Ottawa Divorce .com Forums

Ottawa Divorce .com Forums (https://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/index.php)
-   Divorce & Family Law (https://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   Can Support be Reduced if I have another child in second marriage???? (https://www.ottawadivorce.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7670)

oakley 09-23-2010 04:28 PM

Can Support be Reduced if I have another child in second marriage????
 
I am presently paying support for one 13 year old child from my first marriage and I am going to have a child in my second marriage in January 2011, are there any laws that will help me reduce my child support to my first child if I am having a second??? I can't afford to support my new relationship and new baby with what I am paying now............child support, $350.00 in section 7 expenses, plus othrodonist etc.

How do they expect men to go on with their lives............

Please any advise would be great.

InterprovincialParents 09-23-2010 04:41 PM

Unfortunately, the law only allows one recourse...to file a claim for undue hardship. It is a very onerous and difficult task. And the courts work from a base assumption that separated or divorced parents should not have more children than they can afford to support...

However, should you feel you can put forth a claim, the information can be found at the link below...

The Federal Child Support Guidelines: Step-by-Step

Rioe 09-23-2010 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oakley (Post 49119)
I am presently paying support for one 13 year old child from my first marriage and I am going to have a child in my second marriage in January 2011, are there any laws that will help me reduce my child support to my first child if I am having a second??? I can't afford to support my new relationship and new baby with what I am paying now............child support, $350.00 in section 7 expenses, plus othrodonist etc.

How do they expect men to go on with their lives............

Please any advise would be great.

There's no way to say this without sounding harsh, but you are, and should be, responsible for your first child no matter what else happens in your life. Was there no discussion about finances before you and the new spouse decided to have a child?

A parent is expected to go on with their life in full recognition that the consequences of the first half should not be ignored.

That said, I believe there is some sort of mechanism for changing child support due to undue hardship or material change in circumstances, but that may be limited to unanticipated events, such as job loss. Even a child conceived by accident is not wholly unanticipated; you know where babies come from! Other people would be better sources of advice about that though, as it's not an area that applies to me so I haven't done any research there.

Good luck, and congratulations!

NBDad 09-23-2010 05:34 PM

You can try making a motion for an undue hardship claim, but I will warn you now you face a VERY uphill battle. Undue hardship takes into account the standard of living in both households, since you are married it will ALSO take into account your wife's income.

The bottom line is that you have an obligation to support your children, and the fact you and your new wife CHOSE to have a second child does not alleviate your obligation to the first one.

dadtotheend 09-23-2010 06:21 PM

This question has been hotly debated around here many times. If you search for it in the forum you will find many passionate opinions.

representingself 09-23-2010 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oakley (Post 49119)
I am presently paying support for one 13 year old child from my first marriage and I am going to have a child in my second marriage in January 2011, are there any laws that will help me reduce my child support to my first child if I am having a second??? I can't afford to support my new relationship and new baby with what I am paying now............

How do they expect men to go on with their lives...........

As the other posters have already pointed out... you were aware of your obligations to your first child before you decided to have another.

It is reasonable to assume that you were aware of the financial implications of having a baby, and considering the cost of said obligations... you still chose to impregnate your new spouse.

You can request relief from the courts by making a claim of undue hardship, but unless your combined household income is substantially less than that of your ex spouse, leaving you at a severe disadvantage, you will be wasting your time.

Maybe you could try negotiating with your ex for a reduction?

It is reasonable that after a marriage dissolves, that both parties can expect to be able to "move on" and rebuild, meet new partners etc..... and you can.

What you can not do is negate your responsibility to your children. It is certainly not their fault that your marriage failed!!!

rwm1273 09-23-2010 08:30 PM

Under Australian laws, both incomes of the two households and all children are taken into consideration. They do a calculation to see how many days the children spend at each other home, and then equalize the payments to ensure all children enjoy similar standards of living.

It is much more fair for children.

InterprovincialParents 09-23-2010 08:38 PM

We are usually 10 yrs behind AU, legislatively:(

oakley 09-24-2010 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by InterprovincialParents (Post 49121)
Unfortunately, the law only allows one recourse...to file a claim for undue hardship. It is a very onerous and difficult task. And the courts work from a base assumption that separated or divorced parents should not have more children than they can afford to support...

However, should you feel you can put forth a claim, the information can be found at the link below...

The Federal Child Support Guidelines: Step-by-Step

I want to clear up something here, I am not trying to get out of paying child support for my son nor section 7 but the facts are as follows:

My ex won't let me see my son for over 1 yr now, Parental Alienation

I was forced to pay $350.00 in section 7 expenses, which is 50% of $700.00 a month my ex spends on outside of school activies for my son, 10 in all, which was argued my my lawyer, therapist, mediator that it is too many for a 13 yr old child, ex refused to comply

I don't see my son so I don't now if that money is really being used for the activites, because my ex refuses to co-parent and consult with me before signing him up, refuses to send me a schedule, and refuses to send me receipts etc. so I am paying blind

I am forced to pay monthly even though things may change year to year or with my son growing up until he turns 25 as a student or 18 non-student, for these activites all because my exc refused to settle the case unless she got this and she dosen't wnat me to see my son nor talk to me

I wanted to attend a reconnection program to try and be able to see my son, shich I have been fighting for over 2 yrs for visitations on the advice of the mediator, my ex finally agreed on a 6 mnth trial basis, but program usually works best if attended for 3 years, but I am forced to pay for me and my son at $85 per hour 2 hours per week so we are looking at an additional $650 per month (that I can't afford) on top of paying the other supports all because she refuses to let my son see me

My ex lives with her parents and pays no rent no morgage and no household bills, she makes $65000 per yr and she walked aways with more RRSPs than me (which she refused to give me my equal portion), plus more from the house sale, she walked away with winning the lottery, I have to pay ent and household bills and I do not make much more than her annually, she had more savings than me in bank and more assests and I got nothing

Its this is fair women can go on and remarry and have more children etc but the man cannot because he has to pay for a previous child, nonsense, many women out there make a living off child and sposal support and men can't go on having another life and family because of the monary value on it.......not moral at all

There has to be a law or soemthing that evaluates that my ex lives for free and has alot of money in the bank, makes good money and only has one child to support, which in reality my support of $600 per month is more than enoguh to cover anything my child needs and put most of it in savings still, since she doens't have to pay living expenses or literally provide for him, food, clean cloths etc, becaue her mother does it for her. Our living expenses, obligations and living conditions are totally opposite extremes. There must be help out there somewhere for men in my situtation??????

dadtotheend 09-24-2010 01:45 PM

You're mixing issues with CS.

Parental alienation is reprehensible and completely immoral but access has nothing to do with support. You won't win an argument for reduced support by claiming denial of access.

Equalization (she walked with the RRSP's) - same story. Should have been dealt with when you equalized family property.

Your arguments need to centre around your income, her (imputed if necessary) income, and the necessary section 7 expenses.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:31 PM.