Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2 support payers for one child?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 2 support payers for one child?

    I'll try not to get into too many details but my ex-wife and I have two children joint custody of them and they live with me half the time. The oldest is 14 and is not my biological son but I have raised him since birth. We had a paternity test done when he was two and it revealed that another man was the father. He has never had much to do with my son except for the odd visit once or twice a year. When I was still married to my ex-wife I pushed her to collect child support but she never would. Now that we are divorced I pay offset child support for both children. Recently the biological father after 14 years has been contacting me Out of the blue blaming me for the reason he has not seen "his" son. Basically the tone of his emails is to tell me that my job here is done and he's ready to take over. My ex-wife will still not agree to collect any child support from him even though she has been allowing him to spend time with our son.

    My lawyer has advised me that I could make a claim that he cover a portion of the child support since he is in contact with my son and he has not paid a dime in 14 years. Has anyone ever experienced anything like this? If it is a possibility as my lawyer states I am fully prepared to go ahead with a motion to put a child support obligation on this man. I don't see why after all these years he has not had to take any responsibility whatsoever for this child and my child support I currently pay is high enough that it takes away from our quality of life.I also firmly believe, although hard to prove, that he is paying some form of child support off the books to my ex-wife.

    For instance, if he makes $50,000 a year and has no access to the child, should he not be paying child support based on the full table amount for his salary?

    It's a tough situation because at mom's house there are no rules for my 14 year old to follow which makes it a very attractive place for a teenager to live. His mother and her family have been making him many promises to buy him things do things for him if he was to go live there full-time. If I have to pay full table amount on the one child my current support obligation is over double what it currently is putting myself my new wife and my younger son in a tough financial position.

    I would hope that the court would see that I am trying to provide for my family and there is a biological father who is in the picture who owns a business who makes money that could be and should be providing for his child. I'm not saying that I will not continue to pay a portion of the support for my oldest but I do not believe that it is fair or logical to have one person burdened financially in this situation.

    Any advice would be welcome. Thank you

  • #2
    You have a unique situation and I don't think anyone can really give great advice here. Your best course of action would be to lawyer up and see what happens.

    On the surface, the bio dad owes 14 years of child tax arrears and ongoing support. You have taken over the role of father aka step parent with this child, so you are also on the hook of child support.

    You are both obligated to pay, him being that bio dad, regardless of contact with the child he owes child support no matter what.

    Your child support would eventually cease or go away if your social and emotional relationship with that child ended with the passage of time.

    There are lots of other variables at play here that I am not even going to try and I think your lawyer presents a good case to the judge.

    The first issue bio dad needs to pay cs. Your issue will be secondary once that is solved.

    Comment


    • #3
      Also don't forget that the bio dad can try and work his way up to having regular access to the child in question.

      I take it the child knows the situation regarding his bio dad?

      Comment


      • #4
        Like I said, the first issue is bio dad needs to ongoing pay cs. Your issue will be secondary once that is solved.

        The courts primary concern is best interests of the child homie! Regardless of where it comes from, child needs to be supported by someone. That is the guiding principle.

        Look at this case and paragraph 33

        Pittolo vs Pittolo

        33 The welfare of the child is the primary concern and the step‑parent may be required to put the child back in the position he would have been in had the relationship not broken down. This obligation is fair since the adult chose to take on the role of becoming a step‑parent and this may impose an obligation to provide a fair standard of support. A child should not, however, benefit from the break down of the relationship in the sense that the child should not receive more than he would have had when living in the relationship in which he experienced the highest standard of living. If there is no need on behalf of the child and he already receives a fair standard of support from his biological parents then the step‑parent should not be obligated to pay support. I see no rationale for making a step‑parent pay child support regardless of the child's situation.

        I don't see mom agreeing to this outside of a court order.
        1. She doesn't care where the child support comes from, it's dollah billz yo Mr.White $$$ so why change it..as long as the good times keep rolling, she'll be happy.
        2. I think it gets sticky now because I don't think you can go after the bio dad for child support, Mom has to initiate it or kid does, I don't know but either way you can't and it's a hella lot of work for nothing and no gain (for her that is unless dude makes like 10x more than you do than kaching increase in child support table amount and she'll be your number one fan!) to just help you..HAR HAR.

        So flip it out, if you make 2 x more than him, she actually has incentive to NOT do anything about it and FIGHT YOU as her child support would go down if transferred to the biological dad.

        In the endz, forget the kid and what's fair, what's in it for mommy?

        So..either way your only recourse is to go to court and see what a judge decides based upon the merits of your argument.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by FirstTimer View Post
          Like I said, the first issue is bio dad needs to ongoing pay cs. Your issue will be secondary once that is solved.

          The courts primary concern is best interests of the child homie! Regardless of where it comes from, child needs to be supported by someone. That is the guiding principle.

          Look at this case and paragraph 33

          Pittolo vs Pittolo

          33 The welfare of the child is the primary concern and the step‑parent may be required to put the child back in the position he would have been in had the relationship not broken down. This obligation is fair since the adult chose to take on the role of becoming a step‑parent and this may impose an obligation to provide a fair standard of support. A child should not, however, benefit from the break down of the relationship in the sense that the child should not receive more than he would have had when living in the relationship in which he experienced the highest standard of living. If there is no need on behalf of the child and he already receives a fair standard of support from his biological parents then the step‑parent should not be obligated to pay support. I see no rationale for making a step‑parent pay child support regardless of the child's situation.

          I don't see mom agreeing to this outside of a court order.
          1. She doesn't care where the child support comes from, it's dollah billz yo Mr.White $$$ so why change it..as long as the good times keep rolling, she'll be happy.
          2. I think it gets sticky now because I don't think you can go after the bio dad for child support, Mom has to initiate it or kid does, I don't know but either way you can't and it's a hella lot of work for nothing and no gain (for her that is unless dude makes like 10x more than you do than kaching increase in child support table amount and she'll be your number one fan!) to just help you..HAR HAR.

          So flip it out, if you make 2 x more than him, she actually has incentive to NOT do anything about it and FIGHT YOU as her child support would go down if transferred to the biological dad.

          In the endz, forget the kid and what's fair, what's in it for mommy?

          So..either way your only recourse is to go to court and see what a judge decides based upon the merits of your argument.
          I see what you're saying, the court and the mother would obviously not want child support to diminish. My point will be, if the support doesn't change, he should contribute something towards that monthly amount. In the end the mother doesn't get any less money and it's more money in my pocket as I have another child to support. I want to cover myself so that in the event he goes to live with his mom full time, I'm not left broke with little money to care for my younger child.

          I think it's up to the judges discretion.

          If my oldest ever came to live with me full time and she had to pay me, you can be damn sure she would order the bio dad to pay some of it. Lol

          Comment


          • #6
            That's correct sir. I think what you are proposing is fair and reasonable.

            Do not use the I have a new family to support issue though it might be okay since the child is not yours.

            You can see on other threads where a parent asked if he can use the excuse that I want my child support to decrease because I have a new family.

            There are some very bitter and resentful people here so you will be flamed guaranteed.

            I think your lawyer has a good case. You're not asking for undue hardship but reality is that the dad is there now (not that it matters in terms of him paying child support) and why should be tasked for the full burden. However, how are you guys going to enforce the bio father to do child support if he hasn't ever (and under the table)?

            Doesn't that piece have to fall in place first (aka support order for the bio dad) before you can go in with your request for reduction?


            Originally posted by Teddie View Post
            I see what you're saying, the court and the mother would obviously not want child support to diminish. My point will be, if the support doesn't change, he should contribute something towards that monthly amount. In the end the mother doesn't get any less money and it's more money in my pocket as I have another child to support. I want to cover myself so that in the event he goes to live with his mom full time, I'm not left broke with little money to care for my younger child.

            I think it's up to the judges discretion.

            If my oldest ever came to live with me full time and she had to pay me, you can be damn sure she would order the bio dad to pay some of it. Lol

            Comment


            • #7
              LOL, I laugh nervously cause I think you're completely serious.
              Originally posted by Teddie View Post
              If my oldest ever came to live with me full time and she had to pay me, you can be damn sure she would order the bio dad to pay some of it. Lol

              Comment


              • #8
                What a bizarre situation. I'm sure it's next to impossible to search CanLII for precedents!

                My logical brain is telling me that this is just a child with three parents, and all three should pay table CS which would be divided according to their access. Biodad especially! I think it's disgusting that any parent should get away with not supporting their kid, no matter how little access they have. While access is 50-50, you and your ex do offset for your own obligations and would divide biodad's CS in half.

                I could see a judge thinking that when you discovered that this child was not biologically yours, CS from the biodad was not pursued in all the subsequent years during which your relationship with the mother was intact. So you set a precedent that you would provide for the child and the biodad had no responsibility. Now you are divorced from the mother, and have 50-50 custody of a child who isn't biologically yours (but whom you love, I'm not questioning that) pursuing CS from the biodad seems like a cash grab.

                The boy could move to live with his biodad, and you would still be on the hook (in loco parentis and all that) for table CS, along with the mother!

                Comment


                • #9
                  This is a good one on a case where the judge agreed that a step parent once terminating a loco parentis role is not obligated to pay child support.

                  Carignan v. Carignan

                  Until fairly recent years, the case law indicated that the relationship in loco parentis was purely voluntary. No one was obliged by law to continue their generosity. To impose the legal obligation to continue might deter many a person from being generous in the first place, which is self-defeating from the stand*point of the interests of the child. It seems to me axiomatic that the more difficult it is to terminate the relationship in loco parentis, the less likely it will be for people to enter into the relationship in the first place.

                  So to you OP, I commend you for stepping in and supporting the child who is not biologically yours. That's a noble thing to do, and you shouldn't be expected to for the rest of your life when things go sideways especially if the bio dad is now around.

                  We shouldn't punish someone for doing the right thing.

                  And I'll be frank and I'll say even if others just think it. If I knew that if I started dating a girl that has a kid and if things went SOUR, I would still be on the hook for supporting him the rest of his life, I would find that complete and utter BS.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I disagree with this completely. He did it out kindness and now he's set a precedent?

                    This is where the whole precedent argument gets out of hand. It's like I date a girl, we get married, I have no job, she supports me for the next 2 years. We break up, but hey she set a precedent so now she's on the hook for spousal support cause she helped my sorry ass..cause you know she did it to herself.

                    Like c'mon, how about giving her credit for helping me out, and now I need to get my sorry ass a real job and let her move on with her life.

                    And yes, a child is different but this is not his bio kid...remember, not his bio kid.

                    How many guys would date a chick with a kid if they had no kids themselves? I definitely didn't. It's simple math. Why fall in love with a girl that has no strings attached or fall in love with a girl with strings and baggage.

                    Originally posted by Rioe View Post
                    So you set a precedent that you would provide for the child and the biodad had no responsibility. Now you are divorced from the mother, and have 50-50 custody of a child who isn't biologically yours (but whom you love, I'm not questioning that) pursuing CS from the biodad seems like a cash grab.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by FirstTimer View Post
                      I disagree with this completely. He did it out kindness and now he's set a precedent?

                      This is where the whole precedent argument gets out of hand. It's like I date a girl, we get married, I have no job, she supports me for the next 2 years. We break up, but hey she set a precedent so now she's on the hook for spousal support cause she helped my sorry ass..cause you know she did it to herself.

                      Like c'mon, how about giving her credit for helping me out, and now I need to get my sorry ass a real job and let her move on with her life.

                      And yes, a child is different but this is not his bio kid...remember, not his bio kid.

                      How many guys would date a chick with a kid if they had no kids themselves? I definitely didn't. It's simple math. Why fall in love with a girl that has no strings attached or fall in love with a girl with strings and baggage.
                      I didn't say it was RIGHT. I just said it was possible. What you've described up there in your spousal support example DOES happen.

                      If a man finds out YEARS after the fact that his wife's child is not biologically his and they break up, I think the woman ought to be compensating HIM for damages suffered from her misrepresentation AND paying CS when he has the child. Fraud is a crime.

                      However, we all know that the most important consideration is the best interests of the child. In the case of a child of such a situation, it's best that all the adults who love the child are given access, and all the adults involved (biologically related or not) pay CS.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Thank you everyone for your input.

                        I think its completely up to the discretion of the judge and a lot of it has to do with how the case is presented.

                        My opinion, which means nothings at the end of the day, is that this guy should be paying something. He has come back into my sons life and according to what my son told me, is trying to get him to live with his mother full time and trying to arrange a weekly visit with him at his moms house.

                        I have brought this up with his mother and she stated that the bio-dad and her have an "arrangement" that she won't elaborate on. I am dead set against paying full cs if this is the case as it impacts my situation and my own bio-sons situation.

                        My opinion would be, if full table amount was $1000 for the one kid. It could be split based on our respective incomes. I'm not really sure how a judge would approach this. The other problem is, getting the bio dad to submit financials and such could be expensive if he is not willing at first.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I've read case law where the child support of one father was reduced by the CSG amount of the other father and they both paid.

                          However that was a loco parentis case where the Dad was paying most of the support and the step-dad was paying the discounted amount.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Teddie View Post
                            My opinion would be, if full table amount was $1000 for the one kid. It could be split based on our respective incomes. I'm not really sure how a judge would approach this. The other problem is, getting the bio dad to submit financials and such could be expensive if he is not willing at first.
                            Full table amount would depend on the person's income though. Are you suggesting finding out table income for each of you, using the higher of the two, and then splitting that amount proportional to income? That might be something to propose (although you'd want the lower income's share to cap out at their table CS). Then the mom is getting the equivalent of full CS as though one other parent were involved, but it's shared between the two other parents instead. It might be considered too complicated though, especially since there's a younger kid on the offset system.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              One thing I have personally learned in family court is that decisions are based on facts and not "what ifs."

                              Now I don't know much about child custody or child support but I do know that judges first of all consider "best interests of the child." With that in mind you would likely be on the hook for the child. In the event that the biological father is ever ordered to pay CS then, and only then, would you likely be able to have CS examined.

                              So I'd focus on getting the mother to go after the biological father to start paying. How you would do that? Until the bio dad pays, it would be in the "best interests of the child" for you to continue paying. I don't think anyone would endorse you stopping payment unless there was support money coming in from somewhere else.

                              I could be wrong (would love to be wrong) though.

                              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