Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Summer and NCP Finances

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

  • #31
    Wow, you guys really are ignorant of how the guideline amounts were arrived at. Maybe you should educate yourselves instead of reading the government literature and taking it at face value. There are other gov't doc.s which CLEARLY out line that NCP costs were NOT taken into account

    http://www.fact.on.ca/fin_supp/whatwerethey.pdf

    Comment


    • #32
      Oh was that a government document? Or is it an opinion paper from a partisan web site (http://fact.on.ca/) that happens to support your position?

      Other posters, please go to the the link I posted in the previous paragraph and you will see in 2 seconds that the axe that Fathers Are Capable Too is grinding is the same one as got2bkid's.

      And she misrepresents her link above, implying it to be a government doc.

      Keep on bitching. It's a good look for you.
      Last edited by dadtotheend; 08-19-2010, 11:33 AM.

      Comment


      • #33
        No, that one is not, but I will send the link to the gov't one if I can find it again.

        Here is another article that talks about the document which cleary states NCP's expenses are NOT taken into account. In fact, right in the formula - the NCP costs are considered that of a bachelor who NEVER sees his kids. (i.e no kid expenses)

        The secret document

        Comment


        • #34
          Another partisan paper. Just another opinion. Please stop posting opinions and show us the real government literature.

          When you are unable to find it, then feel free to aplogize for all the rude and offensive posts you have made in this thread.
          Last edited by dadtotheend; 08-19-2010, 11:28 AM.

          Comment


          • #35
            A link to studies or reports from Fathers for Life and FACT are hardly evidence considering they are both extremely paritisan. And considering that I do agree with a lot of what they are about, I still am not willing to allow myself to be so nieve that they are 100% correct here.

            See, I am not one to complain about the money I spend on my child because I know my childs life is better for it. Yes, my life isn't easy, but I see my daughter regularly and enjoy the fact that she is living a good life. My ex also may make my life hard by being difficult sometimes, but I deal with her through the proper channels.

            My focus is on being a parent, not the money that is ransferred to the ex for my kid. It is my obligation. Would I like to keep some more money for myself? For sure. But the reality is, complaining here won't help it. And the test isn't about my best interests or that of my new fiance and our planned future family. It is about my current child. If you have a child you have an obligation to support that child. You may not like the abouts your husband has to pay, but you knew about those amounts prior to getting married. You seem to be focusing too much on making the better life for you part of the equation and not enough on providing the best life for the kids. Especially considering you are not even really part of the equation at all.

            Comment


            • #36
              http://www.fact.on.ca/fin_supp/csr-1997-1.pdf

              here is the gov't doc. It clearly states NCP costs are assumed to be that of a single person.

              enough said, dadtotheend, I'm sure you'll find a way to dismiss this am remain truly ignorant on the subject anyway, since that currently suits your position.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by got2bkid View Post
                http://www.fact.on.ca/fin_supp/csr-1997-1.pdf

                here is the gov't doc. It clearly states NCP costs are assumed to be that of a single person.
                Yes, the equation does take provide for single person expenditures. I don't see how that is unreasonable. When you divorce you are single.

                Now I also see your point that the NCP does have some costs associated with exercising their parenting time, but in a perfect world, that would only really be costs for food and entertainment for the kids and more then likely adequate housing for your kids (if you have 4 kids, you can't live in a bachelor apartment).

                But yes, this equation doesn't take into consideration new families and generally I agree that they shouldn't. If one is planning on a second family that person should do so taking into consideration their obligation to the children of their previous relationship. If one can't afford to do both, then that person should reconsider their decision to start a new family at that point or start rearranging their finances to ensure they can do both.

                It isn't the kids fault that the NCP's new family is having a tough time getting by because the NCP choose to get remarried, buy a new house and have a few more kids. It is the NCP's fault for putting themselves into that situation.

                I am an NCP. I see my DD 8 times a month, I get no clothes or anything from the ex. I pay all transportation and clothing costs. I am engaged to a wonderful woman who understands that I pay support, will continue to pay support and that we will have to wait a while to move forward with our lives until we can afford to do so. In the mean time, we budget accordingly.

                Comment


                • #38
                  I read a couple of those articles...and they are fatally flawed. They do NOT appear to take into consideration the offset method of support payments after the "40%" threshold, AND they appear to indicate that the receiving parent is still receiving the full amounts of CCTB/UCCB. After 40%, it goes into a shared arrangement and gets split 6 months/6 months.

                  Nor does it appear to account for the NCP being able to claim the children on their income tax return's at least every other year in a shared custody arrangement.

                  Further, when there is an equal split of time, there is NO reason the CP cannot be working full time. They have an equal obligation to support the children, and I firmly believe that IF they make less than full time minimum wage for their province of residence, then they should be inputted that as an income. Of course, like everything else in the legal system...you have to ASK for this. Which means educating yourself.

                  Let's face it, if the legal system was easy to navigate and understand, then anyone could do it and we wouldn't have the excess of lawyers and their $100s of dollars an hour in fees to worry about.

                  Sorry, but if you are going to make arguments, you may wish to educate yourself about how the system works, as well as how the calculations/etc are applied.

                  Is the system perfect? Far from it. Does it at least make an attempt to offer an equitable solution when the parties can't agree? Yep.

                  Are the other 2 children those of your husband? If not, is THEIR bio-dad involved with them? Is HE paying support? If not, WHY NOT? Child support is the right of the child.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by got2bkid View Post
                    http://www.fact.on.ca/fin_supp/csr-1997-1.pdf

                    here is the gov't doc. It clearly states NCP costs are assumed to be that of a single person.

                    enough said, dadtotheend, I'm sure you'll find a way to dismiss this am remain truly ignorant on the subject anyway, since that currently suits your position.
                    Again, that is NOT a government document. It is an analysis by a partisan organization and is using flawed calculations.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      The department of justice Canada is a partisan organization?

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Where the hell do you get it's a Department of Justice site?

                        F.A.C.T. - Canada's Largest N.C. Parents' and Children's Rights Organisation - Fathers Are Capable Too is one of the largest non-custodial parents' and children's rights organisations in Canada dealing with custody and access.

                        The link you provided is for a partisan organization "F.A.C.T." that is analyzing information from the department of justice, but using FLAWED reasoning and data.

                        And yes, the NCP is assumed to have expenditures for that of a SINGLE PERSON, but also ASSUMING THEY HAVE LITTLE TO NO ACCESS with the children.

                        That is an incorrect assumption how exactly??????


                        Comment


                        • #42
                          NB - if you clicked the link and read the 2nd page of the report, it was prepared by a research team at the Department of Justice.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            This is the real document from the Department of Justice website:

                            http://lois-laws.justice.gc.ca/PDF/R...SOR-97-175.pdf

                            Not the outdated document linked to from a third party website being passed off as official government data.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              BLANK


                              here is the direct link to the gov't website, same document.

                              since when do NCP parents ONLY have costs when they see their kids 40% of the time or more? ALL research suggests that at ANY contact NCP's have significant costs. Yes, we do keep a home with an extra bedroom for them, it just gets used less. Or are we supposed to put them in tents for the summer and during spring break? It is absolutely absurd to think NCP only have costs when they reach a magical 40% time with their kids.

                              Your logic and thinking is flawed.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Click on BLANK.

                                blinkandgo - you are incorrect, once again.

                                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