Child support for non-biological child

[StepMom25]

Just thought I would throw this topic out there.

Husband pays child support every month for his daughter plus a son who is not his (nor has he seen in 4 years). Once we have children of our own, would it be possible to get the child support for the non-bio son either lowered or removed completely? Wondering if anyone has been in this position before. Doesn’t seem “fair” that bio-children should lose out on financial gain because of a non-bio child.

[HammerDad]

Just thought I would throw this topic out there.

Husband pays child support every month for his daughter plus a son who is not his (nor has he seen in 4 years). Once we have children of our own, would it be possible to get the child support for the non-bio son either lowered or removed completely? Wondering if anyone has been in this position before. Doesn’t seem “fair” that bio-children should lose out on financial gain because of a non-bio child.

Welcome to the world of double/triple dipping where custodial parents can cause the bio-parent, plus any future spouse to pay full child support for the same child and the Canadian laws that allow it.

If your husband acted as a parent (which it is pretty much deemed he did for a period when they were together) the courts will cause him to pay child support for all children of the family. That includes children that are not biologically his. There is very little ways out of this and it would probably be quite costly.

And the courts do not care about 2nd or 3rd families. The courts position is that each party of the new family understands there are responsibilities to support the children of the previous relationship, so any decision they make going forward should take the obligation into account. So if the new family will be under financial strain if they decide to have a child of their own, well that is too bad. They should have better thought of the financial impact of the new child and if they can't afford to have a child, then they shouldn't have bothered. It is the "don't buy what you can't afford" argument.

[StepMom25]

I shouldn't be surprised with anything the Canadian legal system lays out. LOL

I compeltely understand that "don't buy what you can't afford" arguement when it comes to biological children, it amazes me that it can apply to non-bio children. It is esentially saying too bad if you want biological children, a child you had no say in creating (or parenting now) is more important.

You are financially responsible for the non-bio child while you are in the relationship. Once that relationship disolves, the financial responsibility should end for a non-bio child.

Ahhh if only I wrote the laws ;-)

[NBDad]

Is Bio-Dad in the picture? Does Bio-Dad pay support? If not, why not? The time to bring this argument up would have been when they split.

Hindsight being 20-20, if Bio-Dad isn't paying support, then the argument to make your husband pay is lessened substantially. And if Bio Dad IS in the picture and paying support, then your husband should pay a reduced amount, if anything.

Unfortunately, that mistake is going to be expensive to fix. You need a lawyer who knows what he is doing to help you sort this issue out.

[StepMom25]

No, the bio-dad is not in the picture.

I agree NBDad, I think it would be a costly issue to resolve. I wonder if our best bet is to just keep paying until he is 18 (four more years) and then take it to court to ensure we don't pay after that.

[billiechic]

If your husband has not had a relationship with that child for 4 years, is not encouraged to see him or is not allowed to see him, then I see no reason why he should continue paying.

I know CS is not tied into access, but this is not his child and he has no continuing relationship. Have you looked for case law to support your position?

[ConcernenedStepMom78]

Okay I havre to ask this...Why is that a step parent who acted/acts as a a parent in every way has the right to pay CS but O rights to sign legal forms....does anyone see something wrong with this picture?

[billiechic]

CUSTODY. Not every parent has custody, so why should a step?

[ConcernenedStepMom78]

It still seems wrong that they CAN be ordered to support them finacially but then they have NO rights otherwise.

[HammerDad]

Okay I havre to ask this...Why is that a step parent who acted/acts as a a parent in every way has the right to pay CS but O rights to sign legal forms....does anyone see something wrong with this picture?

Because the step-parent isn't a party in the court application or agreement, that is why they have no rights to sign documents.

But payment of child support in order to maintain the financial environment that the child would enjoy had everyone stayed together, notwithstanding it being a 2nd, 3rd or 8th marriage, has been determined as being the childs best interests.

[ConcernenedStepMom78]

I get it Hammer it still doesnt make it right

[HammerDad]

I get it Hammer it still doesnt make it right

I agree. IMO it is just inviting the issue of allowing CP's to wallet hunt in order to obtain multiple CS cheques a month for the same kid. It is effectively turning the kid into a form of income and the payors into bank machines.

[ConcernenedStepMom78]

does that mean we should have atm's built into our backsisides?

[StepMom25]

CSM78 - As a step parent are you paying CS??!?!?

[ConcernenedStepMom78]

Not Yet but could be in the future... Honestly I do not care If I were as far as I am concerned they are equally mine as my own. My husband and I have a great relationship and understanding, and IF things were ever to break down I love my stepkids and I have NO right to put a value on them any more than my own from an emotional and loving bond.