Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Support Variation

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by phoenix
    Couldn't this same argument be used regarding the $2000.00 in monthly spousal support? It was an agreement. The fact that his gains or losses have fluctuated are that, HIS gains and losses... the original agreement was $2000.00 per month in spousal support.

    I don't see a difference...
    That's because the equalization laws have already been applied. The assets were split and the agreement done. Equalization ends at ground zero. The value of each item is determined at the time of signing, and each party takes that asset. If it goes up or down, that's the chance yah take.

    Support is COMPLETEY different from assets. Support is a monthly obligation subject to the laws of the divorce act, the regular course of life and common sense. Support is a moving target unlike assest division. The act states that a material change can trigger a review of support. The guy lost his job. As well, there are a couple of new spouses that were no there at ground zero. This is certainly triggers a review. Time also can trigger a review. The entire concept of support is to get the other party going with regards to self sufficiency. It is not a lottery for life as some people expect it to be.

    The original agreement is for $2K per month. He paid that. And now circumstances have changed. That's is the way it goes in the divorce act.

    What I don't get is that everyone is keen to jump on the guy since he increased his net worth post divorce, yet how unsympathetic they are since he lost his job. hmmm..

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by wildrose
      Thank you Phoenix. I was thinking the same thing but posting on here is like beating a dead horse so I made the choice not to bring any more information up on here. But I'm sure someone will have an argument with your post.
      Would you rather we say:

      "Yes, hammer your ex for support since he lost his job"
      "Hammer your ex since he increaed his net worth post divorce"
      "For sure he must pay you even though it has been years since divorce"'
      "For sure he must pay you even though you are living with someone"
      "For sure he must pay you even though he is living with someone"
      "For sure he must pay you contrary to the divorce act"

      What a hollow victory indeed. What a sad day for women.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by yoyo
        as well there aren't 2 spouses are there? wildrose isn't common law yet- he does have a spouse, but then first family first would apply. He knew of this obligation when he choose to start another family.
        Yikes. That's splitting hairs don't yah think? So he remarries, but she lives with someone. So I guess it only counts if they wait until common law or until they remarry. And thus my previous statements about the remarriage clause is validated. It's a useless statement.

        Personally, I'm getting extremely tired by the "first-family-first" nonsense. That's why it is called a divorce. So he must remain indebted to her regardless? BTW, I have clearly stated why her SS clause is completely open to both wide interpretation and the divorce act. Why are you defending it?

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Decent Dad
          So he must remain indebted to her regardless?
          Well... IMO, yes.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by phoenix
            Well... IMO, yes.
            So under no circumstances is support allowed to change. Wow, now I know why the Family Law courts are so full.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Decent Dad
              So under no circumstances is support allowed to change. Wow, now I know why the Family Law courts are so full.

              I know why too Decent Dad - cause not all of us are "decent" - some of us are greedy, and manipulative and use our children, our sex, our 'helplessness' to continue to milk our ex-spouse for as long as possible.

              Women who expect life-long support simply don't want to support themselves, and at this point in time, the courts are encouraging this disgraceful (yep, I said disgraceful, cause it is, you should be ashamed) behaviour.

              It makes me ill - it literally makes me feel nauseous - to hear these kinds of stories ... long, drawn out tales of woe about how deserving a woman is ... how dedicated to her family she is/was ... what a hero she is/was, this is what I have to say - Get off the cross, we need the wood.

              Your ex wasn't successful at his job because you stayed home and raised his children. (*more on this later) He was successful because he worked hard, is smart and made an effort - an honest effort.
              To work.
              Not an effort to convince a judge that he deserved someone else to support him until the day he died. This is totally different, and even if you do it full-time, it still isn't a real job.


              There are thousands and thousands of successful business men with wives who work, so that argument does not wash with me. (I happen to live with one such man right now!!!)
              Whether or not I work doesn't effect his career, not for one second. We have an equal relationship, we both act like adults, when I work late, he is with the kids, and vice versa. Wanna know why? Because we are both parents, we are both adults, we both have an obligation to support ourselves and our children. We are not looking for handouts, and if we should ever split up, I'll go right back to supporting myself - because I am proud, and independent and a responsible contributing member of society.

              I strongly suggest all women try out this outlook, it's truly liberating.


              * RE: his children - just while I am ranting here ... Anyone but me ever notice that they are HIS children when the woman was "forced" to forego a career to raise them, but they are HER children when she is demanding full child support and primary residence ... but perhaps that's a topic for another day.

              Comment


              • #67
                Wow, you really hit the nail on the head here workingthroughit. Bravo!

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by workingthruit
                  I* RE: his children - just while I am ranting here ... Anyone but me ever notice that they are HIS children when the woman was "forced" to forego a career to raise them, but they are HER children when she is demanding full child support and primary residence ... but perhaps that's a topic for another day.
                  Don't get me started...

                  Well said, btw.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    I am new to this site and recently read this thread. At first I thought not to respond but there are a few things that wildrose has said that I have taken offence to.

                    My story:
                    My husband was married for 8 years. His ex decided to leave the marraige after she had an affair with her best friends husband. They at that time had a one and half year old. She took the child with her. My husband first settled for one weekend on one weekend off and wednesdays. He decided at that tiem it was best for his daughter since he was under great stress at work...working extremly late most evening..trying to pay his mortgage and her new apartment. Mistake number one. They split all their matrimonial assests..50%. He then was ordered to pay her expenses while she went back to school.
                    A year later we meet. A year later we marry. I own a home and he has is home. We both sell and purchase a home together. The Ex then tries to get money from the sale of both of our homes( so back to court we go). She loses. We decide that it is time that we have more time with SD...we have spent tens of thousands of dollars in court fees doing this. We have obtained ALMOST 50% after we sign an agreement that no matter how much she earns we will never ask for an offset. If we didn't do this then they said we only want more time so that we don't have to pay.
                    We have to pay her SS for a total of 9 years!!!! She was a stay at home mom for 1 1/2 years...she was 34 at the time.

                    What I take offence to ....I have no option but to work. We have 2 other children...which she said that he shouldn't have had...first family priority..and the courts obviously agree. I work hard to support my children so that they can have a similar life to what his first child has. If I didn't work we would live somewhere not so nice and we would not be able to put money away for their education..we are forced to put money away for his daugther's education. What we earn after they divorce should be irrelevant...there is no entitlement to what he or I have (other that CS increases) but that isn't how the courts have seen it....the decrepancies between households should be minimal.

                    I would love to be home with my children but it is not financially possible. So, I rely on daycare, the kindness of family and I make my schedule flexible so that I can partake in their activities. So after a hard day at work I cart them off to swimming lessons, play dates, I feed them dinner, I grocery shop, I shop at second hand store for their clothes and I clean my house

                    If we didn't pay her SS our lives would be different. If she didn't punish my husband and make him go to court to gain what is his right..access to his daughter equally, we would have tens of thousands of dollars more.

                    I agree...it doesn't matter how long you have been married...the courts will grant you SS. You will win. It makes me upset to know that there are women who think it is their entitlement. His ex felt that it was her right to my money....I earned everythng I have on MY OWN!!!! I use my income to support us and on top of that I include his daughter...I buy her clothes, taking her on outings, buy her gifts when she has a party to go to, she goes on vacations on our dime...her mom has never taken her anywhere.

                    I have ranted enough about this but it is just unfair that women can't find away to do it themselves. We pay lots of child support and that is what our obligation should be not to increase his Ex's standard of living.... it is just WRONG!!!!!

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      I totally agree with tyra....Some women just are total idiots. My husbands ex put their son in daycare without his consent (she should be in contempt of court), paternal grandmother had agreeed to watch him for free. She claimed that she put him in daycare so that she could look for full time work, took her almost 2 years to get that. SO full days daycare, with her at home partying all the time, nothing we can do. If we had the $$ we would go for primary care, but as its is, we have him 35-40% of time and lawyer says we don't have him enough to go for shared custody, that the judge would just think we were looking to get out of child support...We are not. but when you get calls saying that she doesn't have money for winter boots or new clothes but she just had her hair and nails done at a posh spa in the city...you get mad. Also, she is not paying any rent..so where is this money going,...her $$ intended for their child. There should be an accounting of where it is spent, as I know others in the same boat where the primary care givers are using the for themselves. Don't get me wrong, I know there are legit people out there, but sometimes you get so frustrated

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        After watching a close friend (no children but 20yrs plus marriage) separate at age 42, pay $2300 per month for 5 yrs, tried to reduce and get on with his life, his ex used the old saw of fibromyalgia, and other vague illnesses to rack him up to $4000 a month. She had made no attempt to retrain or increase her part time hours, won $3300, the judge ordered arrears, court costs, forcing him into instant bankruptcy, loss of credit rating due to arrears, he became despondent, suicidal, and now on sick leave for a year. He will never be able to live on what he has left and do his job. He owes $75,000 in legals and arrears, which bankruptcy does not absolve, and no chance of paying it back in his lifetime. Ex has refused to budge,and calls the police when he tries to plead with her to be reasonable so he can get back to work. He is despondent, hopeless. This may sound unbelievable but the support gets yearly cost of living indexes up and annually reviewed to see if she can squeeze even more out of him. They have recenty threatened him with jail time if he does not pony up the arrears, so he is now giving her $500.00more than he is getting himself from his disability. The FRO comforted him by saying that some breadwinners get by on $800.00 a month.
                        Is there something wrong with this picture? Any advice out there for this poor wretch? None of us could believe this could happen but with the new spousal guidelines, 20yrs plus marriage and a doctor who will stretch the truth on the stand, the breadwinner suddenly becomes a slave for life.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Wow do I agree with this statement. I have raised my children to adulthood with no SS, didn't want it proud to stand on my own two feet. My youngest was 2 and I remarried when she was 15 the children are all in the 20's and doing well yet ex still gets SS and CS. We have been trying to have things changed for a year now. Yes she lives with someone - no a part time job is good enough she has SS. It is a sick system.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by wildrose View Post
                            I agree with you Denisem, it is "priceless" - but women who work full-time jobs do all those things too ... don't they?


                            I am not sure how you figure that? Women with children that work full-time have daycare raise their children, they eat fast food and in restaurants more than stay at home moms, they have the drycleaners do their ironing and most that I know have someone come in to clean the house once every couple of weeks. If you are working full time you are not raising your children and attending all of their activities because you don't have time. As my children were growing up and going to school, I was attending their schools two or three times a week to volunteer whether it be helping in class or being a volunteer on field trips, whatever. Working full time would have not allowed me that option. My ex travelled three weeks out of four and I was home to get the kids to 5pm hockey and figure skating practice, I was there to pick them up at school for dental and doctor appointments and I was able to see that they had the extras that many of their friends didn't have because their friends were from double income families and timing was an issue. I not only took my own children to different functions but I also volunteered to take those children whose parents couldn't get home from work in time. So don't tell me that women who work full time do the same things as stay at home moms. And women who work full time spend approx. 3 hours per day if that, with their children because they are too busy trying to be supermom and earn an income as well.
                            Lets see my mom went back to work full timewhen I was 14 so no daycare. Homecooked meals everynight, she did her own laundry and hung it on a clothesline, she also cleaned the house. She never missed a concert at school or any sporting event. We all pitched in to help because that is what families do. to belittle working mothers by saying that they do not take care of their families is so absurd.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              I agree you shouldn't have to pay SS to some greedy, jealous ex...write letters to your local MPP and the premier and the minister of justice regarding unfair treatment, children of 2nd relationship are secondary to the first, equal rights issue, SS should be nullified and only a split of assets upon separation, after all they are done, take what WAS and be done. Express your issues and concerns to the above and lets take a stance to make much needed changes to the system. We've lived a nightmare ourselves because of his ex and I plan to take action to make a difference. If we all stand together, we CAN make a change. If a woman can win the right to go topless like men, then men can win the right for equal rights regarding children of a second relationship, the right for the ex's income to be disclosed to him and included on the basis of CS, for if the children are to be treated as children of the marriage, as if the couple remained together, Dad would certainly know mom's annual income, as much as she knows his, and CS would be split apportionately...thus demand Federal guidelines revert back to PROVINCIAL guidelines, which takes into consideration the income of BOTH parents & split on a percentage ratio. Quebec has an awesome system. The difference in CS is phenomenal. Especially when Mom is earning more than Dad and also has the benefit of the income of the new person she resides with. Fight for equality and make a change in the system. My fight for change & equal rights is going to begin, because I'm fed up with what the law does...allows Mom the power to destroy Dad. If he missed a child support payment, one call to FRO will take care of Dad...but, what happens is she denies you access to your children & coerses them away (parental alienation)...you must seek a 'default court order', more money & it will take months to resolve & see your kids...EQUALITY issue..and so many more. Start researching & make a difference. If we all fight hard enough, we CAN make a change.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                I am with you let me know where to write to. I am sick of an ex receiving SS CS when kids are are 22 and 26 yrs. Not living at home, she lives with someone else and cries the blues. Trying trying to get it changed everything takes so long.

                                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