her new boyfriend

[rotor2-]

this is all very helpful,would the SS i give her increasing her yearly earning and lower mine?

[HammerDad]

Originally Posted by rotor2-

this is all very helpful,would the SS i give her increasing her yearly earning and lower mine?

Yes, spousal support is considered income on the part of the recipient. It is also tax deductable on the part of the payor.

[littleman]

she is not considered common law in Ontario until 3 years consectutive have passed, or a child is born into union .....good luck

[billm]

Originally Posted by HammerDad

It isn't a matter of whether or not you need it. It is the entitlement of the child, you have no say in whether or not you receive child support.

This is BS - if the parents both decide this situation works for them (ie she does not pay CS), then of course it won't happen and CS is not received and rotor2 does have a say.

As for the original post - you don't mention the history or income levels, BUT living with a boyfriend, not paying CS, not taking care of the kids half the time, means to me that she has no entitlement to SS whatsoever!! She should be ashamed of herself for living off you, living off her boyfriend, living off her children, and not taking care of her own kids.

[HappyMomma]

Originally Posted by billm

This is BS - if the parents both decide this situation works for them (ie she does not pay CS), then of course it won't happen and CS is not received and rotor2 does have a say.

As for the original post - you don't mention the history or income levels, BUT living with a boyfriend, not paying CS, not taking care of the kids half the time, means to me that she has no entitlement to SS whatsoever!! She should be ashamed of herself for living off you, living off her boyfriend, living off her children, and not taking care of her own kids.

We don't know all the details but it sure looks that way doesn't it!!

You may not NEED the money but there is no reason she can't pay a small amount each month that you can put into RESPs or a savings account for the children's future.

[HammerDad]

Originally Posted by billm

This is BS - if the parents both decide this situation works for them (ie she does not pay CS), then of course it won't happen and CS is not received and rotor2 does have a say.

Have a clause like that in an agreement and see what a judge says about it should you end up in court.....I have a feeling I know what will happen.

The only way it remains enforcible is if they never step foot in court AND the child, when they become old enough to cause an action or finds out they were entitled to the monies, doesn't come back and sue the parents for monies they were otherwise entitled to.....which has happened.

CanLII - 2000 BCSC 1252 (CanLII)

any agreement between the parents waiving child support cannot be enforced. In my view, the combined effect of these authorities leads to the conclusion that while parents cannot make an enforceable agreement to reduce or ignore child support obligations established by court order

CanLII - 1996 CanLII 1937 (BC CA)

13 In addition, counsel on his behalf raised the parties' alleged agreement as an explanation for Mr. Cherry's failure to apply earlier to vary or reduce the arrears.

14 With respect to the argument on the so-called agreement between the parties, as already indicated the right to support is the child's. It is a right which neither the child nor the custodial parent can waive. It is clear from the conflicting affidavits filed on this application that relations between the parents were acrimonious not only before the divorce but after, that the mother may have frustrated access to the father from time to time and that she may not always have been diligent in pursuing Mr. Cherry for child support. I do not think the material filed supports Mr. Cherry's allegation of an agreement, and even if it could it is not an agreement that can be relied upon or enforced because it purports to deny the children the right to support from their father. The result of the unhappy relations between the parents has been that the mother, with the assistance of her new spouse, has been required to bear virtually the whole economic burden of raising these children, when a proportionate share of that expense should have been borne by the father.

[billm]

Originally Posted by HammerDad

Have a clause like that in an agreement and see what a judge says about it should you end up in court.....I have a feeling I know what will happen.

The only way it remains enforcible is if they never step foot in court AND the child, when they become old enough to cause an action or finds out they were entitled to the monies, doesn't come back and sue the parents for monies they were otherwise entitled to.....which has happened.

CanLII - 2000 BCSC 1252 (CanLII)



CanLII - 1996 CanLII 1937 (BC CA)

Blah blah blah - if the parents agree and don't pursue it in court, they can do CS any way they wish - you are talking about parents that DON'T agree.

[HammerDad]

Originally Posted by billm

Blah blah blah - if the parents agree and don't pursue it in court, they can do CS any way they wish - you are talking about parents that DON'T agree.

Nope I am talking about you have an agreement between each parent that says no child support is payable. But they end up in court for lets says an access matter. The judge, when shown that the agreement, will likely toss out the part that states no support is payable and could impose arrears.

Child Support - Ministry of the Attorney General

Both parents have a responsibility to financially support their children. If you do not have custody, the amount of child support you must pay is based on your income and the number of children.

From the Family Law Act

Obligation of parent to support child
31. (1) Every parent has an obligation to provide support for his or her unmarried child who is a minor or is enrolled in a full time program of education, to the extent that the parent is capable of doing so. R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s. 31 (1); 1997, c. 20, s. 2.

Contracts subject to child support guidelines
(1.1) In the determination of a matter respecting the support of a child, the court may disregard any provision of a domestic contract pertaining to the matter where the provision is unreasonable having regard to the child support guidelines, as well as to any other provision relating to support of the child in the contract. 1997, c. 20, s. 10 (2); 2006, c. 1, s. 5 (8).

Child support guidelines
(1.1) A court shall not incorporate an agreement for the support of a child in an order under subsection (1) unless the court is satisfied that the agreement is reasonable having regard to the child support guidelines, as well as to any other provision relating to support of the child in the agreement. 1997, c. 20, s. 11.

Simply put, if you have an agreement where you waive the right to child support and you end up on court for an issue relating to that agreement, for any reason, the court will set aside that provision. FURTHER, lets say you are the NCP and you have an agreement that states you don't have to pay C/S (unless it is one of the reasons I have otherwise spoke about) you are the mercy of the CP bringing you to court and forcing you to pay c/s, notwithstanding your agreement, because the clause is not enforcible/binding as it is contrary to the Family Law Act....and the NCP could be hit with arrears...

[billm]

Originally Posted by HammerDad

Nope I am talking about you have an agreement between each parent that says no child support is payable. But they end up in court for lets says an access matter. The judge, when shown that the agreement, will likely toss out the part that states no support is payable and could impose arrears.

Again I say, blah blah blah - who cares what a judge orders - the parents can ignore the order IF THEY BOTH AGREE TO.

You can quote all the court cases/legislation you want, but you are ignoring the SIMPLE point I am making.

[Gary M]

Originally Posted by billm

You can quote all the court cases/legislation you want, but you are ignoring the SIMPLE point I am making.

Bill,

You were wrong and you are holding on to this argument like a dog to a bone.

YES, mature, thoughtful, selfless parents who can get along (but then they'd likely still be married, n'est ce pas?) can come to whatever agreement/arrangement they like and everything will be roses and glitter farting unicorns.

I dare suggest, though, that in the vast majority of cases this would be a pipe dream.

I further suggest that giving advice along these lines is irresponsible, as it opens both parties up to litigation down the road and someone will be caught with their pants down (as it were).

Human nature being what it is, and circumstances being subject to change as they are, counting on someone to let you off the hook for CS is folly.

As I saw written on here once before... Face it: If she thought you were a swell guy, you'd still be married. I trusted my ex to leave me alone to provide for our kids and it bit me (and therefore our kids) -hard- in the ass. Since then I have spent every dime I had saved and sold every toy I had owned (bye-bye Harley) in order to have The Divorce Industry make her stop. Yeah, we "agreed" to waive CS (I was supposed to be the recipient) in exchange for waiving SS.... THAT lasted until she was in a bad mood one day while her family was concurrently winding her up because the kids were with me. She came after me with fangs and claws and FRO in tow. I bloody near lost everything, including the house.

So, yeah, agree to anything you like. Just don't come whining back here when you're picking cigarette butts out of the gutter in front of the soup kitchen....

Cheers!

Gary