Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > Divorce & Family Law

Divorce & Family Law This forum is for discussing any of the legal issues involved in your divorce.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 06-20-2008, 02:52 PM
got2bkid got2bkid is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 324
got2bkid is on a distinguished road
Default Second children are "invisible"

In this country children from "second" families are not considered when assigning child support and extra expense amounts to the first kids. But in most European countries and in Australia, ALL children are considered when determining how much is money is appropriate to send to the first kids.

With almost 1/2 of all marriages ending in divorce, second families are becoming the norm for both CP's and NCP's. Neither person, CP or NCP should be forced into such poverty by their CS payments that they can't AFFORD to have additional children.

I don't think any parent (CP or NCP) would feel it's ok to put one of their children above the other, but that is exactly what the government is forcing many NCP's to do, by imposing high CS awards and then ADDING extra expenses ON TOP of CS, without any regard to the actual monetary status of the 2 housholds and the number of children they have to support (both full time and part-time when the "first" kids visit).

"Second" children should not take away from the first children, but if reasonable amounts were set in the first place, based on the actual costs of the child without trying to "equalize" the households, this problem wouldn't exist in the first place.

Also, benefits and tax treatments of CS need to be more fairly divided between the CP and the NCP. For instance, when assessing the child tax benefits for any second children, the Child Support paid to the 1st children should be deducted off the total income. As it is now, the 2nd children get a lower % based on actual income in their home, and the CP gets a higher % based on actual income in her home (as the CP doesn't claim CS rec'd for this calculation). There are numerous other tax and benefit changes that could be made, that would taking NOTHING away from the 1st kids, but would ensure fairer treatment of the 2nd children.

It is time things changed!
This is what needs to happen in Canada - below is the summary of the new Australian child support plans (which before was just like Canadas). It is really very simple and can and should be done:

Under the new Australian Child Support Scheme:

1)child support payments will be calculated based on Australian research into the actual costs of children

2)the combined income of both parents will be used to calculate child support payments, treating the income of both parents in the same way (i.e. same tax treatment)

3)both parents' contributions to the cost of their children through care and contact will be recognised, and

4)children of first and second families will be treated more equally.
  #2  
Old 06-20-2008, 11:07 PM
phoenix phoenix is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 108
phoenix is on a distinguished road
Default

Well, as the parent of the "first" children... I'm of the opinion if you can't afford the first kids you made, you shouldn't be making more.

I certainly wouldn't be able to afford more children in a second marriage and I won't be having any more. It's the sensible thing to do.

On the other hand my ex, who can't afford the ones he's got (he's consistently a month in arrears), has been hinting to our kids "how would you like a little brother or sister?" ... I'm sorry if it sounds harsh... but don't be making more babies if you can't afford the ones you already have.
  #3  
Old 06-21-2008, 08:55 AM
standing on the sidelines standing on the sidelines is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Kitchener Ontario
Posts: 5,675
standing on the sidelines is on a distinguished road
Default

gotta agree with phoenix. Here is something to think about. say the CP got pregnant with another baby. Should the NCP of the first child have to pay More child support because of her second child even though it was not the NCPs child? The show would be on the other foot in this case. Sure you can argue that the bio dad of second child should support child and there should be no change in CS for the first, but you are asking the CP to take a drop in CS for a child that is not their bio child. This would be a very complex issue and not so cut and dried as one would like to believe. It should go both ways,not just one, if it is to be fair. A second child by either party would affect that parties income.
  #4  
Old 06-21-2008, 06:40 PM
sufferer's Avatar
sufferer sufferer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 336
sufferer is on a distinguished road
Default Hi There,

I do echo with Phoenix and standing on the sideline.If the CP don't get extra money when have more kids then why the NCP's support payements should be reduced.If you can't afford don't be like animals stop making them.
You are just asking a break in mortgage interest because bymistake you bought a 500,000 house whereas you can only afford 200,000.
Sorry to be harsh but all the NCP there are equilavent to be not alive(I won't se dead) for their kids atleast support them financially otherwise be wise and adopt shared custody.
  #5  
Old 06-21-2008, 07:34 PM
today today is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 322
today is on a distinguished road
Default

I do understand many of the above mentioned concerns, here is a scenerio, man women meet marry have 2 children. Wife leaves gains 60% + time which equals full child support from father, we must support our children to the best of abilities, agreed 100%.

Man meets another women still relatively young, always wanted to be a father not an every second week end visitor to his child, wow yes he now has another chance. Both work, is affordable to think about a new family with children, a second chance to be a father not a vistitor to his children. Ggood deal, and no problem can afford to continue paying full child support to ex, and start a new family with new love of his life, has a child or two (what ever) She decides after a certain length of time it just is not working out leaves and of course expects full child support.

So are the children of the second family less deserving?

Should a person who gets divorced and not be permitted to starting a family unless he has a certain income level?

I clearly understand the concerns of those who recieve support we have budgeted our lives around this income, why should one family take a decrease in standard of living because Dad went out and tried to have a life too?

All children deserve the support of both parents, Key word here is ALL CHILDREN.

I am deeply distressed by many of the above mentioned comments. It speaks volumes to many of our family law problems.
  #6  
Old 06-21-2008, 07:58 PM
today today is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 322
today is on a distinguished road
Default

We could start a whole new thread on some of the above mentioned comments, one is who may be entitled to have children, (yes it hit a nerve) should people who recieve social assistance be permitted to have children, perhaps all men who do not work should be sent to be fixed, clearly in the event of divorce they will not be able to pay a reasonable amount of child support. Or perhaps...well I could go on and on and on and on.............................

This is only one example of many that I could think of.

Do not want to high jack the thread.

Last edited by today; 06-21-2008 at 08:01 PM.
  #7  
Old 06-22-2008, 09:14 AM
standing on the sidelines standing on the sidelines is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Kitchener Ontario
Posts: 5,675
standing on the sidelines is on a distinguished road
Default

My biggest concern is why take from the first children to give to the second? That is basically punishing the children from the frist family. Their support is reduced and therefore their standard of life that have is going to be reduced.


Quote:
today We could start a whole new thread on some of the above mentioned comments, one is who may be entitled to have children, (yes it hit a nerve) should people who recieve social assistance be permitted to have children, perhaps all men who do not work should be sent to be fixed, clearly in the event of divorce they will not be able to pay a reasonable amount of child support. Or perhaps...well I could go on and on and on and on.............................
I think that is being a bit overboard. No one is saying that they cannot have second families, just that the first family should not get less then before in order to support the second family.
  #8  
Old 06-22-2008, 09:16 AM
standing on the sidelines standing on the sidelines is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Kitchener Ontario
Posts: 5,675
standing on the sidelines is on a distinguished road
Default

Part I forgot to add was would it be fair for the NCP to pay extra just because the CP had another baby and that would affect her second families standard of living???
  #9  
Old 06-22-2008, 12:47 PM
today today is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 322
today is on a distinguished road
Default

I do understand this is a very sensitive subject, when we talk about the possibility of a reduction in our income affecting our standard of living.

On the face of it, it really does appear to be a simple matter, but can become very complicated and emotional.

On my side as a father I want to support my children financially and emotionally, regardless if they are from my first, second marriage. I want to support them equally, regardless of what union they came from.

I do not think any one of us enters into a marriage and has children thinking about child support in the event of divorce. I think it is safe to say everyone here is very well aware of the financial hardship after divorce, at the very least a decline in standard of living.

I also understand you are simply trying to protect your standard of living for not only yourself but your child. Understandly one would ask why should I have to suffer because of his choice to have a second family.

My point is the children are relying on the fathers support, this begs the question should the father not support all his children to the best of his ability and more importantly equally.

When as family unit we chose to have second and third children, there is a cost to the first child if you want to look at it this way. It only makes things more difficult/complicated if it is within the context of a second family.

Last edited by today; 06-22-2008 at 12:51 PM.
  #10  
Old 06-22-2008, 08:34 PM
got2bkid got2bkid is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 324
got2bkid is on a distinguished road
Default

I guess the inital post was a little confusing. I don't mean that when an NCP has additional children, his support should go down. I meant that support and EXTRA EXPENSES, here in Canada, are too high, regardless of wether there is a second family or not. And so if he chooses to have a family in his life daily (cause usually the woman has the kids), these high expenses (which include hidden spousal support for the "first wife") can mean a second family, where both parents work, just barely scrapes by.

Currently, we pay 50% of his net salary for CS and extras. The fact that we have second children to support was not allowed to be brought up in court. Hence they are invisible. And yet the CP is DIRECTLY affecting her ex's 2nd family, by quitting her job and making us pay 100% of extras, which increased our costs substantially and is NOT something we could have palnned for, so saying a man shouldn't have more kids if they can't afford them ingnores that fact that "things change". The NCP could never get away with quitting a job to "upgrade" himself and not pay any CS or extras.

It is an unequal and unfair situation. Why do his kids cost 25,000/year to raise? I have twins and I know they certainly don't cost anywhere near that. CS and extras are too high, and if a second family exists these costs can impoversish otherwise middle class paying parents and their new families.

In most European countries and Australia, ALL CHILDREN are equal, not just the "first kids" and they eliminate the hidden spousal support (thinly disguised as Child Support) that still exists in the Canadian system. Plus the tax treatment of BOTH parents contribution to their kids is treated equally.
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Conflict when dropping off children escalates further Nadia Parenting Issues 23 06-02-2013 03:25 PM
Joint Physical Custody: Smart Solution or Problematic Plan? WorkingDAD Parenting Issues 19 09-17-2012 06:38 AM
Mom Takes Away Child without Dads Consent Seeking Answers Acura Common Law Issues 20 05-12-2011 11:54 AM
help! mum24 Parenting Issues 54 10-10-2010 06:03 PM
Divorcing Well SigRent Parenting Issues 2 05-06-2010 09:02 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:18 AM.