Child Support

[wretchedotis]

So there's a break-down in Child Support tables for single, two, three, etc children. As I understand, each succesive child has a dminishing return attached to it in the CS tables.

So what would happen if I argued that I should pay the "third child" amount? I have a child with her, and she has two additional kids subsequent to our common child. So her and her household hold threee children.

Could I argue that I should be the beneficiary of the diminshing return factor and only pay the 'third childs' amount?

Yeah I can hear the boo's and hisses already for trying to get out of paying 'what i owe!'...lol

Regardless - seems like a reasonable arguement to this wishfull thinker.

[HammerDad]

Regardless - seems like a reasonable arguement to this wishfull thinker.

Her other ex's are responsible for their full proportion, just as you are. If each of you took this position, your ex would be getting fractions of what other single parents would receive.


For lack of a better way to put it, this would be unfair to parents with multiple children arising from relationships with different individuals as each NCP would be clammering to claim the lesser amount.

[LostFather]

Her other ex's are responsible for their full proportion, just as you are. If each of you took this position, your ex would be getting fractions of what other single parents would receive.


For lack of a better way to put it, this would be unfair to parents with multiple children arising from relationships with different individuals as each NCP would be clammering to claim the lesser amount.

So basically one mom...three children all different dads full tables for each child...hmmm I am sure its been done many times over...good racket lol.

[DunnMom]

So to clarify ... the woman whom you share ONE child with has 2 other children (from a different man/men) ... you want to look at your income and the guideline amount for "3" children and then divide that amount by 3?

So if a parent paying support for 3 kids who earns $50,000 in Ontario is supposed to pay (according to guidelines) $986.00/mo .. YOU are suggesting that because you and the mother only have 1 child together you should be paying 1/3 of that amount (ie. $328.66/mo) as opposed to YOU being the legal parent of ONE of her children and according to guidelines should be paying $462.00 for your child?

If so ... HA HA HA HA ... good luck with THAT one! .... my question is ... despite the "mothers" lack of birth control and financial integrity where does YOUR role come in to play? Where you not aware that your newfound "love" had 2 other kids by one or more men ??? Yet you still chose to have unprotected sex which resulted in a child????

Oh .. and to add ... how do all the "baby daddy's" play out in this scenerio? ... do any of THEM have custody of the children and deal with the day to day raising of them? Do YOU have custody (or 50/50 access) of YOUR child ... that would certainly reduce any CS obligation YOU would have ... or would that cramp your lifestyle?

[wretchedotis]

Well. I had a relationship with her. We had a child together. We broke up, and she subsequently met and is now married to a man with whom she shares two additional children. They live together in their happy little fairey tale, and I'm happy for them.

So it would seem if they have their own family unit that is intact, my musings of perhaps asking for the "third childs" rate isn't so ridiculaous to me.

As pointed out in a post above - assuming different DADS for 3 different KIDS it is quite a good racket for a woman that wanted to base her life on being a baby farm.

As for my "role", I am a stand up DAD that never misses an access date and makes CS payments on time, every time. I appreciate your sarcastic tone, however. TYVM.

[standing on the sidelines]

to me your logic is a bit off. Your child is the 1St child according to age so if anything using your logic if she and her husband split up he should be the one to get reduced CS (do not agree at all) because according to age his child is the third child.

[billm]

I think full CS is appropriate.

CS is based on YOUR income, not the living standard of the child.

For example if your ex made a lot of money, or didn't make much money, your CS obligation does not change - even though in those two scenarios the living standard of the child is different.

It is true that your CS payments are not necessarily limited to the sole benefit of your child, but any reduction in your CS payment takes away from the standard of living for the child, and the idea behind the CS tables is that given your income and the number of children YOU have that is how much that is reasonable you spend on child care. How the money is spent, or the income/means of the other parent is not relevant.

[shellshocked22]

Just found it "interesting" that you wrote "how the child support is spent is not relevent". Out of curiousity are you agreeing with that statement or just stating that the law doesn't care how child support money is spent.

I still find it interesting that the courts will basically stop at nothing to ensure "child support" is paid YET there is NO accountability to how that money is spent, or even if the child gets any of it.

I know we don't make the laws, but can anyone comment on why the law deems it "OK" if mommy spends "child support" partying/gambling or poor financial choices when its suppose to help the child. I have no problem paying CHILD support but, call me crazy, want some guarantee it will be spent on the CHILD.

[Mess]

Because the other parent isn't your employee and you are not their boss. You're setting up obcene control scenarios with that regime. Hypothetically you want an independent third party to go over receipts and audit the spending, who the hell is going to pay for that? And will this be applied to all parents, even ones that haven't divorced, so that we can ensure that children get their just percentage of household income spent on them?

[dadtotheend]

I know we don't make the laws, but can anyone comment on why the law deems it "OK" if mommy spends "child support" partying/gambling or poor financial choices when its suppose to help the child. I have no problem paying CHILD support but, call me crazy, want some guarantee it will be spent on the CHILD.

So do you think that there should be a system of red tape run by the government and paid for by the taxpayers to ensure that baby gets diapers?

Sounds a little too Big Brother-ish to me.

[shellshocked22]

OK, I concur that perhaps there could be logistical hassles in enforcing proper spending; point taken and accepted.

However with respect that "I am not the boss", hmmmm...

I don't know about you, but in my past jobs the person who PAID me was THE BOSS lol. My point is, the payor is forking out all this cash with NO control on how its spent.

let me put it this way, how would YOU feel if you gave big bucks each month for child support but mommy spent it buying expensive outfits for mommy ?

Perhaps there could be a mechanism that IF the payor felt money was not being spent for the child's benefit, it could be challenged. We challenge every other effing thing in court in family law, why not this ?

Again, do you believe that there should be NO accountability on how child support is paid? yes or no ?

[dadtotheend]

I believe that parents ought to focus on their children's needs and if they have to resort to the courts to make rulings on what they should be doing as parents, then one or both of those parents has issues that go beyond how they spend the CS money.

And I put my family in that group as we spent far too much money and time in court instead of working it out ourselves.

I also believe that it isn't the rest of society's job to ensure that CS money gets spent on the kids. It's the private job of the two parents.

[shellshocked22]

Understood and I don't necessarily disagree.

However, we use the courts for everything else. What you said "should" also hold for spousal support, child access, etc. However, that is in an "ideal" world which of course does not exist.

That is, we shouldn't really have to go to court at all for this family law crap but we do right ?

I'm not trying to start any fights here, just frustrated that no one seems to care if child support is really used for that purpose....

[wretchedotis]

Because the other parent isn't your employee and you are not their boss. You're setting up obcene control scenarios with that regime.

Of course, this is correct. But...

Just found it "interesting" that you wrote "how the child support is spent is not relevent".

... during discussion of my CS obligations with my ex - she once used the retort "Maybe you forget just how expensive it is to have a baby."

The problem is that she wasn't referring to her and my son. She was referring to her infant child resulting from her new relationship.

Now of course it is expensive to buy diapers, formula, and all that.
However, the money I pay for CS with respect to her and my mutual son (at least in my admittedtly narrow view), should not be factored into whether or not diapers and formula are expensive. Our child no longer uses either.

So perhaps I am an un-evolved man as I was irked by her saying that. But irked I was.

Quite frankly, what that says to me is that she does not view it as "our son's" money. But rather "her money".
I don't like that.

[shellshocked22]

This is exactly the type of thing that I'm referring to.....