Phoniex said "if he can't afford MORE children he shouldn't be making more. Where would it end?"
I guess that is the problem, the definition of "afford". How much is the first family entitled to? 20% of his net? 30% of net? 50% of net? For many payors, the amount is constantly changing. A very detailed study in Australia done on "how much it really costs to raise a child" produced far lower amounts than the Canadian tables.
I know with the salary my husband makes he could easily afford to treat all his children adequately and equally. Unfortunately the guidelines do not hold his ex-wife financially accountable as well, and our payments have increased by 100% since having our children.
Since our children have been born, she has refused to work and the "extra-ordinary" expenses granted to her amount to as much as the CS payments.
The formulas for the guidelines amounts (as stated, based on welfare cases and assumptions about the life of the payor), and the "extras" added are too onerous for MOST payors (esp. if they have an ex who doesn't share in any costs).
WHETHER OR NOT THE PAYOR HAS STARTED ANOTHER FAMILY, the payments are too high for them to attain any sort of normal life.
I know of nobody who would spend 50% of their net income on 2 of their 4 children (and that is only supposed to be his 1/2, his ex-wife is also supposed to pay her share for their 2), and yet that is exactly what my husband is forced to do by these crazy guidelines.
I guess that is the problem, the definition of "afford". How much is the first family entitled to? 20% of his net? 30% of net? 50% of net? For many payors, the amount is constantly changing. A very detailed study in Australia done on "how much it really costs to raise a child" produced far lower amounts than the Canadian tables.
I know with the salary my husband makes he could easily afford to treat all his children adequately and equally. Unfortunately the guidelines do not hold his ex-wife financially accountable as well, and our payments have increased by 100% since having our children.
Since our children have been born, she has refused to work and the "extra-ordinary" expenses granted to her amount to as much as the CS payments.
The formulas for the guidelines amounts (as stated, based on welfare cases and assumptions about the life of the payor), and the "extras" added are too onerous for MOST payors (esp. if they have an ex who doesn't share in any costs).
WHETHER OR NOT THE PAYOR HAS STARTED ANOTHER FAMILY, the payments are too high for them to attain any sort of normal life.
I know of nobody who would spend 50% of their net income on 2 of their 4 children (and that is only supposed to be his 1/2, his ex-wife is also supposed to pay her share for their 2), and yet that is exactly what my husband is forced to do by these crazy guidelines.
Comment