Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

No "accountability" on child support - thoughts ?

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

  • No "accountability" on child support - thoughts ?

    I firmly believe, as I suspect most individuals would, that it is critical and mandatory for parents to provide support for their children. The government also believes so given that they have special punishments for those avoiding child support that are arguably harsher than violent crime such as murder. I'm not 100% but I don't believe even convicted criminals have their driver's license suspended, car taken away, RRSPs and other assets seized, etc. They just serve a light sentence and continue upon their merry way.

    My question is, if the government truly believes they are working "for the child" then WHY is there ZERO freaken accountability as to how hard earned child support is spent by the (typically) mother. My understanding is that you could have video tape and witness confirmation that the CS support money is spent on gambling, drinking, luxuries for mommy and the government pleads "that's the Mom's right !). I know if there is GROSS negligence then maybe something is done.

    Come on, does anyone truly believe that EVERY DIME of child support goes to the kids and not "mommy support".

    I think that there should be a low level of "base" child support AND then top ups given WITH RECEIPTS proving the money actually goes to the child. Why should Dads have to give their exes extra "mad money" ! Especially when the CS amounts are well in excess of reasonable child support (ie. high earning Dads who are punished for working hard).

    I believe if there is any doubt as to how CS is spent, then the recipient must have to PROVE via receipts the money is going to help the child and not spending money for the mother with no accountability.

    After all, if we are really interested in helping the kids (and not simply hidden spousal support) shouldn't there be SOME control in how this money is spent ?

    Your thoughts ?????

  • #2
    Are you serious? Implementing expense tracking would be impossible and not realistic to implement.

    Not to mention that it would not change the amount of CS anyway.

    No I don't think that tracking of CS spending is a good idea. In fact it is a horrible idea.

    As for your criminal comparison - the criminal DID the crime, then did the time. The parent not paying CS is continually doing it. What is wrong with forcing someone to pay CS? Seems like a great idea to me. Whether the amount of CS is justified or not is a separate issue.

    Comment


    • #3
      Cs

      As far as CS is does seem unfair for everyone involved as to the quantum.
      For example a mother (or father) may recieve 200 to 2000 dollars for one
      child depending on the payors income. You can not tell me that it can be
      justified for a parent to recieve 2000.00 plus on CS, sorry, bedding,clothes,
      cosmetics just don't add up to that. Maybe it should be a fixed amount based
      on age and location. Some single parents stuggle because the payor makes
      little income, and others benefit to a very large degree because the payor
      has some drive to earn a good living. Two children of the same age and in the
      same community and one may get 6 to 10 times of the other? there should be
      a limit or the person recieving benefits,that is the reality.

      Comment


      • #4
        The idea is that a parent with an excellent income, who would have supported the child proportionally to that income had the marriage stayed intact, should still support the child proportionally to that income.

        Inflate the numbers and think of it. Why shouldn't a millionaire's child live like a millionaire, even if they are no longer in the same household? Just because there's an "average" or "basic" cost to raise a child, why shouldn't a parent who makes more money be required to use that money on their obligations?

        Just because some people's spur-of-the-moment vacations cost more than my annual salary doesn't mean that their child should not enjoy that vacation.

        Comment


        • #5
          I can understand that millionaire comment but I think what the orginal poster means in a situation like that, sure the kid should get the benefit but why should the CP be able to benefit from it.

          I know that the CP needs to keep a place for the child etc but its not like they do not need a place to live also or food etc. I think the op wants a way to make sure that the money is used just for the child and not the CP .Impossible to enforce and do but I get what the op is trying to say. If a couple was together it would not cost as much as CS to raise the child.

          Comment


          • #6
            My ex (daddy) spent the money on himself and believed that this is what it was for. I still sent money for sports, snacks for school, feminine products for our daughter, bought all their winter jackets etc. Track it........not a chance and for those who assume it's just "mommy's" money that idea is archaic.

            Comment


            • #7
              Unless the child is being neglected and malnurished, then monies spent by the CP are at their discretion.

              One can't take into account the other houses budget. While one may have an idea of their income, what they budget their money on is harder to determine.

              I send my ex a fair amount of money each month for one child and she makes more then I do......I don't begrudge it all. My daughter is well fed, well clothed and healthy. Does my cs cover all of the needs of my child and then some? Probably. But that is the way it is.

              If you want to have a beef with something, how about the CP being able to claim the child as a 100% dependant at tax time when you c/s covers your proportional share....that is probably the only issue I have with C/S is that I can't write off my proportional share of the child as a dependant, thus the ex gets a windfall of being able to write off amounts of the child she didn't have to pay for.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by HammerDad View Post
                Unless the child is being neglected and malnurished, then monies spent by the CP are at their discretion.

                One can't take into account the other houses budget. While one may have an idea of their income, what they budget their money on is harder to determine.

                I send my ex a fair amount of money each month for one child and she makes more then I do......I don't begrudge it all. My daughter is well fed, well clothed and healthy. Does my cs cover all of the needs of my child and then some? Probably. But that is the way it is.

                If you want to have a beef with something, how about the CP being able to claim the child as a 100% dependant at tax time when you c/s covers your proportional share....that is probably the only issue I have with C/S is that I can't write off my proportional share of the child as a dependant, thus the ex gets a windfall of being able to write off amounts of the child she didn't have to pay for.
                Agreed. I'm in a similar situation. My ex makes more than double what I make. I pay CS (as I should). It does irk me that I cannot take advantage of the tax credits.

                On a related note, I have our children every other weekend, one night a week, and dinner with them at least once a week on top of that, which is great, (I fought really hard for it), but I pay the same amount of support that I would if I had them only every other weekend, or even not at all. I still had to buy beds for them, keep an appartment with enough room for them, purchased clothes for when they are with me, I stock my kitchen with food for them.I know I'm not at the magical 40% mark, but when I add it up at the end of the year, it's pretty close.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by tdog View Post
                  Agreed. I'm in a similar situation. My ex makes more than double what I make. I pay CS (as I should). It does irk me that I cannot take advantage of the tax credits.
                  I don't think this is a valid point as CS amounts take this into consideration. However in a 50/50 CS offset situation it is a valid point, but it is a challenged to share the dependent claim I am finding.

                  Originally posted by tdog View Post
                  On a related note, I have our children every other weekend, one night a week, and dinner with them at least once a week on top of that, which is great, (I fought really hard for it), but I pay the same amount of support that I would if I had them only every other weekend, or even not at all. I still had to buy beds for them, keep an appartment with enough room for them, purchased clothes for when they are with me, I stock my kitchen with food for them.I know I'm not at the magical 40% mark, but when I add it up at the end of the year, it's pretty close.
                  This is a very valid point and is the most obvious problem with the CS guidelines - ignoring the costs for the NCP.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by billm View Post
                    I don't think this is a valid point as CS amounts take this into consideration. However in a 50/50 CS offset situation it is a valid point, but it is a challenged to share the dependent claim I am finding.
                    I've never saw any reference or research providing that CS contemplates tax credits available to the CP. If you could point me in the direction of the material, I would appreciate it.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by HammerDad View Post
                      I've never saw any reference or research providing that CS contemplates tax credits available to the CP. If you could point me in the direction of the material, I would appreciate it.
                      Sure, took me about 5 minutes to find this...google is your friend, maybe try it sometime...

                      Frequently Asked Questions

                      "The guidelines help ensure that all families in similar circumstances (that is, living in the same province or territory and with the same income and number of children) pay the same basic amount of child support before adjustments are made. The amounts are also intended to ensure that paying parents can still support themselves. The tables take into account the taxes payable and therefore gross income is used to apply them. The amounts vary by province and territory to account for differences in provincial and territorial income tax rates."

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by billm View Post
                        Sure, took me about 5 minutes to find this...google is your friend, maybe try it sometime...

                        Frequently Asked Questions

                        "The guidelines help ensure that all families in similar circumstances (that is, living in the same province or territory and with the same income and number of children) pay the same basic amount of child support before adjustments are made. The amounts are also intended to ensure that paying parents can still support themselves. The tables take into account the taxes payable and therefore gross income is used to apply them. The amounts vary by province and territory to account for differences in provincial and territorial income tax rates."
                        I did google and have read that before. However my reading was that this is income tax rates payable by each parent, not child tax credits deductable by the CP unless I am reading it wrong.

                        It could be one in the same, but I read it that the guidelines contemplate the each parent will have to pay income taxes so the rate varies depending on income level. It doesn't contemplate each parents proportional contribution to the child and any deductions the CP is able to make due to having custody and being able to deduct the child as a dependant.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          As I suspected, many (but not all) of you have missed my point. I'm not arguing that I shouldn't pay CS, but that the money should actually go to "child support".

                          For example, let's say mommy gives "adequate" care to the kids BUT spends 80% of the remainder of CS on gambling, drinking, expensive clothes for HER, trips for HER, etc.

                          The government seems to have no problem checking up on every bit of minutae if they can screw the taxpayer for a dime but they "can't"
                          follow up on CS to see if its being used correctly ?

                          To those who disagree with my point, would you honestly defend the right for a mother (let's face it, 95% of the time its the guy paying CS) to blow 80% of CS on drinking, shopping, etc. for HER and not the kids ?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by shellshocked22 View Post
                            ..
                            To those who disagree with my point, would you honestly defend the right for a mother (let's face it, 95% of the time its the guy paying CS) to blow 80% of CS on drinking, shopping, etc. for HER and not the kids ?
                            Of course not, you're being silly and you are missing the point as I expected.

                            The reality is that it is not feasible to track it. Most CS recipients spend the money properly - so you want to make them jump through hoops to prove they are? That would suck for the majority.

                            If the CS recipient is a bad parent, nothing you can do about it - if you gave them less money, they would spend even less on the kids.

                            Its just one of those things in life you have to learn to let go of.

                            Otherwise, go to court, prove they are a bad parent, and increase custody time for yourself, thus reducing CS and improving the kids standard of living - that is the solution that is available, rather than adding BS cost accounting for the rest of us.

                            Also your insistence of bringing gender into this issue, rather than simply using gender neutral terminology does not look good on you.
                            Last edited by billm; 09-20-2011, 12:50 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by shellshocked22 View Post
                              To those who disagree with my point, would you honestly defend the right for a mother (let's face it, 95% of the time its the guy paying CS) to blow 80% of CS on drinking, shopping, etc. for HER and not the kids ?
                              Are you absolutely 100% sure that she is spending CS on these items or money she may have allocated from her own income? If so, you have too involved in your ex's life and need to seperate yourself from her. Otherwise, you believe she is spending all the CS on these items, but then....what is she spending her own money on? Are the kids fed? Are they clothed? Is there a roof over their head? The money from that has to come from somewhere, and unless CS is your ex's sole form of income, she is spending her own money on those things.

                              Another reason why there is no review is, in the event of an abusive and/or controlling relationship, this would just be another form of control/abusive that would be legislated against the CP. And totally unfair to continue that.

                              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