Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > Financial Issues

Financial Issues This forum is for discussing any of the financial issues involved in your divorce.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 09-19-2011, 03:11 PM
shellshocked22 shellshocked22 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 323
shellshocked22 is on a distinguished road
Default 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 ?????
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-19-2011, 08:47 PM
billm's Avatar
billm billm is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,431
billm is on a distinguished road
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-19-2011, 10:06 PM
raven70 raven70 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: British Columbia
Posts: 103
raven70 is on a distinguished road
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-19-2011, 10:57 PM
Rioe's Avatar
Rioe Rioe is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Ontario
Posts: 3,351
Rioe will become famous soon enough
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-20-2011, 06:44 AM
standing on the sidelines standing on the sidelines is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Kitchener Ontario
Posts: 5,666
standing on the sidelines is on a distinguished road
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-20-2011, 08:31 AM
tiredofthisnow tiredofthisnow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: East, then west, then east again
Posts: 97
tiredofthisnow is on a distinguished road
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-20-2011, 09:02 AM
HammerDad HammerDad is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 3,973
HammerDad will become famous soon enough
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-20-2011, 09:54 AM
tdog tdog is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 45
tdog is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-20-2011, 10:15 AM
billm's Avatar
billm billm is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,431
billm is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-20-2011, 11:22 AM
HammerDad HammerDad is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 3,973
HammerDad will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Application For Spousal? lorlaman Divorce & Family Law 16 01-04-2011 08:42 PM
paying child support without a court order Roni Divorce & Family Law 18 09-18-2010 07:47 PM
When child support ends... paris Financial Issues 3 04-23-2010 10:04 PM
Offer to Settle Child Support - Is This Fair? #1StepMom Divorce & Family Law 4 10-27-2009 07:50 AM
Will I be Paying Spousal Support? North of You Financial Issues 5 10-21-2009 03:05 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:04 AM.