View Single Post
  #5  
Old 12-18-2015, 11:32 AM
Rioe's Avatar
Rioe Rioe is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Ontario
Posts: 3,347
Rioe will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Berner_Faith View Post
Sure they could, but the assumption is the more money available to the children the better. It is about trying to maintain a similar standard of living at both homes. We all know that's never going to happen, but that's the assumption.
If similar standards of living was a main consideration, it would be routine for the incomes of other adults in the household to be included in any calculations.

Call me cynical, but I think it's just a matter of judges not taking the time to understand the math, and believing that "he pays her his full amount, she pays him her full amount" works out perfectly fairly. Even if they understand it's not perfectly fair, they would prefer to stick with something close enough when the alternative is shaking up all of family law with a precedent.

I've previously expressed that I would love to see a system where both parents put their full CS amounts into a 'pool' and draw from the pool in proportion to their access time.

If one parent has 100% access, they get their full CS back and the full CS of the other parent.

If each parent has 50% access, they each get half-offset back.

And everywhere in between by 10% units or something.

There would be way less fighting over time because the money wouldn't be so all-or-nothing.

If the parent with the greater income can provide the child with a better standard of living, despite pulling less money from the pool than they put in, well, that's life. Every child should learn that you get ahead in life by getting a good education and putting in the work.

Last edited by Rioe; 12-18-2015 at 11:37 AM.
Reply With Quote