Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Child Support Payment

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

  • Child Support Payment

    Hi, I'm in a situation where I have a child with a girl friend I dated 7 years ago. I've been paying child support to her since 2003. I'm currently happily married to another woman and we are about to have a baby together. I want to know what happens once we have the baby. Do I keep paying the same child support amount to my x or will the payments change after having the baby with my wife? Any info is appreciated.

    Thank you,

    Mike

  • #2
    Unfortunatly, the payment remains the same. The only way you can pay differently then the table amounts is if the custody arrangement changes. If you had shared custody, you'd pay a lot less.

    Or, you could negotiate with her. If she agrees to it, you could pay less, but there is no legal reason for her to agree to less then the table amount.

    Comment


    • #3
      Thanks for the response. I was afraid to hear that but I guess I'll have to talk to her and her child services lady to see if they will agree to a less amount.

      Comment


      • #4
        Child Support

        You should not have another child if you will be taking away from the one you already have.

        Having a second child is a choice.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by pursuingfairness View Post
          You should not have another child if you will be taking away from the one you already have.

          Having a second child is a choice.
          While that may be true, that's a very harsh thing to say to someone looking forward to having another child. This father has been paying CS all along!

          Comment


          • #6
            Child Support Reduction for 1st to pay for 2nd

            People who have children should not make decisions with the expectation or desire to ask for the mother of the first child to make sacrifices for the sake of another child coming along in a new relationship.

            Its time for parents to be parents, adults - men to be fathers and women to be mothers.

            I know from my own experience that it hurts children when support is reduced or not paid.

            It is the duty of the parent to pay, so no cookie or award there. There is a special place in hell for those who do not pay child support

            Comment


            • #7
              I know from my own experience that it hurts children when support is reduced or not paid.

              It is the duty of the parent to pay, so no cookie or award there. There is a special place in hell for those who do not pay child support
              It should be the duty of both parents to actually work to be financially capable of providing for the child or children. But the custodial parent is never legally obligated are they?

              Pursuit of fairness would or should have the same expectation of being financially capable of providing for their child. But the guy has married and has a child that will not get the same financial considerations that the first child receives. How is that a pursuit of fairness? The mother can argue that if she remarries the new husband and his income is not to be part of any calculations as to household income...and legally it is not...yet if that marriages fails...the step father can be legally liable as suddenly his income is financially liable for the support of the child that when married...was not.

              How is that a pursuit of fairness....The statistics for single custodial fathers working full time is markedly different than single custodial mothers who are often found working part time...

              Pursuit of fairness would suggest looking at all income streams in a household and expecting both parties to be working full time to contribute to the financial requirements of the children.

              Cs is not needed for someone who is actually working. It is just a tool for those to lazy to actually do for themselves.

              Custodial or non custodial both need homes for the children...they both need clothes to cloth the child..and finacial resources to provide for the children.

              I look at how the children are affected in both households...i suggest your only interest is what is going on in your own home. Pursuit of self interest and not pursuit of fairness.

              Comment


              • #8
                Here we go again. Alllllll aboard!

                Comment


                • #9
                  And the point in jumpng down this guys throat was what? To harp on someone who is NOT a deadbeat but just asked a question? Did he SAY he was not willing to pay? HE HAS BEEN PAYING ALL ALONG!

                  Maybe the guy didn't know and wanted to save a few bucks and ask here instead of calling his lawyer. Then maybe he can afford to get a Christmas gift for BOTH his kids.

                  Sheesh! Merry Christmas to you guys!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by firstouting
                    Cs is not needed for someone who is actually working. It is just a tool for those to lazy to actually do for themselves.
                    Really?

                    So just because I work full time & do not rely on the government to pay my bills & raise the kids, my ex shouldn't be financially responsible for the children he wanted during the marriage?

                    What a crock of shit.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I work full time and make substantially more than my ex.

                      She owes CS, isn't paying and now the FRO is enforcing it.

                      Your damn right she will support her children financially. Every f'n penny that I get in CS will go to the children's RESP.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by pursuingfairness View Post
                        People who have children should not make decisions with the expectation or desire to ask for the mother of the first child to make sacrifices for the sake of another child coming along in a new relationship.

                        Its time for parents to be parents, adults - men to be fathers and women to be mothers.

                        I know from my own experience that it hurts children when support is reduced or not paid.

                        It is the duty of the parent to pay, so no cookie or award there. There is a special place in hell for those who do not pay child support
                        This is such BS! I have 3 children from my marriage. EVERY time I had another child in my marriage I had to use my same income to raise all my children. Why the hell should it be any different if I had a child in a subsequent relationship?

                        Support to my first children should go down if I have more children (which I am not, 3 is enough1). This is not the way family law has it, but it makes financial and moral sense to me - I should support ALL my children equally, and if I have more, there is less to go around, just as is the case in a nuclear family.

                        Also, to say that it hurts children when support is reduced is crap. If I make less, support will go down, if I make more support goes up - this is the way it is for non separated families. It is a normal thing - I make more money some years than others, therefore support goes up and down and the children, like the parents, have to live within the means of their parents - this is not bad for the children, it is a normal situation.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          It should be the duty of both parents to actually work to be financially capable of providing for the child or children. But the custodial parent is never legally obligated are they?
                          Yes they are. If the custodial parent is not contributing or is purposely under employed, you can have an income imputted for them. There are avenues under the law to pursue to remedy a custodial parent being lazy or underemployed.

                          Pursuit of fairness would or should have the same expectation of being financially capable of providing for their child. But the guy has married and has a child that will not get the same financial considerations that the first child receives. How is that a pursuit of fairness?
                          It's because having additional children is a choice. If you make that decision, knowing full well the obligations you currently have towards your existing kids, it tends to invalidate any argument you can make down the road if you start struggling financially.

                          It's a dead horse and it's been beat to death. I find the whole "second family" argument a crock of shit. If you KNEW what your obligations were, and STILL made the CONSCIOUS CHOICE to have additional children, then too bad, so sad. If you can't afford them, you should have taken measures.

                          The mother can argue that if she remarries the new husband and his income is not to be part of any calculations as to household income...and legally it is not...
                          As long as she is working and contributing her fair share. This works both ways. If the NCP gets remarried to a multimillionaire, their support obligations don't increase. If the mother decides to be a SAHM, again their are avenues under the law to remedy this. Either impute her an income of what she is capable of making, or argue for her household income to be used.

                          yet if that marriages fails...the step father can be legally liable as suddenly his income is financially liable for the support of the child that when married...was not.
                          IF she can prove entitlement. Which, if the bio-parent is involved at all...is virtually impossible. This would only hold true where you can meet the criteria of in loco parentis for the step. It's not an automatic entitlement, and the onus would be on her to prove it. Bio-parent in the picture, and step would pay little if anything.

                          The statistics for single custodial fathers working full time is markedly different than single custodial mothers who are often found working part time...
                          Too many give in and don't fight for it. After spending 2 years in the system I can tell you it's draining emotionally as well as financially....typically the mothers are left with little job skills, content to sit on welfare. I have no sympathy for these people who do little or nothing to improve their own situation and then whine about how unfair it is. Welfare is one of my pet peeves, it's a poorly managed, poorly regulated system that's abused all to hell.

                          Pursuit of fairness would suggest looking at all income streams in a household and expecting both parties to be working full time to contribute to the financial requirements of the children.
                          It does...in the case of an undue hardship claim. If the financial burdens are THAT great, then again, there is an avenue under the law to account for this kind of thing.

                          Cs is not needed for someone who is actually working. It is just a tool for those to lazy to actually do for themselves.
                          I find this kind of generalization offensive. I am a Custodial FATHER, who has my children in excess of 98% of the time. Their mother sits her ass on welfare and contributes NOTHING. CS would enable me to do so much more for the kids, and while they don't want for anything, some times it's a stretch financially to get to the next paycheck.

                          Custodial or non custodial both need homes for the children...they both need clothes to cloth the child..and finacial resources to provide for the children.
                          True enough. But the requirements for an EOW NCP vs. an involved 50-50 shared custody NCP are VASTLY different. Again, the system, while nowhere near perfect, makes allowances for this in the form of offset table amounts of support, imputting income, and allowances for access/travel costs and hardship.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Also, to say that it hurts children when support is reduced is crap. If I make less, support will go down, if I make more support goes up - this is the way it is for non separated families. It is a normal thing - I make more money some years than others, therefore support goes up and down and the children, like the parents, have to live within the means of their parents - this is not bad for the children, it is a normal situation
                            This is also the way the support guidelines are supposed to function. If you make less, you pay less. If you make more, you pay more. You should have such a thing built into your legal agreement regarding custody/access and support...ie. to allow for yearly recalculation based on the prior year's income taxes. That's the intent and function of the law.

                            Too often that gets abused, people are quick to request a reduction when you make less, however they forget the part where if you happen to have made MORE, you need to be voluntarily INCREASING the support accordingly. You stand a better chance of getting a court ordered reduction (if the ex decides to be unreasonable) if you can show that you have been increasing the amounts voluntarily as necessary.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              If an NCP isn't "allowed" to spread his income evenly for all his children, in the first and second marriage, then I'd say that CP's who have "second" children should have to PROVE that they spend exactly the same amount on child #1 after "second" child comes along. And have to PROVE that none of the CS recieved for child #1 is spent on "second" child in the home. Otherwise, the "first" child is suffering (by their definition) by the simple fact that when another child is born, the $$$ is spread between all their kids. By their definition (the NCP can't give me less when he has "second" children, or my child will suffer!) then how dare CP's have second children and make their "first" children suffer?

                              The whole argument about not looking after all the children an NCP has is crap. If that's the casr then they should have to PROVE to the NCP that when they have a "second" child, their child doesn't revcive 1 dime less!! Double standard here for NCP "second" child and CP "second" child doesn't even compute with most people, total hypocrites.

                              Now bring on the bashing, and don't try to see the truth in what I am saying first.

                              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