Legalities of Support types

[YOW]

I have been struggling with understanding how some spousal support situations and some terms of child support are even legal.

Spousal Support
First of all... I do understand that some support may initially be required to allow someone to get back into the work force if they have been away from it for some time due to raising children. I also understand that it is necessary in situations where a spouse has no skills and was always dependent on the other spouse - therefore having no means of getting a suitable job for a long time.

But Family law requires all parties become self sufficient, and still other parts of Law (criminal) indicate you cannot live off the avails of another person. How did this subsidy become an inherent right obtained through divorce? If a spouse is educated, able bodied and capable - why are spousal support terms handed out so generously to the recipient?



Child Support
For the most part - I'm all for it, and I want to see all kids (not just my own) have the best options and best means possible to become independent people with the tools to make it in the work force.

But... its those Section7 clauses that are bothering me. Specifically the post-secondary expenses being mentioned. I agree that parents should contribute equally to the kids post-secondary education - but to put this in section 7 the way it is written basically enforces that the childs education must be paid in full by the parents. A child that is raised in an in-tact marriage does not necessarily get this expense covered. I certainly did not.

I would be much happier to see that child support between ages 18-23 can be paid by covering post-secondary educations costs in lieu of offset payments to the other spouse.



And the time when child support ends - they turn 18 and become an adult, unless they cannot become self sufficient due to illness, disability, education or some other cause.

If the child has no cost of living because they live at home with their parent (shared custody or not)... if the parents have paid for the education in full (RESP)... and the child holds a part time job (lets say the child earns monthly at least what would have been paid by child support) - is child support to the other spouse still necessary? All their needs are technically met at this time.

[rockscan]

Kids are still required to pay a portion of their expenses for school. Its how much they pay thats the kicker. There is plenty of case law pointing to paying a third and pointing to less. There are factors in that though. Much of the issue comes down to how much the parents make and how educated they are.

[YOW]

So for my kids, I suspect that their education will be covered in full by the RESP. That is one thing that my ex and I did right.

So my question still stands - is child support still necessary between 18-23 while they are in post secondary education, living at home, and having a part-time income at least equal to the child support amount?

[blinkandimgone]

Re: living off the avails of another person.

What you aren't taking into account is the contribution of the SS recipient to the payor's successes, so to speak. This makes it not solely the payor's avails, but yhe recipient's as well.

[rockscan]

Yes cs is still payable because they arent self sufficient while going to school. They still need their living expenses to be covered.

Just out of curiosity, do you make more then 100 grand a year?

[YOW]

Yes cs is still payable because they arent self sufficient while going to school. They still need their living expenses to be covered.

Just out of curiosity, do you make more then 100 grand a year?

But they have no living expenses if their education is covered, have free room & board.. and if they have a part time job - they are doing very well in fact.

Yes, and I pay hefty support amounts.

[YOW]

Re: living off the avails of another person.

What you aren't taking into account is the contribution of the SS recipient to the payor's successes, so to speak. This makes it not solely the payor's avails, but yhe recipient's as well.

Perhaps in some cases, the spouse that stays home did in fact contribute to the other spouse's "success". Had I stayed home though, of course - I would have been away and had to "start over" my career, and perhaps earning less than I am today. Had we both worked, I would be where I am today. I am hesitant to say one's choice to stay home to raise kids equates to contributing to the other's success, especially when the spouse that works outside the home has taken 100% responsibility of the financial requirements and receives no credit whatsoever in the courts.

[standing on the sidelines]

But they have no living expenses if their education is covered, have free room & board.. and if they have a part time job - they are doing very well in fact.

Yes, and I pay hefty support amounts.

they may not pay room and board but it still cost someone something to provide shelter, food and clothes.

[standing on the sidelines]

Perhaps in some cases, the spouse that stays home did in fact contribute to the other spouse's "success". Had I stayed home though, of course - I would have been away and had to "start over" my career, and perhaps earning less than I am today. Had we both worked, I would be where I am today. I am hesitant to say one's choice to stay home to raise kids equates to contributing to the other's success, especially when the spouse that works outside the home has taken 100% responsibility of the financial requirements and receives no credit whatsoever in the courts.

while I would agree with you there is one thing that you are missing. The parent still in the workforce has the stability of the other parent caring for the child. So no worrying about last minute babysitters due to an emergency at work etc. Plus more able to put in longer hours or travel for the job if required.

[Rioe]

Spousal Support
First of all... I do understand that some support may initially be required to allow someone to get back into the work force if they have been away from it for some time due to raising children. I also understand that it is necessary in situations where a spouse has no skills and was always dependent on the other spouse - therefore having no means of getting a suitable job for a long time.

But Family law requires all parties become self sufficient, and still other parts of Law (criminal) indicate you cannot live off the avails of another person. How did this subsidy become an inherent right obtained through divorce? If a spouse is educated, able bodied and capable - why are spousal support terms handed out so generously to the recipient?

I'm with you on this one! I think that unless it was a long-term 'traditional' marriage in which the wife absolutely cannot be expected to find employment, SS should not be a consideration. At most, time-limited to say five years, the amount of time it would take to get a degree and find a job, if the person did not already have one or the other.

Of course, I also believe that people should be expected to support themselves these days. Even a 'traditional' marriage ending now probably has retirement-aged spouses, who can split the pension and the assets and move on without spousal support.

But some judges still hold old-fashioned thinking in regards to spousal support. They should have some discretion for extenuating circumstances, but that's about it.

Child Support
For the most part - I'm all for it, and I want to see all kids (not just my own) have the best options and best means possible to become independent people with the tools to make it in the work force.

But... its those Section7 clauses that are bothering me. Specifically the post-secondary expenses being mentioned. I agree that parents should contribute equally to the kids post-secondary education - but to put this in section 7 the way it is written basically enforces that the childs education must be paid in full by the parents. A child that is raised in an in-tact marriage does not necessarily get this expense covered. I certainly did not.

Usually, it's paid 2/3 by parents (divided into their section 7 proportions) and 1/3 by the child, not paid in full by parents.

This is one issue that deeply divides children of separated vs intact families. Yes, divorced families are expected to fund educations where intact families can decide for themselves what they want to do. I guess though, that children of divorce have other issues that children of intact families do not have, so this is one way of trying to make up for it.

But, think about what's going on underneath the law. It's fairer than it looks.

If both parents agree to pay, they can pay the education in full and not require anything from the child.

If both parents agree not to pay, they can avoid it entirely and make the child cover it all. It would have to be a pretty entitled child to take the parents to court to make them pay.

If one parent wants to pay and the other one doesn't, they both have to pay. In a divorce situation, this takes the form of one parent taking the other to court to extract the money. In an intact situation, it takes the form of one parent giving family money (that the other parent may well have earned the bulk of) to the child without asking permission from the other parent.

I would be much happier to see that child support between ages 18-23 can be paid by covering post-secondary educations costs in lieu of offset payments to the other spouse.

And the time when child support ends - they turn 18 and become an adult, unless they cannot become self sufficient due to illness, disability, education or some other cause.

If the child has no cost of living because they live at home with their parent (shared custody or not)... if the parents have paid for the education in full (RESP)... and the child holds a part time job (lets say the child earns monthly at least what would have been paid by child support) - is child support to the other spouse still necessary? All their needs are technically met at this time.

While the child is attending school, they are not expected to support their living expenses. So CS is still important to cover those, unless the child attends university out of town, in which case CS isn't usually paid for the months the child is away, and instead the residential expenses are a section 7 one instead.

Any income the child earns goes to their 1/3 share of tuition/books and their fun money.

You may think the child has no cost of living because they live at home, but the parent(s) they live with sure incur(s) costs. So CS continues to be applicable. Even if the child earned money equal to the CS, it's not like they pay room and board with it, so the parent(s) continue to need the CS.

[Rioe]

But they have no living expenses if their education is covered, have free room & board.. and if they have a part time job - they are doing very well in fact.

Yes, and I pay hefty support amounts.

The room and board is not free though. The parent(s) they live with are covering it. CS helps them do that more fairly, same as it did before university. The kid still eats, still uses water and electricity, still needs a bedroom, still wears clothes, etc.

The child's part time job should go to their share of tuition and for their fun and savings and whatever they want that's 'extra' that a parent wouldn't cover.

[YOW]

they may not pay room and board but it still cost someone something to provide shelter, food and clothes.

Ok - I get that. But if the 18+ child does not go to post-sec school, and stays at home, they become ineligible for child support.

At some point, the payor will stop paying child support. There seems to be a lot of inconsistencies to me. I am not trying to be a deadbeat parent here. My kids will enjoy a paid in full post-sec education, and free room and board. Likely they will also work a part time job like most other young adults their age. CS on top of all that just seems excessive on the payor, especially since CS would end if the 18+ child does not go to post sec education.

[YOW]

I suppose the situation I am painting is very specific. All responses here have made valid points (and have been appreciated) in the broad general sense, and I suppose it would be a logistical nightmare to be so specific on each and every situation.

It would be nice though to see change in the form of recognition of what is already provided to the 18+ child in post sec school, their own earnings, etc. - and then determine if and how much CS should be paid.

[rockscan]

Courts rule this way because children shouldnt suffer financially as a result of their parents divorce. Why should your child have to pay rent to their parent while going to school when they would not have had to pay it if you hadnt divorced? Theyre going to school. Do you want them to focus on their education or making enough money to pay for their living expenses? Should they take out student loans to be able to eat? There are not many children at 18 who end up getting off cs and you should be proud and happy that your child is going to school to further themselves.

My partners share of living expenses for his kid away from school totaled the same as his child support so you would be paying either way.

These are your kids, quit being a jerk about making sure theyre safe and healthy while going to school.

[YOW]

These are your kids, quit being a jerk about making sure theyre safe and healthy while going to school.

I am going to assume you skimmed the posts, and did not read things fully.