University Education Cost Limitations

[jq55]

her actions are a direct result of her mother wanting to continue to receive child support payments. The court states that the child must be a full-time student so my ex-wife determined that by the law full-time equals 4 courses. take the 4 year degree, divide by four and you have six years support payments and you don't have to work. of course she refuses to pay her share, which is 20%.
she played the same game with my son. he failed his course in december and was to be expelled from school. my ex drove to the college and convinced them to let my son "audit" classes so he would be attending school and she continued to recieve her payments even though there was hope of him graduating.
and it's still not done, she is 23 and they ar elooking for more money so I had to spend another 5,000.00 on a lawyer to defend myself.
as far as her upbringing, her mother did her best to keep the children away from me. she remarried years ago and of course wanted her new husband to play the role of dad, as long as he didn't have to pay any money he could live in the house i bought him. I treid to hang in there and be a part of their lives but as they got older it became harder and harder and soon I was nothing more than an ATM. their mother and the system taught them well.

[jq55]

I know exactly what your husband is going through. I've had virtually the same story for the past 10 years when my eldest started university. for the past 10 years it's been a steady stream of lies and cheating to get money from me. some examples:
my eldest lived with her boyfreind while I was paying child support to her mother
my son failed his course at december and was expelled from school. when i tried to stop support the ex drove the college and convinced them to let my son "audit" classes. so he'd show up for class and do nothing, no tests, nothing buy sit there and I had to continue support for him until the end of his term in school. of course he didn't graduate so i paid $40,000 for nothing
my youngest daughter has been taking correspondence courses and living at home. I pay full support plus 80% of her school related expenses. she watches TV all day and refuses to work or contribute to her school expenses.
the courts let this behavior go on and on. I have absolutely no relationship with my kids. I tried to reconcile but last spring when i found out my youngest had receved a student loan for over $10,000 and didn't disclose this to me I sent a letter to her mother saying i was done. she had 5 years to complete a 4 year course so i wasn't paying anymore. FRO garnished my wages and now I have to go back to court and spend another $5,000 on a lawyer to try and get it stopped.

[dadtotheend]

So your son was willing to piss away years of his youth in classes that he had no intention of completing on the basis of instruction from his mother so that she could continue to receive CS?

If so, then your son and your ex are both total deadbeats.

But it's not the law's fault that a couple of sheisters took advantage.

[jq55]

he was playing hockey for the college so that kept him busy ... no, it's the laws fault that they allowed this to happen, in fact condoned it by making me pay even though there was no intention to graduate. my lawyer said taking it to court was a waste of time and my money. He said the the court would rule that he was still attending school and making an effort to get an education.

the same with my daughter who was living with her boyfriend, when I asked my lawyer about that situation he said you'd have to higher a private detective to follow your daughter for at least a month to try and prove she didn't live with her mother.

it's the court that allows this type of behavior and promotes it by making it too difficult and expensive for fathers to protect themselves. my ex-wife simply had to pick up the phone and call the FRO and they took 1/2 of my net pay and handed it to her, no questiosn asked in a flash. in the first letter they sent me it said I had 15 days to repond, the same day they sent that letter to me they sent one to my employer telling them to garnish my wages. now I have to spend another $5,000 to fight them again in court and once again my lawyer says it's a crap shoot whether I'll win or not, just because my daughter committed fraud, stole $7,000 from me by taking my money when OSAP had paid her tuiton and my ex-wife pays nothing doesn't mean the court will rule in your favour. there's a very good cahnce they'll make you pay another year. and I'll be out another $5,000 for nothing.

the only ones who can change the system are the ones who profit from it, lawyers, judges, ex-wifes and adult children who have fiqured out it's an easy way to get money for nothing. so there's a snow balls chance in hell they are going to kill the golden goose.

[jq55]

also, it's the laws fault that I am viewed differently in their eyes than a father who is still living with the mother of his children. My brothers who are still with their wifes paid for one year of education for their kids. one of my neices is now a lawyer and I have three other neices in medical school. it appears if you have to pay for your own education you tend to value it a bit more. taking away my right to father my children the way I chose makes our children see us as something less than a regular parent.

My parents paid nothing for our educations. we worked and got loans, etc. I would never have aksed my parents, let alone legally force them to pay for my education.

the system is creating a generation of brats who beleive they are entitled to special treatment because the court gives it to them, no questions asked an dmakes it easy for them to control their parents.

[ChuckCram]

The Cram vs. Cram case quoted above was accountable to the Divorce Act, which only required child support to be paid until the child reached the age of majority. I was warned, however, that the Family Relations Act could require support to age 23 if the child was still in school, and that a judge would invoke whatever Act he/she felt was warranted in the child's interest, regardless of which Act governed the marital separation.

Ben was smart and an excellent reader, but was young and foolish and didn't want to put out any more effort than was absolutely necessary...he often misjudged that and failed as a result. Nearing his mid-twenties he suddenly abandoned his irresponsible lifestyle to become a career-oriented adult.

The judge in that case easily recognized from Ben's history that no imminent change of behaviour was likely, and ruled against Mrs. Cram. Ben's unrealized potential was no reason to funnel cash into her pocket.

Mrs. Cram's other litigations (she hired counsel for those) met the same end, but the judges always made both parties pay their own costs, so the multi-year ordeal still cost me $25K.

[mummer1962]

My case is an example of supporting a child or young adult in an all inclusive form. The total expenses are talleyed and the payor and cp are both required to contribute based on incomes. The kicker is that the child has to demonstrate that they are serious and succeeding in the program. All monies are paid directly to child and there are requirements that success is demonstrated from semester to semester. My child is diligently doing what she is supposed to in her studies so this is not an issue for me, however it is a case where she is held accountable in order to get the support. Hope this helps. I totally agree with this judgement.

MLB-Slaw Selected Case Summaries - Mathusz v. Carew 2011 NLTD(F) 28

[mummer1962]

Nice to meet you Mr. Cram. Your case was used in my trial and I totally agree with the child having to pull their weight in order to get assistance for post secondary. Unfortunately I had to fight for my child who was succeeding on a number of levels and still had to fight for support from NCP.