Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The rights of the new spouse and child

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

  • #1StepMom
    replied
    What happens in situations where a child is born out of wedlock, to parents who were never in a relationship (ex: brief encounter, one-night-stand, teenage tryst, etc.) but who both accepted the responsability of taking care of their child separately, and who both hope to have a marital relationship and family of their own? Should that dream of having a family be denied to them because, for unplanned reasons, they are responsible for a child? Granted, it will be much easier for the custodial parent receiving support to realize this dream, but what about the non-custodial parent who responsably pays child support and wants nothing more than to abide by the guidelines which have somehow passed him by and for inexplicable reasons don't apply because his wife has an "above average" income? And so this couple, wanting nothing more than to have a family together, is unable to do so because they are both supporting another child, a child who is not the biological child of the "stepmom" and a child who is being supported by three if not four 'parents.' I'm just curious how this is justified. Because I just cannot see it.

    Leave a comment:


  • lulu46
    replied
    Well we shall see in my case as we are going after her income since he is not looking for work and using her income to live and thus not contributing to his children's up bringing. I have and am making some serious sacrifices to keep the kids from suffering emotionally and financially! I am sure we all have our stories and I guess one law cant cover all the options but the system does give lots of room for those who think having a kid and walking away and not paying is ok!

    Leave a comment:


  • Daba
    replied
    Originally posted by billm View Post
    I am not taking money away from my former spouse, but from my kids -
    I sort of see your point,
    but in reality, if my x remarried and had another few children... every time one was born his support payments would go down, and as a loving mother I would not want to see my kids' standard of living go down, especially as it was already affected by us separating, so I would do my best to try to cut ends here and there (not contributing to my rrsp's for example, not taking a vacation, or buying a new car) so that their standard of living would stay the same for as long as possible...it would be my choice to do that, I suppose, but it would feel pretty darn unfair.

    Just wondering, what do the courts do in these situations?

    Leave a comment:


  • lulu46
    replied
    Well I guess I look at it from another angel and that's what makes this interesting to discuss. When you got married and had kids you did so on the premise that you would stay married and provide for the kids. It does not work out and couples split up-By no fault of the children. Then the parent goes off starts make more financial obligations to support more kids and the original marriage nor kids asked for this so we all have to make major sacrifices at the whim of the cs payor! Dont think do!

    Leave a comment:


  • billm
    replied
    Originally posted by lulu46 View Post
    He has an obligation to provide equally for his children in this marriage and if he could not do that then he should not have had more children in his new relationship! People need to take responsibility for thier kids!
    Well I don't agree with you on this. I have three kids, all from my former marriage. Everytime I had another kid, I was less able to provide the same amount of financial support to the others - same income, more kids = less $ per kid, but spread equally for all the kids. That is the way the world works. Why should it be different if I chose to have another child? Same income, more kids = less $ per kid, but should be spread equally per kid.

    The act of separation causes less $ per kid, as the same family now lives in two homes and it cost more, meaning less money for the kids. Should the one who separates be required to make sure that there is the same $ for the kids as before the separation? No, so why when I chose to have more kids, do I have to keep the money per kid the same as before?

    In our society, we can chose to have as many kids as we want when married and that means less $ per kid, the more you have. In what way have I given up this right when I separate? I am not taking money away from my former spouse, but from my kids - which is only to share with all my kids equally according to my means.

    So I don't agree that CS should remain the same when you have more kids in a subsequent relationship. It should be shared equally among all my kids according to my means. Overall my CS does go up actually because the more kids you have the more CS, and the tables take a greater percentage per kid the more you have too, but the CS payment would go down for each kid individually.

    As a side note - my baby makin' days are over, 3 is enough!
    Last edited by billm; 07-21-2009, 02:54 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • lulu46
    replied
    I hear what your saying here to I do agree. They chose to have two kids, he has chosen to not look for work and be a stay at home Dad. I dont think the kids of the first marriage should be penalized for what the parent does in his new life. He has an obligation to provide equally for his children in this marriage and if he could not do that then he should not have had more children in his new relationship! People need to take responsibility for thier kids!

    Leave a comment:


  • lulu46
    replied
    I hear what your saying I guess that's why there is not a law stating that you can go after the new spouses income and that its taken on an individual basis. In my case I work hard to make living he never sees the kids has basically walked away and started over and is now trying to get out of financial support...so what choice do I have

    Leave a comment:


  • billm
    replied
    Originally posted by got2bkid View Post
    Billm,

    I disagree 100% that new spouses should have to contribute to the ex wife.

    My husbands ex wife CHOOSE not to work, CHOOSE to go to University (when she already had 2 diplomas), CHOOSE to move accross the country with the kids (and not contribute to ex husbands access), CHOOSE to spend all the money sent for the kids on herself, so basically CHOOSE to keep those kids poor, while she went to University. Becasue of all HER CHOICES, she take 40% of my husbands take home pay every month in CS and "extras".

    I'll be damed if she is "entitled" to the hard earned money I make to support our two kids soley on my own, because, as you know, only "first" kids are "entitled" to a share of their fathers incomes, "second" kids aren't.
    It is CS, not SS we are talking about, and your wording sounds like you view it as SS. I hear what you are saying, but you are mixing your issues. I am simply refering to how much CS should be paid, which is based on one's means and if one's means are affected by their spouse/partner, then it is reasonable to consider that.

    I agree with you that one's means are also affected by having other children etc, and I agree with you that that also should be cosidered - I think that one should support ALL their kids EQUALLY. That amount should be based on their means, which potentially is affected (both positivley and negatively!) by ones current spouse/partner.

    Again, generally I don't think the spouse/partner income should be considered, but in cases where one is underemployed (with or without cause) and is being helped by their spouse, or is being supported above their means by their spouse (subsequently allowing them to have more free money than a 'normal' person with the same income), then it is reasonable to consider this when determining CS.

    Leave a comment:


  • got2bkid
    replied
    Billm,

    I disagree 100% that new spouses should have to contribute to the ex wife.

    My husbands ex wife CHOOSE not to work, CHOOSE to go to University (when she already had 2 diplomas), CHOOSE to move accross the country with the kids (and not contribute to ex husbands access), CHOOSE to spend all the money sent for the kids on herself, so basically CHOOSE to keep those kids poor, while she went to University. Becasue of all HER CHOICES, she take 40% of my husbands take home pay every month in CS and "extras".

    I'll be damed if she is "entitled" to the hard earned money I make to support our two kids soley on my own, because, as you know, only "first" kids are "entitled" to a share of their fathers incomes, "second" kids aren't.

    Leave a comment:


  • frustrated11
    replied
    Originally posted by #1StepMom View Post
    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.

    oh my that is really scary..it seems that everything goes out the window with family court and its at the whim of the CP and their lawyers

    Leave a comment:


  • lulu46
    replied
    Sorry I think this was meant for the #1Stepmom
    e

    Leave a comment:


  • billm
    replied
    Originally posted by #1StepMom View Post
    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.
    Last edited by billm; 07-21-2009, 12:34 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • lulu46
    replied
    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!

    Leave a comment:


  • #1StepMom
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • allay
    replied
    No but go on.

    Leave a 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