Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Shared Custody - Child's Choice

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by HappyMomma View Post
    You are shit out of luck. Your ex does not need to demonstate a need for more money - it is assumed now that he has the children more than 60% of the time. The law is cut and dry on this one - you don't have the kids 40%, you pay full guideline amounts.

    You may want to read this Duffy v Duffy:

    In Duffy v. Duffy, Justice B.G. Welsh, of the Supreme Court of Appeal summarized several general principles regarding financial support of children under the Child Support Guidelines as follows:

    1. The fundamental obligation of a parent to support his or her children takes precedence over the parent’s own interests and choices.

    2. A parent will not be permitted to knowingly avoid or diminish and may not choose to ignore, his or her obligation to support his or her children.

    3. A parent is required to act responsibly when making financial decisions that may affect the level of child support available from that parent. (ie: your kids are more important than that house you bought).
    Sorry I don't agree because I have seen it personally where a child support obligation has been completely expunged based entirely on the mother's behaviour. The children were still 14 and 16 at the time.

    Also, I think you are actually completely wrong. I have a binding contract with set support amounts and custody arrangements. If one party wants to go back now and change terms in the contract, you're darn right they have to prove a "need" to do so! Changing terms of a contract that in effect affects the other party to that contract, cannot be change unilaterally by one party.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by WilsonWilsonWilson View Post
      Makes sense to me. I believe in fairness it should work both ways. If she has set up her entire life around these kids for the past 6 years based on the child support she was getting and we put ourselves in a more expensive financial situation to meet our end of the 50/50 custody arrangement, now that the kids want to live with her 2 weeks more per month, our costs have not gone down even a fraction of what she is asking for to increase now.
      why would you buy a bigger house if for the past 6 years the place you lived in must of been adequate?

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by rockscan View Post
        Look at it this way, if you were still married and the kids were at home they would be going off to school and their lives eventually and you would have to downsize. Yes you changed your life for your kids and got screwed but thats what happens with kids. Downsize, pay the cs and work on the relationship with your kids. Dont look at this as a money grubbing ex out to get you. Look at it as a lesson for your kids and their development. Does it suck? Sure. Dont sacrifice any relationship with your kids because you resent what has happened or their decisions for whatever reason. Live your life.
        Yes, but! I was under a binding Separation Agreement turned into a Court Order that required that I do what I did do and I knew beforehand what my costs would, be so that I could budget my money going forward. The "contract" I have with my ex has nothing to do with the covenant I have with my children. Their wants, desires and actions have nothing to do with the contract I have with my ex. You can't just easily change the terms of a contract just because at a later time you feel that some of the terms should change to suit you better. The person you signed a contact with is bond by it just as much as you are!

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by ele110 View Post
          But don't downsize too fast.
          Kids are versatile and it does not take much to change their mind.
          Oh yes I know that. If they feel so entitled that they can do this to one parent, they will just as easily do it to the other when it suits them better too.

          The main thing is that we have changed nothing that would require them to not live with us anymore. Their decision in my opinion (and hopefully the Court's as well) has nothing to do with the binding Separation Agreement contract I have in place now.

          Stay tuned!

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by WilsonWilsonWilson View Post
            Oh yes I know that. If they feel so entitled that they can do this to one parent, they will just as easily do it to the other when it suits them better too.

            The main thing is that we have changed nothing that would require them to not live with us anymore. Their decision in my opinion (and hopefully the Court's as well) has nothing to do with the binding Separation Agreement contract I have in place now.

            Stay tuned!
            you changed the living arrangements by selling you home and buying a new house and having your partner move in with you.

            Comment


            • #21
              you changed the living arrangements by selling you home and buying a new house and having your partner move in with you.

              Yes...and?

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by standing on the sidelines View Post
                why would you buy a bigger house if for the past 6 years the place you lived in must of been adequate?
                Have you ever tried to get a new partner to move into your old matrimonial home when there is no financial need for it?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by WilsonWilsonWilson View Post
                  Sorry I don't agree because I have seen it personally where a child support obligation has been completely expunged based entirely on the mother's behaviour. The children were still 14 and 16 at the time.

                  Also, I think you are actually completely wrong. I have a binding contract with set support amounts and custody arrangements. If one party wants to go back now and change terms in the contract, you're darn right they have to prove a "need" to do so! Changing terms of a contract that in effect affects the other party to that contract, cannot be change unilaterally by one party.

                  Please post these cases.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by rockscan View Post
                    Please post these cases.
                    Does it have to be a court case to be believable?

                    A neighbour of mine from my old neighbourhood spent 4 or 5 years having his two boys alienated from him by his ex wife. He would go out to watch his older son's hockey games and if he was spotted in the crowd he would receive nasty emails from his son (supposedly, but maybe the mother?) telling him not to be there because it was a distraction to him. This was the only way he got to see his son, because he refused to see his father. He did this for two years with the same result almost every time he was spotted in the crowd. On the third year he went out to see his son playing again and he had now started playing with the name on his jersey changed to that of his mother's new husband. My neighbour was crushed and he didn't have it in him to go to another game after that. At the end of the year he gets served court papers from his ex going after him to pay for the lion's share of the hockey expenses for his older boy. He went to court to fight it. He brought copies of those nasty emails and the the other evidence he had like name change etc. The judge ruled that the mother's behaviour had "basically reduced him, the real father of the boys to nothing more than a sperm donor and since you can't get child support from a sperm donor, you're not getting any more money from this man!" His child support order was vacated and he never paid her another dime. Sad thing is 10 years later he has not seen either of his boys again.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      In Québec this does happen (children who refuse contact for no good reason csn lose child suppoet)

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by WilsonWilsonWilson View Post
                        Does it have to be a court case to be believable?

                        A neighbour of mine from my old neighbourhood spent 4 or 5 years having his two boys alienated from him by his ex wife. He would go out to watch his older son's hockey games and if he was spotted in the crowd he would receive nasty emails from his son (supposedly, but maybe the mother?) telling him not to be there because it was a distraction to him. This was the only way he got to see his son, because he refused to see his father. He did this for two years with the same result almost every time he was spotted in the crowd. On the third year he went out to see his son playing again and he had now started playing with the name on his jersey changed to that of his mother's new husband. My neighbour was crushed and he didn't have it in him to go to another game after that. At the end of the year he gets served court papers from his ex going after him to pay for the lion's share of the hockey expenses for his older boy. He went to court to fight it. He brought copies of those nasty emails and the the other evidence he had like name change etc. The judge ruled that the mother's behaviour had "basically reduced him, the real father of the boys to nothing more than a sperm donor and since you can't get child support from a sperm donor, you're not getting any more money from this man!" His child support order was vacated and he never paid her another dime. Sad thing is 10 years later he has not seen either of his boys again.
                        I would ask your neighbour for a copy of the case decision.

                        Often times when people tell a story the facts get watered down.

                        Legally speaking, child support is the right of the child.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Links17 View Post
                          In Québec this does happen (children who refuse contact for no good reason csn lose child suppoet)
                          I've read about this sort of thing (child support ending due to child's refusal to maintain relationship with payor parent) when children are in post-secondary education but not when they are younger.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by WilsonWilsonWilson View Post
                            Have you ever tried to get a new partner to move into your old matrimonial home when there is no financial need for it?
                            she could of moved in with you. Its not like she would be needing her own separate bedroom. You decided to upsize. Now your financial issues are your own.

                            Actually my partner will be selling his home and moving into my old matrimonial home. There is no financial need for it as we both have fairly good paying jobs that we can easily support ourselves in separate residences. When we were discussing future living arrangements, he suggested that he sell and move into my place. He doesn't see it as the place I lived with my now ex, he sees it as my place and eventually it will be our place.

                            You try and say that you have a set CS amount. From what I know cs amounts are fluid and change from year to year. There has been a material change in circumstances...your kids want to live with their mother for whatever reason. I take it they still come and see you? If they would have decided to live with you instead would you say that you brainwashed them etc that you are claiming their mother did?

                            You need to pay CS for the kids, now you need to pay full cs for the kids. Her costs have went up like heat, hydro water and food while yours have gone down. I don't agree with your logic that she was getting along with the offset amount so it should stay that way. Things have changed and with that the agreement will change also.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              One case is not several cases and it could be watered down in the sense that he didnt have to pay the hockey expenses.

                              The bottom line is cs is the right of the child and follows the child. Yes you have an order for 50/50 with offset but thats not what you have happening and it hasnt been the case for several months. Your ex is well within her rights to request full support. You can try to argue that shes in contempt for the access but as we've all said, a judge will listen to the kids and if they go in saying we want to live with mom thats what will happen and you'll be on the hook for cs AND legal expenses.

                              You have to ask yourself if its worth the ten grand in legal costs as well as the months in court and alienating your kids more while still being slapped with a hefty cs arrears amount.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by standing on the sidelines View Post
                                she could of moved in with you. Its not like she would be needing her own separate bedroom. You decided to upsize. Now your financial issues are your own.

                                Actually my partner will be selling his home and moving into my old matrimonial home. There is no financial need for it as we both have fairly good paying jobs that we can easily support ourselves in separate residences. When we were discussing future living arrangements, he suggested that he sell and move into my place. He doesn't see it as the place I lived with my now ex, he sees it as my place and eventually it will be our place.

                                You try and say that you have a set CS amount. From what I know cs amounts are fluid and change from year to year. There has been a material change in circumstances...your kids want to live with their mother for whatever reason. I take it they still come and see you? If they would have decided to live with you instead would you say that you brainwashed them etc that you are claiming their mother did?

                                You need to pay CS for the kids, now you need to pay full cs for the kids. Her costs have went up like heat, hydro water and food while yours have gone down. I don't agree with your logic that she was getting along with the offset amount so it should stay that way. Things have changed and with that the agreement will change also.
                                Obviously I cannot expect more advice from people here other than "cookie-cutter" approach because they don't know all the details. But I do have a problem with the insinuation that I am trying to be a dead-beat dad!!!

                                Living with their mother for "whatever" reason just does not fly in court from what I can see. I live in their school district she doesn't. We promote the realities of life to the children, she promotes whatever makes her a better friend to the children. In other words, we help the kids "push the snow in their way", she jumps in front and does all that for them. Frig, if I was my kids I'd be going to live with her too, but that does not make the decision right because I would do it as well in their shoes. They don't get parented there, they get coddled. We are "tell" parents, she is an "ask" parent. Read the latest article about that in Maclean's magazine and see how damaging this is to children's future coping skills!

                                I have three children. I have tried several times to convince my children the importance of sharing their time equally with both parents. I don't know what has been said over there, but it has resulted in me not seeing two of my kids since last June and they live 5 minutes away. I can almost throw a rock from the roof of my house to the school where one of them goes. My oldest child, who's mind is less moldable, I have seen 5 times since June. The other two have been invited to see me several times and have found excuses or parroted stuff back to me that obviously has not come from their brain!

                                I'm not a dead-beat father. I have dead-beat children thanks to their mother's behaviour, or lack of parenting more like it!!

                                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