What are your thoughts?....

[Janus]

Originally Posted by cashcow4ex

Another shining example on how the Gov't got it wrong! Totally unfair way to look at it.

The best way not to be a cash cow for the ex is to get shared custody.

I agree, there should be something between 0% and 40%, but there isn't, and I don't see that changing any time soon. Easier to get shared custody than change established CS doctrine.

[Lolita123]

Originally Posted by Janus

Not true for a situation with a CP/NCP. The purpose of CS in that case is to make the living conditions in the custodial parent's house only similar to what it would be if the parents had not divorced.

In a CP/NCP situation, the NCP is assumed to spend no money (aside from CS) on the child. The NCP is also assumed to have the kid roughly zero percent of the time. Therefore, the standard of living of the NCP is completely irrelevant.

You are possibly confusing it with shared parenting, where the goal of CS in that case is to somewhat equalize the standard of living, though to be honest it often fails horribly in that regard as well.



The idea of making the guidelines mandatory was to reduce courtroom arguing over amounts. See how SS is all over the map? Imagine if CS was the same. CS isn't always fair (and in fact is frequently quite unfair) but at least very few legal dollars are spent wrangling over the amount.



I think this is why the fight to make CS fair fails. The people who realize it is unfair often tend to be crazy right-wing conspiracy-theory loonies. When you say stupid shit like "the government is keeping CS high for more $$$" then normal people just tune you out.

I agree IF the real living situation is 0% and 100%... but the federal guidelines fail to recognize anything below 40% ... even 38%.. and even at 40% judges have been shown to award full support... So that is issue number one... and you said that word... those guidelines assume lots of things that are not reality.. if you have your children 30% of the time, there is a cost that you are paying to have them.. yet that is not recognized.. and THAT creates different living of standard... where they get to do all kinds of things with the Custodial parent (who get money for 365 days a year) while with the other parent they can't go to any activities and sometimes have to share a bedroom because a 2 bedroom is that they can afford.. while the CP has the 3 bedroom house with finish basement and garage...


on the fact that CS is to avoid court battles etc... Quebec did it right... and the federal should think about changing it.. here is a quote from a Fraser institute review:
(full report link: https://www.fraserinstitute.org/site...guidelines.pdf)


As mentioned above, although Quebec participated in the FLC, the province ultimately decided not to participate in the implementation of the Federal Child Support Guidelines. Rather, Quebec developed its own child supportsystem, and the Quebec Child Support Guidelines (2011) provide, in fact, support for some key issues raised in this report. Specifically:

1. The Quebec system uses the incomes of both parents (less a personal reserve amount) to determine the amount of child support (and the shares of such amount that each parent is expected to pay) whereas the Canadian system uses only the pre-tax income of the NCP and never determines an amount the CP is expected to pay.
2. The Quebec system starts with basic child costs determined by experts whereas the Canadian system relies on equivalence scales.
3. The Quebec system, while not fully accounting for the custody time of the NCP, does make an adjustment to the support paid as long as the NCP has the children at least 20% of the time. (In the federal model, the threshold for even considering access or custody time for the NCP is 40%, and even then there is not really an accounting. Rather, the court is simply directed to consider it).
4. The Quebec system makes some effort to accommodate new relationships whereas the federal scheme gives no consideration to second families and the effect of such on the CP or on new responsibilities faced by a NCP.
5. In terms of outcomes, in the Quebec system NCP table support declines dramatically as a percent of after-tax income as income increases whereas with the federal Guidelines, the percentage is essentially flat, as we saw in figure 1, which compared the percent of NCP income paid in support under both systems.

all that to say that guidelines are good.. but they have to admit that there are many issues that need to be addressed since they were first implemented!!!

[Lolita123]

Originally Posted by Janus

The best way not to be a cash cow for the ex is to get shared custody.

I agree, there should be something between 0% and 40%, but there isn't, and I don't see that changing any time soon. Easier to get shared custody than change established CS doctrine.

Not in all cases... sometimes, CS makes it that they pay less than if they would have shared custody and the ex would go after spousal... so basically you end up paying pretty much the same as full CS.. and yet you have the children 50% of the time and have to pay on top of everything else...


also there is the issue when the parents live further away from each other for various reasons...


That is how wrong this whole thing is...

[cashcow4ex]

Originally Posted by Janus

Did I mention that as a NCP nobody cares about you? Stop being a whiny NCP parent, and get shared custody.

Then you can fight.

It really isn't that cut and dry. Some parents do not live close enough to be 50/50. Sometimes the courts wont allow 50/50 whether due to malicious lies or truths. Some parents (like myself) had to take my 50% proceeds of the sale of the matrimonial house to pay to the ex to cover off profit sharing and other parts of the settlement while she had nothing of asset to help off set that.

I Agree that those who willing choose to be NCP dont deserve the right to complain about certain aspects of the Family Law System, but there is also other circumstances as to why someone is a NCP.

[Lolita123]

Originally Posted by Janus

You are only the millionth person to come up with this brilliant idea. Sadly, the concept is horribly flawed, and has been flatly rejected by every single judge. You are wasting your time making the argument.



and movie tickets, and vacations, and fancy restaurants sometimes, and toys, and allowance, and a nice house. Child support is not just for "survival", it is for "lifestyle". Lifestyle of the child should be what it would have been if the parents had not divorced.



Custodial parent thinks that she needs an SUV to drive kids around. Not just any SUV, but a sweet $80,000 ride. NCP disagrees. Who is right? Custodial parent thinks the kids need a night at Great Wolf Lodge. NCP disagrees, who is right?

You need to understand this, unless proven otherwise, it is assumed that every single decision the custodial parent makes is in the best interests of the child. CP doesn't have to prove this, it is presumed to be true. Can you prove that the night at GWL didn't help? Massage therapy for mom could be a legitimate child-expense, since she needs to relax given that she has the kids all the time, and the massage makes her a better parent, which is better for the kids.



So every year, parents have to go to court to fight line by line over spending. This is insanity. And obviously there is not enough to cover, at any level of CS. The list of "kid's stuff" just grows proportionately to income.



No, only one thing to change. Become a 50% parent. If you are not a 50% parent, then the court doesn't care about you, I don't care about you, society doesn't care about you, the government doesn't care about you... and to a large extent, your children don't care about you.

As a 50% parent, this rule already exists! Sections 9b and 9c essentially call for accountability, but you don't get to trigger S9 as a non-custodial parent.

Did I mention that as a NCP nobody cares about you? Stop being a whiny NCP parent, and get shared custody.

Then you can fight.

As stated.. not all situation can be 50/50... here is a great example where in the US (I know we are Canada but the concept is still a good one)
they have implemented some accountability in cases where there seems to be abused... I think it would be a start...


https://pnwfamilylaw.com/blog/enforc...nts-were-used/



And that is the problem... I have seen CP who never have their kids over their weekend... and in time, the NCP spends much more quality time with the kids... I am not talking about cases where a father makes a choice NOT to see theirs kids.. but some situation make it that sometimes it happens... and in those cases it's funny how the NCP money's will mean something to the CP.. but anything they will dismiss it... especially when you have a situation as stated that is like 35/65... that is sometimes the reality for people who work on shifts such as nurses, firefighters, police officers.. has nothing to do with NOT wanting to see theirs children.. but their schedule makes it that it's not possible to have half and half...

[Lolita123]

Originally Posted by cashcow4ex

It really isn't that cut and dry. Some parents do not live close enough to be 50/50. Sometimes the courts wont allow 50/50 whether due to malicious lies or truths. Some parents (like myself) had to take my 50% proceeds of the sale of the matrimonial house to pay to the ex to cover off profit sharing and other parts of the settlement while she had nothing of asset to help off set that.

I Agree that those who willing choose to be NCP dont deserve the right to complain about certain aspects of the Family Law System, but there is also other circumstances as to why someone is a NCP.

Exactly my point...