Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Undue hardship

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

  • things could get, but even still, we could not have anticipated what has happened to us. We also had no idea about the court process and never in our wildest dreams would we have thought we would spend 20k on a lawyer in a 2 year time frame!
    Lol...forgive me for laughing a bit here but 20k is cheap.

    I find it hard to believe when people say going into a contested divorce that they don't understand how expensive it is.

    Comment


    • @PursingHappiness Thanks for input. Again, it helps if people had the whole story here. I have no idea where I 'complained' that his child was getting educated or went back to school. I was merely pointing out the change in circumstance is hard on second families. Your claim that his ex would have added expenses now too is a joke! She is now getting $600 a month more than if he was just paying for one child, as we thought was the case. $600 for a 21 year old adult who works full time 4 months a year and part time all through school. My husband pays 65% of his school costs. The 21 year old shares a room with his 10 year old brother. Its not like she went out and bought a bigger house. There is a lot of debate on this forum regarding post secondary education, not just mine. I agree that this should be a family decision, not a court decision. I know families who work as doctors who don't pay a dime of their kids education because they feel it should be up to the child (adult). While I do not take this drastic a view, I do think they should take some responsibility. Once the family court gets involved, all of a sudden a kid who would have never, ever had his tuition paid for in full is now getting it and $600 a month on top of that. Also, maybe I am pissed that for 2 years they have refused to provide proof of his full time enrollment in school, but we still pay! The judge yesterday said they do have an obligation to provide this. One last point. At the beginning of this process, we were advised by our lawyer that there was case law where a parent does not have to pay for an adult child who does not speak to them and cut them out of their life. We did not understand what 'case law' meant and simply thought that was law! We never thought we would have to pay, nor was it an issue as he was living away from home, in school part time, where my husband helped him financially, until he decided he did not want to speak to his father anymore. So, while my husband is happy he is in school, as am I, my only point was to understand the hardship that these changes can put on second families.

      Comment


      • Wife#2

        Lets be clear about one thing, it isn't the system that has cost you in legal fees etc., it is an unreasonable ex. Your husband can and should request costs if his ex is being unreasonable.

        It is virtually impossible to prevent someone from engaging in prolonged and expensive litigation if that person is deadset on doing so. It would be nice to be able to put up barriers, but the reason why there are none as it may prevent legitimate claims from being put forth. And our system is one that it would rather deal with a multitude of nuisance claims, than deny one legitimate claim.

        Comment


        • So what are your thoughts on a reversed situation, such as a receiving cs parent having their payment upped because they go on parental leave (because she had a baby with her new partner), so her income goes down. Should the father of her first child pay more because of her choice? Because it happens, and woman like that get away with it. Would you agree it is a double standard?
          Sure, I agree....lots of bad, unfair things happen in divorce. You'll find a thousand stories on this forum about people who's ex's played the system...both men and women. Screwed their ex-partner out of money...out of custody...left them in bankruptcy. In fact, a lot of this forum discusses the need to change things that are unjust...and its not gender specific. There's a lot of screwy things in family law.

          So, I didn't make the argument that some things might not need to change. I specifically responded to your situation as you described it. In your situation, you're trying to control the lifestyle of your husband's child by a previous relationship. In YOUR situation, YOU are the one trying to do something unfair. That other people may be doing the same jackass things doesn't make you right...it makes you just as bad.

          My opinion is that you did some bad planning....like a lot of us do...and instead of sucking it up and dealing with it...you're trying to find excuses.

          You chose to have a lot of kids...you CHOSE it. I really don't see you or your kids as victims, at all. I've seen people have situations they REALLY couldn't chose or control. For instance, people that get really sick...or have terrible things happen to them...life sucks sometimes. I think you're very lucky to have the joy of a big family.

          Its funny though...the difference between a happy life and an unhappy life is that some people deal with difficulties and come out stronger in the end..and some people want to sit around and whine about it all day.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Pursuinghappiness View Post
            Uneven:

            While you could feasibly make an argument that some things need to change....they don't need to change because you made a decision to have a lot of kids.

            Again, no one gets a roadmap in life. Not of health issues, not of expenses, not of anything. And the more variables you introduce..ie, divorce, new marriage, 5 children....the more potential hazards you may encounter.

            You want to continue to have this "war of the old vs new children" and frankly its extremely distasteful to me. Your husband's child with his previous spouse does not have to live at the standard that you want to impose because you chose to have a lot of children.



            So what? This applies to everyone in the country. We all make choices, stuff happens...divorce, death, illness...and we all have to manage those changes. You are not special. You made a decision to have a big family..and while I'm sure that's a fun, lovely thing (I wish I had more children but I couldn't afford them)...it comes with some peril, including a lot of financial peril. Big families come with a lot of wonderful pluses...and a lot of negatives. This is particularly true because you have a blended family and that comes with additional issues such as the one you're experiencing.

            What are you whining about? The fact that you can't have a bunch of new kids with your husband and impose a reduced lifestyle on his previous child because you think all the kids should be living at the level you decide because you made an irresponsible decision to have too many of them?

            You don't get a roadmap in life. You plan for the worst situations and when you plan badly, you pay the price. Join the club.

            I never said they need to change because of my situation. Even if I never met my husband, things needed to change. The cs rates are ridicules, the fact that woman are favoured in courts (even when they just plain suck at being mothers) needs to change.

            Of course there are no road maps in life. There is no war going on, i'm just pointing out yet another flaw, that I feel is in the system. I find, personally, it distasteful how payers of cs are treated. And how much they are expected to payout.

            So it is irresponsible to have my children? Really? So if, financially things hadn't expectantly fallen to shit, would it still have been irresponsible in your eyes? So i'm only supposed to have a road map included when it comes to paying cs to one of our children? We are only supposed to consider ONE child's financial position? I came to the marriage with 2 children, that were born prior to my husband's son, so shouldn't only my first 2 children count, with your outlook? We did consider the financial situation of the 3 combined children we had already when we decided to have more children. And since I didn't have the road map, and my husband's custody situation changed as a result of his work, a lot of things changed. It increased our monthly expenses by about $1000.00. And then we had some other unexpected expenses from my first 2 children.

            I guess what needs to be understood here was I was asking for advice on undue hardship, not your personal feelings on my life choices.

            And I believe all of our children deserve nothing short of the best, so please don't act like I think my "shiney" new kids deserve better. I love my step-son and treat him like I would my own children.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Pursuinghappiness View Post
              Sure, I agree....lots of bad, unfair things happen in divorce. You'll find a thousand stories on this forum about people who's ex's played the system...both men and women. Screwed their ex-partner out of money...out of custody...left them in bankruptcy. In fact, a lot of this forum discusses the need to change things that are unjust...and its not gender specific. There's a lot of screwy things in family law.

              So, I didn't make the argument that some things might not need to change. I specifically responded to your situation as you described it. In your situation, you're trying to control the lifestyle of your husband's child by a previous relationship. In YOUR situation, YOU are the one trying to do something unfair. That other people may be doing the same jackass things doesn't make you right...it makes you just as bad.

              My opinion is that you did some bad planning....like a lot of us do...and instead of sucking it up and dealing with it...you're trying to find excuses.

              You chose to have a lot of kids...you CHOSE it. I really don't see you or your kids as victims, at all. I've seen people have situations they REALLY couldn't chose or control. For instance, people that get really sick...or have terrible things happen to them...life sucks sometimes. I think you're very lucky to have the joy of a big family.

              Its funny though...the difference between a happy life and an unhappy life is that some people deal with difficulties and come out stronger in the end..and some people want to sit around and whine about it all day.
              I don't think you are reading all of my posts, and to be able to say the things you are, you need to read them all. I also think you would need to ask me questions. You need the full picture to make some of the comments you have.

              I was asking for advice on undue hardship because things are bad because of unexpected things, that nobody could have predicted. We new life would change for us, but that we,prior to everything, would still be comfortable.

              I have also stated that we are not claiming undue hardship. I actually am starting a part time job in November. A big reason we are not claiming undue hardship is because of the advice I received on here. Now I took the advice from people that offered advice, minus the ignorance. People tend to actually take in what you are saying when you aren't acting like an arse.

              I am not whining about it, i'm looking for advice and have to tell my story, mind you I have heard you whine a few times about not having enough money to have more children. Well go get a second job, that is what I had to do.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by HammerDad View Post
                Wife#2

                Lets be clear about one thing, it isn't the system that has cost you in legal fees etc., it is an unreasonable ex. Your husband can and should request costs if his ex is being unreasonable.

                It is virtually impossible to prevent someone from engaging in prolonged and expensive litigation if that person is deadset on doing so. It would be nice to be able to put up barriers, but the reason why there are none as it may prevent legitimate claims from being put forth. And our system is one that it would rather deal with a multitude of nuisance claims, than deny one legitimate claim.
                Well, I agree and disagree with you. Yes, its her unwillingness to settle based on the guidelines, but it is also the system and all the case laws that make this possible to fight to the death for everything. Example. My husband was rewarded 50/50 time share with his 10 year old son. So we assume this means he will pay the set off amount in child support. Is this not reasonable?? His ex refuses, based on MY income and says he should pay full amount still, because our household income is higher. I have read posts here dealing with this issue in the reverse. A women remarries and a man wants a deduction in child support based on his income. Well, everyone jumped down his throat. But let me tell you, his ex won! She got more child support based on my income, so why can a father (or payor parent) not do the same? And you say this system is fair to both sexes? So basically, the way I look at it, the court has ordered me to support his children! But these are the types of things that is allowed in our system. So do I blame the ex for being a pathetic loser and asking me to support her kid? Or do I blame the system that allows this to happen? There is case law both ways. Same issue with his adult child who does not have any contact with him. Some judges will say they don't care, he's your kid, pay. Others will say he is an adult and choses not to speak with his father, he doesn't have to pay. In both cases, to avoid court, my husband actually offered her a small increase in child support and agreed to pay half the amount for the adult child who does not speak with him. Offer rejected. Court, again. Judge decision was half way between the sides. He has to pay more because of my income, but not full amount (close to full amount).

                Comment


                • Originally posted by wife#2 View Post
                  Well, I agree and disagree with you. Yes, its her unwillingness to settle based on the guidelines, but it is also the system and all the case laws that make this possible to fight to the death for everything. Example. My husband was rewarded 50/50 time share with his 10 year old son. So we assume this means he will pay the set off amount in child support. Is this not reasonable?? His ex refuses, based on MY income and says he should pay full amount still, because our household income is higher. I have read posts here dealing with this issue in the reverse. A women remarries and a man wants a deduction in child support based on his income. Well, everyone jumped down his throat. But let me tell you, his ex won! She got more child support based on my income, so why can a father (or payor parent) not do the same? And you say this system is fair to both sexes? So basically, the way I look at it, the court has ordered me to support his children! But these are the types of things that is allowed in our system. So do I blame the ex for being a pathetic loser and asking me to support her kid? Or do I blame the system that allows this to happen? There is case law both ways. Same issue with his adult child who does not have any contact with him. Some judges will say they don't care, he's your kid, pay. Others will say he is an adult and choses not to speak with his father, he doesn't have to pay. In both cases, to avoid court, my husband actually offered her a small increase in child support and agreed to pay half the amount for the adult child who does not speak with him. Offer rejected. Court, again. Judge decision was half way between the sides. He has to pay more because of my income, but not full amount (close to full amount).

                  Wow, your story shocks me. Funny how the step-parent's income comes into the picture, but go ahead and make a dr's appointment for one of his kids, his ex would be down your throat faster than you can say cs!! Did his ex claim undue hardship, is that how your income was included?

                  Comment


                  • Also, maybe I am pissed that for 2 years they have refused to provide proof of his full time enrollment in school, but we still pay!
                    By all means, you deserve proof of enrollment. And if you have to file motions for disclosure for this...I assume you're asking for costs. I hope you win.

                    We never thought we would have to pay, nor was it an issue as he was living away from home, in school part time, where my husband helped him financially, until he decided he did not want to speak to his father anymore.
                    I'm not a big fan of putting relationship conditions on CS. A parent should always support their child. One of my kid went through a phase in life when she got really mouthy. I didn't stop financially supporting her because I didn't like her attitude. Stuff happens with kids..they go through a lot of phases in life...your financial obligation to them shouldn't change.

                    There is a lot of debate on this forum regarding post secondary education, not just mine. I agree that this should be a family decision, not a court decision. I know families who work as doctors who don't pay a dime of their kids education because they feel it should be up to the child (adult). While I do not take this drastic a view, I do think they should take some responsibility.
                    Kids are required to pick up a portion of their tuition. These types of expenses are supposed to be split between the ex-spouses and the kid. I think you're suggesting that that's not happening in your case? I'm not sure why that would be.

                    On another note, I chose not to have more children that I very much wanted because kids are expensive. They get more expensive as they get older. I still help with my oldest child...she's in her early 20's and graduated from University but the job market sucks and she's struggling to become independent. Under divorce, my ex's obligations are cut-off.... and that's fair, I have no issue with that. However, for me....there is no cut-off date. I will help my child if I see her working really hard, being responsible and working towards her independence.

                    So, while my husband is happy he is in school, as am I, my only point was to understand the hardship that these changes can put on second families.
                    Divorce is an unfortuate situation. Its nice if you can move on from it and have more kids. But you have to understand you always have an obligation to your exisiting children first. And that obligation doesn't come with absolute guarantees. Kids NEVER do.

                    You've got two choices. Don't have more kids in your new relationship (that's my choice...between me and my new partner, we have enough kids to take care of)....or be well-prepared to deal with both the emotional and financial issues of a blended family.

                    Comment


                    • No, she did not claim undue hardship. Just claimed that it was unfair that our household income was much higher and that this made the standards of living to different between the households. This is what you do before claiming undue hardship, from my understanding. Her income is 42k a year, plus her child and spousal support BASED ON GUIDELINES would have been approx 60k a year. Hardly undue hardship. But we pay even more now.

                      Comment


                      • I agree with you for a minor child (under 18), but not an adult. Time to grow up, this is the real world. In the real world people don't pay your way when you treat them like pieces of crap! And, in an intact family, I can't imagine it being any different, which is meant to be the point, or so I thought, of family law. Would any husband and wife send money into a child's bank account that they had not spoken to, seen, heard from, seen report cards, proof of school, etc in 2 years? I think not!! Think about that.
                        Last edited by wife#2; 10-19-2012, 12:04 PM. Reason: quote wrong

                        Comment


                        • I am not whining about it, i'm looking for advice and have to tell my story, mind you I have heard you whine a few times about not having enough money to have more children. Well go get a second job, that is what I had to do.
                          I'm not whining about not having more children. My comment was that I would have enjoyed more children but I planned adequately for my financial and time obligations. If I had made the decision to have more children and consequently work more to afford them, it would have cost me time with all of them which doesn't make sense to me. I could have more children...I still choose not to.

                          You're obviously hostile and angry because I don't agree with you but my point remains....you live with the decisions you make. You come off as very controlling. If you don't get an agreement to your warped position, you get pretty angry.

                          Anyway, its good that you're moving on with life...its just a shame that you're doing it complaining all the way. In my opinion, nothing about your situation is unfair...you just have a lot of financial turns and twists because you have a big blended family. We all deal with stuff...that's life.

                          Comment


                          • agree with you for a minor child (under 18), but not an adult. Time to grow up, this is the real world. In the real world people don't pay your way when you treat them like pieces of crap! And, in an intact family, I can't imagine it being any different, which is meant to be the point, or so I thought, of family law. Would any husband and wife send money into a child's bank account that they had not spoken to, seen, heard from, seen report cards, proof of school, etc in 2 years? I think not!! Think about that.
                            Again, you absolutely deserve proof of the child's enrollment. It sounded like you have requested this and are pursuing it in court. I truly hope you don't find out that they've defrauded you out of money.

                            However, I think one the biggest pros and biggest cons with divorce situations and kids is that once you go through this process...the obligations to your children become determined by a family law standard.

                            Its a "pro" because for the kid because it ensures that in a case where the parents are at each other's throats and use the kid as a weapon...the financial obligations to the child are met regardless of whatever behavioral issues may be going on due to the massive conflict.

                            Its a "con" because it the law system acts to a standard...not individual beliefs. And consequently that removes some parental discretion when it comes to things like tuition. Some parents pay their kids tuition, some parents think its better to make the kid work and pay their own tuition...and in divorces often you get two people who have differing positions. I think there are a lot of very good arguments to support both positions.

                            The litmus test then becomes pretty simple. The system considers what's in the best interest of the child. And in this case, they've determined that overall the best interest of the child is to have his tuition and CS paid until he is out of post-secondary education.

                            The problem with any system like this is that they consider the WHOLE and not always the details of one particular case.

                            Consider that you may have an extreme bias against this kid, as its not your kid...but his mother might feel very much differently and have a whole other story to tell about what's going on.

                            I know you may feel mistreated...Its hard to tell for someone not involved in it. But provided this ex isn't engaging in fraud and this kid is actually in school and getting educated...its a good thing even if your husband doesn't get to enjoy a relationship with him now. Things with kids change...and he might come around...be patient. There's a lot of baggage in divorce for kids.
                            <!-- / message --><!-- edit note -->

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by wife#2 View Post
                              No, she did not claim undue hardship. Just claimed that it was unfair that our household income was much higher and that this made the standards of living to different between the households. This is what you do before claiming undue hardship, from my understanding. Her income is 42k a year, plus her child and spousal support BASED ON GUIDELINES would have been approx 60k a year. Hardly undue hardship. But we pay even more now.

                              Well i'm sorry that happened. I really feel, in my own opinion, that was handled the wrong way.

                              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