Child support - one possible solution on no accountability

[e28makaveli]

I just read through this thread with interest and agree with some of the comments from the original poster.

Yes, it would be difficult to come up with a way of ensuring accountability but I would not rate this challenge as impossible, nor be quick to dismiss it as absurd. It is indeed a legitimate problem. Having said this what about requesting that a certain portion of C/S be allocated towards the children's RESP?

For example, say C/S recipient chooses not work work, receives X dollars a month on C/S payments and further receives Y dollars a month on government subsidies. Also, assume, one can come up with a realistic estimate on how much is spent on the children's basic needs, which is far less than X+Y. After all, the C/S recipients are also expected to financially contribute to the welfare of the children. Further assume that none of the children are currently engaged in extracurricular activities and there could be proof most of the C/S is not going towards the children; the children hardly report new clothes or toys and C/S recipient expects the payor to buy his own clothes for the children.

Under such a scenario, can one suggest that a portion, say 15-20%, of C/S payments be directed towards the children's RESP? After all, this would be in the best interest of the children and could be a win-win for everyone with this goal in mind.

This total lack of accountability from the C/S recipient, especially in cases where it is warranted, can hinder progress just from the mere thought of potentially 'throwing money' away. Could one, therefore, expect it be a reasonable request that any additional increase in child support due to the payor's increased earnings be directed towards an RESP account for the kids?

Seems logical to me.....

[Janus]

Child support does not really account for savings in RESP accounts. If you are willing to increase the table values of CS by 15%, and have that 15% go into an RESP, then I am sure you will find many people who consider that to be a wonderful solution.

Be careful what you wish for...

Anyhow, lack of accountability is not a "problem". It is a "feature". The people who made the rules don't actually want the custodial parent to be accountable.

Also, money is fungible. If you gave me money and said I could only spend it on my kid's food and clothing, I will use your money to buy food and clothes, and then use the money that I would have spent on the food to buy myself some plastic surgery. You may have earmarked the money for food, but really you just bought me my new sculpted pecs.

Or, more pertinent to your solution, I already give money to RESP accounts. If you give me money that can only be used for such accounts, I'll just stop putting my money into the RESP, and buy myself previously described picture perfect pecs.

[Rioe]

Also, money is fungible. If you gave me money and said I could only spend it on my kid's food and clothing, I will use your money to buy food and clothes, and then use the money that I would have spent on the food to buy myself some plastic surgery. You may have earmarked the money for food, but really you just bought me my new sculpted pecs.

The expectation though, is that money in the amount of the CS is still being spent on the children by the CS recipient, ie, clothing IS being purchased.

The original thread contained examples of situations where the CS receiver was NOT using any money, not their own nor the CS, on clothing. The children were dressed unsuitably (in rags or too-small items), forcing the CS payor to take them shopping and buy them clothing with additional money. This has the result that the payor is now paying CS+X where X is the cost of the clothing.

It would be nice to see some sort of system to prevent that type of thing from occurring.

[Berner_Faith]

The expectation though, is that money in the amount of the CS is still being spent on the children by the CS recipient, ie, clothing IS being purchased.

The original thread contained examples of situations where the CS receiver was NOT using any money, not their own nor the CS, on clothing. The children were dressed unsuitably (in rags or too-small items), forcing the CS payor to take them shopping and buy them clothing with additional money. This has the result that the payor is now paying CS+X where X is the cost of the clothing.

It would be nice to see some sort of system to prevent that type of thing from occurring.

I agree... however it then comes down to personal opinion... yes clothes should fit but if one parent chooses to shop second hand and buy sweat suits for the children to wear that is their choice. If the other parent wants the children to wear brand name clothing only, where is the line drawn? My husband pays full CS, and we have bought all our own clothes for the kids for 7 years... the way their mother dresses and chooses to dress the children is opposite of what we choose. So he is essentially paying more than he should.

The sad thing is... we take the kids shopping and somehow my step sons clothes always end up at moms house. Socks are the worst... I swear I buy them at least once a month but he never seems to have any at our house because he takes them to moms. Same with jeans... he comes in sweat pants and asks to wear his jeans home... their his clothes so he can do as he wishes but we are almost paying three times as much for clothing now (his CS should provide clothing, ds takes his clothing to moms and we replace clothing at our house). Frustrating yes but he is 11 and wants to wear something other than sweat pants so we do what we need to. Dad has mentioned it to mom and she says he has plenty of clothes yet always seems dresses in the same few items.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk