Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

My ex is stealing my kids clothing!!

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

  • #31
    I was told directly that clothing is the CP parent's responsibility. It is the NCP parent's responsibility to pay for activities, food, etc.. while the child/ren are in her/his care.

    We have chosen to supply my stepchildren with clothing here. I buy them name brand, as this is where I shop for my kids. The mother got very jealous and we actually got a nasty response from her lawyer after buying the d9 a new winter coat (we were going skiing and hers was too small).

    We used to have a problem where she would send the kids in old, small clothes. They would want to take the clothes we bought them back to her house. Of course, we let them because we want them to get use out of them.

    The ex, however, demands that we keep "our stuff" at our house and vice versa. The clothes, in my opinion, belong to the kids. As long as they come in something decent and go back in something decent, one would think this is reasonable. Ha!

    Encourage them young to make decisions and be responsible for their belongings.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by DunnMom View Post
      And if your still paying $900/mo in CS while unemployed then that's YOUR issue as you should have filed a Motion to Change....
      And further, I really hope that your not suggesting that people on lower incomes can't get "good" or "clean" clothing at 2nd hand stores. ...
      Thinking long-term: If my ex wants to behave as if we have shared custody, then I'm not going to argue. And I'm certainly not going to raise any money issues/complaints (and both of us have our own very good hand-me-down source).

      Anyway, I agree that your ex is being difficult. Perhaps you could start keeping track of how many items disappear at his house, and then present that to together with a simple breakdown of your tight budget (that includes HIS CS payment). And ask that he be mindful that with such little money going around that you both have to cooperate to make best use of your resources. Unless he is uncommonly organized, he has no idea of how many outfits he has accumulated. Indicate that you are willing to provide extra clothes for his house, but more up-front communication about it, and some flexibility both ways would help. Perhaps ask him to look around for hand-me-down friends, or to make any other constructive suggestions. I know this is far-fetched, but invite him to take this on as a shared challenge?
      Last edited by dinkyface; 08-22-2011, 11:36 PM.

      Comment


      • #33
        Just curious... what excuse does he have for not earning 20K? (minimum wage, full time). Is he disabled?
        At $20K he should be paying $308 for 2 kids in ontario (instead of the $150). Perhaps you should be spending some energy on increasing his CS amount? In your situation, that would go a LONG way.
        No possibility of daycare subsidy that might let you earn more than your $13K? (sorry, I'm making a lot of assumptions here .. including that there is not enough money flowing for daycare).
        Last edited by dinkyface; 08-22-2011, 11:35 PM.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by dinkyface View Post
          Just curious... what excuse does he have for not earning 20K? (minimum wage, full time). Is he disabled?
          At $20K he should be paying $308 for 2 kids in ontario (instead of the $150). Perhaps you should be spending some energy on increasing his CS amount? In your situation, that would go a LONG way.
          No possibility of daycare subsidy that might let you earn more than your $13K? (sorry, I'm making a lot of assumptions here .. including that there is not enough money flowing for daycare).
          Im on daycare subsidy, unfortunatly current economic conditions have left me out of work and overqualified for many jobs so I am in skills development to try to retrain. It was either that or OW.

          He works part time. Our divorce settlement left him with plenty of extra cash to live off and he lives with his parents so he has no need to work full time.

          I have spoken with his sister and she tells me she gives him hand-me-downs often and they are all brand name in great condition. But I will try some of your suggestions.
          Thanks

          Comment


          • #35
            Also, and I know you don't wish to hear this but, when the original legal architects created the "child support guidelines" one of the most important assumptions they began with was the NCVP had zero child centered costs. Thats right,zero.
            So in fact , under a typical primary residence/ EOW scenario the only expenses legally for the NCP are section 7 expenses.

            Comment


            • #36
              Also, and I know you don't wish to hear this but, when the original legal architects created the "child support guidelines" one of the most important assumptions they began with was the NCVP had zero child centered costs. Thats right,zero.
              So in fact , under a typical primary residence/ EOW scenario the only expenses legally for the NCP are section 7 expenses.

              This is incorrect.

              The Child Support Guidelines do not account for access costs for the non-custodial parent. While I agree that the reasonable thing to do is to provide for your children (clothes, toys, favourite blankets, toothbrush, etc.) while children are exercising access with their non-custodial parent, the fact is that the law does not require it and it appears that there is legal recourse only when these costs are ‘unusally high’, whatever that means. It may not be fair, but it is what it is.
              See the following document on the link http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection/J2-179-2001E.pdf “Custody, access and child support in Canada” pages 42 to 46. Some excerpts are as follows:

              “Costs for access time tend to reflect the amount of time a parent spends with the children. When the parent who pays child support spends a lot of time with the children,he or she might have significant costs for this access. On the other hand, when the paying parent spends little or no time with the children, the receiving parent may have financial and hidden costs on top of his or her regular costs. Examples of hidden costs include loss of career-advancement opportunities and reduced ability to earn
              overtime pay.

              When parents have unusually high access costs (either related to time or large
              expenses), the guidelines provide a way that parents can try to accommodate them. When such costs, combined with the amount of support the parent pays according to the child support tables, could create hardship for either parent or for the children, a parent can use a section of the child support guidelines to get the child support amount changed.

              The child support guidelines recognize that the paying parent’s costs related to access
              time are offset by the receiving parent’s direct and hidden costs. As a result, judges
              do not tend to adjust the child support amount to accommodate most parents’
              access costs.

              Judges have dealt with access costs in ways other than those in the guidelines. In some
              cases, judges have shared these costs between the parents as part of the access
              order. That way, judges do not change the child support amount, and the parents can
              decide between themselves whether the receiving parent’s share of the access costs
              will be paid by deducting it from the child support amount, or some other way.”

              Also, see the followinghttp://www.benmor.com/support.php
              Are the Child Support Guidelines fair to the access parent?

              In 1997, the federal and provincial governments of Canada decided to create a uniform and consistent approach to determining how much child support was to be paid by one parent to the other after they separated. This decision resulted in the creation of the Child Support Guidelines which include tables that set out the exact amount of child support that is to be paid by the access parent to the parent that has custody of the children.

              The Guidelines' stated objectives are to establish "a fair standard of support for children that ensures that they continue to benefit from the financial means of both spouses after separation…and to reduce conflict and tension between spouses by making the calculation of child support orders more objective." However, a significant void was left in this law. Specifically, the Guidelines treated all access parents in the same way when in fact there are many different economic consequences to access parents.
              To illustrate this by way of an example, consider Joe, Mike and Bill. They are all separated. They each have two children who reside with their ex-wives. All three men earn $50,000 per year. According to the Guidelines, each man must pay $700 per month in child support for both children. On its face, this may seem fair. However, Joe is completely estranged from his children and does not have any relationship with them. Mike visits with his children every other Saturday afternoon for five hours. Bill has the children with him each and every weekend from Friday night to Sunday night.

              As you can see, each one of these fathers spends varying amounts of time with his children and, as a consequence, spends varying amounts of money on the children during their time together. However, all three fathers are treated in the exact same way economically.
              One of the only few options available to an access parent is to seek a reduction from the table amount if the children are in his care for at least 40 per cent of the time. But this does not help Joe, Mike, or especially Bill, who truly does incur significant expenses to exercise access to his children every weekend. His expenses include an extra bedroom, furniture, clothing, toys, sporting equipment, groceries, meals, and recreational costs.

              There are many access parents who have been complaining about the inherent unfairness of the Guidelines and how this unfairness directly impacts the quality of care that they are able to provide to their children during access times. They complain that the Guidelines have caused the exact opposite response to their objectives. Access parents such as Bill have found that the Guidelines have ignored the importance of the relationship between the children and the access parent by making money—not the quality of the relationship—a priority. This has invariably caused conflict and tension between spouses, which the Guidelines were supposed to reduce.

              Comment


              • #37
                I submit that there's a difference between "access costs" (travel, water park admission, fast-food lunches) and regular "staple" costs (clothing).

                There's no doubt in my mind that in the case of 100% table CS, clothing is the 100% responsibility of the CP. Period. Full stop. No ifs, ands, or buts.

                If a paying NCP chooses to buy their kids' clothes, that's awesome, but if someone recieving full table CS expects their ex to pony up for clothes, et.al., they're smoking rope.

                Cheers!

                Gary (full-time CP, doesn't expect ex to pay for anything)

                Comment


                • #38
                  Fumimg,
                  Reading your posted dissertation I still stand correct.

                  Keep in mind a small handful of lawyers and not Moses created the"guidlines".

                  I went back in my research to the original notes and assumptions these "legal architects" made. In these notes and assumption and for better or worse they proclaimed that all NCP will have zero child centered costs in calculating the percentages payable on NCP income.

                  In other words the NCP lives in a bachelor apt. or parents basement, does not take the children anywhere ( sort of seeing the children at the public library for a few hours now and then. No bikes no toys no food NO NOTHING)

                  In wish to further engage me about this don't post someone else's interpretation of the guidelines, go to the "architects" own notes. It's a apple and oranges kinda thing.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Then let's see these 'architects' notes....I'm not injecting my opinion here, just what I found as research, the one document is a federally published document. If you have research that says otherwise from these 'architects', I'd love to see it!

                    As it states above, in the federally published document, access costs for the NCP are offset by the hidden costs for the CP. It becomes an issue when these costs are excessive or if the NCP has the child more than 40% of the time.

                    I'm not saying that I agree with it mind you, I'm just saying that the law is ambiguous when it comes to access costs for the NCP. However, if you have material that proves otherwise, I'd love to see it.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      The original authors of the guidelines didn't account for the problems or costs of access by the NCP would create. They only assumed the NCP lived a stone trow away. This was later (post 1997) determined by court precedence.(a good example is if the CP moves away say ...a few hours, the NCP can offset child support by his or her increased travel costs. This was not factored into the "guuidelines".

                      Also,
                      The same original group , and this assumption has created the most harm with the "guidelines", determined the cutoff at 40%. Below this and you pay table amounts, above 40% you use the offset method.

                      I will try and uncover those original docs ( they are quite neet complete with there hand written addition ( over martini's no doubt). Also, I will try and find the name of an Ontario man who wrote an exhaustive book about the "guidelines.
                      Hope this helps.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Crap....

                        All this over a few bucks for clothes?

                        Remind your ex to try and find and return the clothes on the next visit.

                        Gently remind every so often.

                        If you are going to give them a hard time about it... duh... they are likely to give you a hard time back.

                        I have my kids every other weekend. I buy them clothes because mom is petty and sends them in crap, and I want my kids to have at least a bit of self esteem one day. Should I have to? Absolutely not!

                        It doesn't cost much, and at the end of the day if it is best for the kids, you do it. Period. You don't have to buy high end. Value Village is my friend, and I am choosy over what I buy. My kids are young and they love it. My ex hates it. Sounds perfect to me

                        And yes, Tayken, if you see this... I am venting here.... and I don't write my affidavits this way

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Fuming View Post
                          I'm not saying that I agree with it mind you, I'm just saying that the law is ambiguous when it comes to access costs for the NCP. However, if you have material that proves otherwise, I'd love to see it.
                          I agree with you. I have asked 2 lawyers and a CAS worker and gotten different answers from each of them. It seems that it is ambiguous enough to leave it up to the interpretation of the person/lawyer/judge.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Fuming,
                            This link will supply all the original notes and drafts that went into the table guidelines. The fellow that produced this site offers a compelling argument for reducing the amounts! child support - draft

                            Hope this is useful

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              2.0 UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES AND ASSUMPTIONS



                              In intact families, spending on children is directly related to family income, that is, the means of both parents. The concept of cost of raising children is an illusory theoretical construct. Spending on children is not fixed; it changes as the income of either parent changes. Families with higher incomes spend more on their children than do families of lower income. In the post separation arrangement, the Federal Child Support Guidelines aim to approximate, as closely as possible, the spending on the children that occurred in the pre-separation family. For a full description of the research and analysis conducted to arrive at the model for the formula used in the guidelines, please consult the following Department of Justice Canada publications:
                              R. Finnie, C. Giliberti, and D. Stripinis, The Construction and Implementation of Child Support Guidelines (Ottawa: Department of Justice Canada, 1993).
                              R. Finnie, C. Giliberti, and D. Stripinis, An Overview of the Research Program to Develop a Canadian Child Support Formula (Ottawa: Department of Justice Canada, 1995).
                              The objective of the formula that generates the child support tables is simply to find a means of calculating an amount to be transferred from the paying parent to the receiving parent. This transferred sum should maximise the amount available to be spent on the children while still allowing an adequate reserve for the self support of the paying parent. Several assumptions have been incorporated into the model. First, it is assumed that within the principal residence of the children, the parent and the children will share the same standard of living. A second assumption presumes that if the incomes of the parents are equal, it is fair and equitable that each should contribute equally to the financial support of the children, regardless of the extent of their contribution to the nurturing of the children.


                              I still don't see where it states the assumption you are reffering to. It does state that each parent should contribute equally. But no where does it state that the CP should pay for everything. Am I missing this paragraph?

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Look at it this way: if the kids went to visit their grandparents for the weekend, would you send them clothing or expect them to purchase what is needed?

                                Your ex pays child support in order to simplify things-you can buy the necessities they require. I cannot understand your argument that this does not apply to clothing.

                                It seems to be common sense yet you need to see a specific clause in legislation?? People here have given you some great suggestions. You can't have your cake and eat it too--if you want him to purchase clothing, reduce the child support and he can meet this expectation.

                                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