actually relieved we are no longer married. The statement you said in regards to if the marriage was happy there wouldn't be cheating. I just think those who cheat use this as an excuse I wasnt' happy so I cheated come on. I wasn't happy and I didn't cheat. This woman cheated on me a few times so are you saying its my fault. I totally disagree with your comment and it comes down to a lack of morals on her part. I'm just stupid for not leaving sooner and taking the boys with me. Did you read my comments about the different incomes does the differences not seem odd to you. I'm also not laying blame I was just commenting on my specifics so all can understand my situation. We need a system like the Americans how those who cheat are treated worse by the courts. In Canada you can cheat all you want and the courts don't care. I wonder why the Divorce rate is so high when people can cheat and then get a paycheck for it.

I never said it was your fault. All I said that in happy marriages there is no cheating.

[got2bkid]

The system is unfair to second families. The petition below breaks out the problems that second families have, caused by the guidelines.

Canadian Child Support Guidelines are Unfair to "Second" Families Petition

[enoughalready]

Its about time.

To many have taken their lives due to the unfairness and always uphill battle of our current system.

[got2bkid]

Our system seriously undermines childrens right to a relationship after divorce and the application of the guidelines contravenes the first sentance in the guidelines "that the child continue to benefit from the finacial means of both parents after divorce". when in fact only the NCP is told to pay XXX/month based on salary and the CP is not subject to the same scrutiny. In our case the ex-wife went to school for 6 years using ALL the CS for herself (and she was already educated) leaving the kids in poverty although my husband sent a lot of money and paid all extra expenses. How is THAT ensuring the kids benefit from the means of both parents? The current system also undermine the child-father relationship - to a point where the guidelines are only concerned about the $$$ a man can offer his child after divorce and do not assume equal custody in all normal cases. It is a shame so many divisive people can use and abuse the system to burden NCP's unfairly and take their kids away from them except for the standard 11% per year (every 2nd weekend).

[#1StepMom]

Well said, Got2bkid. The system truly is baffling. "For the best interest of the child" - whatever. Before any court appearances and support orders, my stepson spent 45% of the time with my husband and I. His mother had no problem with this, as she got to go out and party and do whatever she pleased more often than any other mother. Heck, having a child at such a young age was awesome, in her mind, especially when she only had to take care of him 50% of the time, if not less seeing as she depended on her family to take care of the child when she was "unavailable" - which is still often the case. Yet when my husband started working full time, and she wanted more $$$ from him, and took the matter to court, she fought for sole custody on the basis that a toddler needs to spend most of his time with his mother... and she won primary physicall custody of the child, reducing my husband's access to the typical every-other-weekend and 50% of vacations. According to the judge, this is "the norm" and it did not matter that my husband had the child for 45% of the time up to that point (actually until a few months before, when she filed her court papers and started refusing access in an attempt to change the status quo - an attempt which was successful). And now, being the "custodial parent" or the "parent with primary care," she feels that she needs to hire a nanny because she cannot handle the responsibilities of caring for the child, and expects my husband to cover the expense! I can honestly say that in our situation, it's not about the child, it's about the money. It's always been about the money. And every week, there's always a fight about money, about yet another expense that she is throwing our way... "for the best interest of the child." I can safely say that getting a brand new luxary sedan is more in her interest than the child's and keeping her paid-off two-door compact would have been in the better interest of the child, with money going towards the child instead of financing a larger new vehicle. Oh wait... that's right, she recently won more child support, arrears, and legal costs. (With all "adjustments" going against the guidelines; even duty counsel was shocked by the judge's ruling.) No wonder she felt like shopping. After all, for someone who receives close to the table amount for 2 children for only one child, treating herself with the extra $$$ on a new vehicle makes perfect sense. *Roll Eyes* And here I am contemplating downsizing my average car to a cheaper one, in order to have some extra cash. Grrrrr. Did I mention that because of these new support payments, my husband and I have no choice but to hold off on having a child of our own? This is the 2nd year we are holding off on having a family.

This system truly is ridiculous.

Just my two cents.

[got2bkid]

It is truly ridiculous and your situation is especially maddening! The father had custody of the child half or more, and yet the judge took this away from him for no good reason other than money. How is that good for the child?! I know there are CP's that don't get paid at all, and they do have a hard time. But when the guidelines amounts and percentages are followed, it does leave many NCP's in serious financial hardship, esp. when the ex wants to make life extra hard for him, she can. And yet we are not supposed to talk about this! It seems a double standard that women can complain about "deadbeat dads" till the cows come home, but people get all up in arms to admit the TRUTH, that MANY NCP's are truly suffering at the hands of the system. These are the men/women NCP's that play by the rules and get royally $crewed. Things really need to chage.

BTW - if you have lots of time to wait before having kids, then waiting might make sense. But remember, things really don't get better for the NCP's and their new families (esp. if we have to pay for university AND CS for the 1st 2 kids, then our 2 will have NO CHANCE at us even having a red cent to help them). But having children is the best thing in the world (for me anyway). And even though it is tough, I wouldn't change it for the world! I know you can't afford it, but I got LOTS of hand-me-downs and only shop at 2nd hand stores for clothes and we do lots of free stuff like walks in the park. Yes there are fixed expenses (like diapers for twins!) but not nearly as much as the "guidelines" would have you believe it takes to raise a happy child LOL!

[#1StepMom]

Got2bKid... according to the courts, with my income, I can afford to take care of both my husband and I and all our expenses, therefore he can afford to pay more child support and more extraordinary expenses. Believe it or not, this was actually said to us. Our prenuptial agreement, stating that my income is mine alone, meant nothing to them. All they cared about is that we live together and whether I'm able to cover all living expenses. (Which I am, but it sure leaves me with nothing extra to save or to spend on anything other than the necessities.) *Roll My Eyes*

[got2bkid]

I didn't think they could take YOUR income into account when setting CS levels. Aren't they just based on HIS income?! That is frightening if they can do that. Is there a moderator on here who can tell #1stepmom what rights she has in this situation? That goes AGAINST the guidelines and is completely UNJUST.

This sets a very scary precendent for all of us who married divorced men (NCP's). Most are good men (good enough for the first wives to marry and have kids with). So why are they (and their new families) treated so badly by the courts? With every new thing I hear I am more convinced the courts have an out-of-control anti-NCP bias.

[allay]

No but go on.

[#1StepMom]

To clarify, my income was taken into account to determine whether the current amount of increased child support would cause my husband undue hardship - even though he never filed for undue hardship. They deemed that because my income is "above average" I would be able to support him while he supports his child. Our prenuptial agreement, stating that we would each be responsible for 50% of household expenses (rent/mortgage, utilities, groceries, household supplies, insurance, etc.) meant nothing. And what is frustrating is that the only reason we had made a prenuptial agreement was so that my income would not be taken into account when determining child support. It is quite infuriating.

[lulu46]

Well I am in this spot right now. I have full custody of two children, my ex has since had two children with his common law spouse, lost his job and and is now running a business that is in her name only! That is their livelihood but he shows no income. SO unfortunately in order that the courts determine what level of income they can impute on my ex and not cause him undue hard-ship we now have to get the new spouses income involved because its obvious he is hiding to avoid cs! So I am glad that the courts will take this into consideration in my case again one bad one spoils it for all. But trust me this is n easy feat! I have to convince the courts that this is the case and gathering info is not easy. The sad part is the new spouse is allowing this to happen as a parent is she not worried that he might do the same thing to her and leave there kids without support? Or maybe she has not idea what he is up to? As i did not know 1/2 of his debts nor lies until well into the marriage and after two kids! God help her!

[billm]

To clarify, my income was taken into account to determine whether the current amount of increased child support would cause my husband undue hardship - even though he never filed for undue hardship. They deemed that because my income is "above average" I would be able to support him while he supports his child. Our prenuptial agreement, stating that we would each be responsible for 50% of household expenses (rent/mortgage, utilities, groceries, household supplies, insurance, etc.) meant nothing. And what is frustrating is that the only reason we had made a prenuptial agreement was so that my income would not be taken into account when determining child support. It is quite infuriating.

#1Stepmom,

Yes but do you ACTUALLY make each other split 50% of the costs, in other words keep your finances completely separate - like roommates? Your prenup was designed to avoid CS, not to keep your finances totally separate I suspect, meaning that he does enjoy your financial success.

The reality is that if he benifits from your income, then so does his children, it can't be avoided, nor should it as that is parenting. He can't have it both ways, either he shares in your income, and subsequently so does his child, or you are 100% financially separate and in that case where you make more more money, you and you alone would enjoy that position. He can't separate his life with you from his child.

BUT as long as he is working full time and making what he 'should', then CS should only be based on HIS income. Now if his life style was on top of that being subsidized by his spouse - covering his costs of living, then his kids should benifit from that (more CS). If he is not working full time, and the spouse is 'covering' for him, then he is being supported and so should his children. But in a normal case where he is working full time, is not with a 'rich' spouse that essentially supports him beyond his means, then CS should ONLY be based on his income. It all goes back to the philosophy of CS - you should support kids based on your means, regardless of how you obtain those means.