Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Petition for "second" families and child support reform

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    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.

    Comment


    • #32
      Phoenix said "As a mother of the children from the "first family", I would have NO PATIENCE if my ex went out and made yet another child that he cannot provide for. Thank goodness he hasn't -- yet."

      Most men ARE providing for their first children, unlike your ex. Their "first" children are well looked after. These men want to look after ALL their children, adequatley, not JUST their "first".

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by got2bkid View Post
        Most men ARE providing for their first children, unlike your ex. Their "first" children are well looked after. These men want to look after ALL their children, adequatley, not JUST their "first".
        My ex is paying the correct amount of c/s in a timely manner now... however if he had another child and that meant that "our" children had to have their support money reduced, that WOULD be a hardship. That means: he can't afford another child.

        Whether he had stayed with me, or with a new woman, he can't afford to support any more children -- no matter who the mother of that new child is.

        As I've said before, I'm not sure what the answer to this dilemma is... I just don't see "cutting the child-support-pie into smaller pieces" as the answer because there seems to be no deterrant to anyone simply making as many babies as they please, rather than making the number of babies as they can provide for.

        Comment


        • #34
          Change the guidelines so they are fair to payors, acknowledge the expenses they contribute above CS amounts, don't allow adding on "extra-expenses" if BOTH parents aren't willing to contribute to them, let both parents take turns claiming tax benefits and credits, have a limit on the percentage of NET income a payor is obligated to fork over, and ensure BOTH parents are held financially responsible for the children they BOTH created after divorce.

          Then this problem wouldn't exist.

          Comment


          • #35
            Without question this needs to change in a huge way!

            In the mean time, I have a solution for 2nd families to beat the system at least in the short term.

            File a seperation agreement, start FRO, garnishment can only be max 50 percent split between both moms.....problem solved

            Still live together loving each other....

            Go to bed able to sleep knowing you can pay your bills, EX is getting less, and hope the system catches up to modern times.

            Big grin

            Comment


            • #36
              As a mother of a 'first family' that has been fighting for more than 3 years for child support only to have my ex move numerous times, change jobs, and as of the last FRO update - quit his job, to avoid paying CS, meanwhile he's already at 2 new children with his girlfriend whom he lives with, and who also works.
              I am raising 4 children alone with no financial support from their father who made more than $40,000 last year and contributed not one cent to his first family, but all to his second family.
              In those situations, how fair is it for a change to be put in place when the second family has been the only ones to benefit from the NCP jerking the system around? I have the children 100% of the time, he won't visit with them any more than twice a month, he never calls, never writes, never takes interest in their education or medical, and can still get away with doing nothing for his 'first family'.
              How do you decide whether it's fair & just that someone continue to procreate when they are doing little to nothing for the children that they leave behind and allow them to pay less CS simply because they can't keep it in their pants.
              Last edited by Kimberley; 01-08-2009, 12:37 AM.

              Comment


              • #37
                privateone,

                I wish it were that simple for us. There is no way that would work for us, for various reasons, not the least of which I would be paranoid the whole time!

                But it does point to a sad fact - "second" kids are only acknowledged to exist and to deserve some financial contribution from the paying parent once their parents seperate.

                Comment


                • #38
                  I hate that people are looking at it as First family or second family!! It causes fights, The reality is that if the family was together, and had two children, and the "MOM got pregnant by suprise" the family would adjust the Children would be forced to adjust to the finacial changes that come with a new child. But now that the family is seperated, those children should not except the fact that they may have A NEW brother or sister that "DADS" money need to be shared with..... I think it looks gready.

                  I am sorry for the people that deal with loser parents that dont want to have anything with their children, I am sorry

                  Also what about the women who have a second family, There are so many women out there that have children with fist husband then go and have more kids with someone else, but there no one saying they should have kept there legs closed!!, There children are bein gforced to except the financial changes with mom but its not OK for dad

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    1st families, 2nd families... whatever. Family really has nothing to do with this. The point I think everyone is trying to make - in different ways - is that parents have an obligation to support ALL their children. Any normal human being would spend an equal amount of money on each child, regardless of when they were born (first, second, third...) Unfortunately, in our current family law court system, a parent is only legally financially responsible for a child if he/she is separated from that child's other parent. Why all other dependent children (for whom the parent is not paying child support because he/she lives in harmony with those children's parent) are taken out of the equation when determining child support is beyond me. How is it that in Australia, every child a parent has is taken into account when determining child support, and not just the children from whose mother the parent is separated... and here, in Canada, only "the children of divorce" matter. I don't think anyone is arguing that parents should not support their children. We are all on the same page, agreeing that parents SHOULD support their children, and that they should support ALL their children. It angers me to hear about situations where children (siblings) are unable to attend summer camp because dad doesn't have money to enrol them in such an activity because he's paying for his other child's hockey camps, snowboarding lessons, etc., leaving him with no money to spend towards his other children. Yes, we agree that something needs to be done. But what? We can discuss it till our fingers fall off from all the typing, but that is not going to change our current family law system. That being said, does anyone have any ideas on what is being done and how we - the people - could help?

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Yes, you can help by printing out the petition. Read this gov't site to make sure the petition is formatted properly as per the gov't requirements:

                      Petitions — Practical Guide — Procedural Services — House of Commons — Canada

                      Go to your MP once it is printed out and ask him/her if she agrees that it is in the proper format (some MP's might want it slightly different), get 25 people to sign it, and get their addresses and postal codes. Then ask your MP to read it in Parliament. He/she is obligated to.

                      Also, contact your local University. See if any law students are interested in doing a study on this problem. Their results are often published and can be evidence for future debates.

                      Write your politicians, contact the media, organize a rally and anything else you can think of the get the "word" out.

                      Change is dreadfully slow in Canada and is met with strong barriers at evey level, but maybe if more of the "pubic" became aware of this problem (rather than just the people currently living this nightmare) they would be supportive of positive changes to ensure all children get a fair start in life.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        second family

                        I really can't stand it when people say my children ought not have been born if we couldn't "afford" it. My husband could easily afford ALL his children if he paid a REASONABLE amount and if OUR FAMILY wan't held finacially accountable for HER POOR choices.[/quote]

                        AMEN!!!

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          First Families

                          When a husband betrays his wife and make another home ,make more children ,I don't think so that the first family should suffer because of his loose character/irresponsible behaviour.
                          When his first wife was a stay home mom and he marries a working lady he never increases his child support.
                          As everyone claims that both parents (CP And NCP) should contribute equally then Child support guidelines should be re-revised and increased.The NCP is not there for children physically and emotionally(never devotes his time with the kids .The NCP is a free bird) so he should contribute more financially.There are very few NCPs who are involved with their kids.NO OFFENSES TO ANYONE AS EVERY CASE IS DIFFERENT.But we keep our point of view limited as per our experience.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            The kids are equally the responsibility of both parents, and their decisions, such as having more kids with someone else, are the parents right even if it means having less money for the 'first' family. That is just the way is and anyone who thinks that a parent does not have the right to have more kids in a second familiy and the financial concequences that goes with it (less money available for all the kids) is not accepting of the basic right of people to have as many kids as they want. Also, it is a right to have those kids treated equally by that parent, or in fact any way the parent wants within a reasonable way (ie. what a married niuclear family would be legally allowed to do).

                            The concept of what is acceptable or not, as pontificated by one parent (usually the CP) on the other (usually the NCP), denies the right to treat your kids (within the confines of the law) as you see fit.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by billm View Post
                              anyone who thinks that a parent does not have the right to have more kids in a second familiy and the financial concequences that goes with it (less money available for all the kids) is not accepting of the basic right of people to have as many kids as they want.
                              I think it is important not to confuse our "ability" to make more children with our "right" to make them. Sure, most of us are physically able to make lots and lots of babies and our free country allows for this, but it doesn't make it right if we can't provide for them.

                              This strong instinctual urge to procreate, while being Mother Nature's way to ensure the continuance of our species, doesn't mean that we have the MORAL right to keep making babies we can't provide for.

                              As adults we take many things into consideration when we choose the right financial time to have a baby: our job situation, our mortgage costs, perhaps student loans, car payments, etc. Taking into consideration child support payments for previously existing children is no different.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by phoenix View Post

                                As adults we take many things into consideration when we choose the right financial time to have a baby: our job situation, our mortgage costs, perhaps student loans, car payments, etc. Taking into consideration child support payments for previously existing children is no different.
                                I echo with Phoenix.Even animals can make babies and just leave them.As humans we should have the planned actions.

                                Comment

                                Our Divorce Forums
                                Forums dedicated to helping people all across Canada get through the separation and divorce process, with discussions about legal issues, parenting issues, financial issues and more.
                                Working...
                                X