Originally posted by Lolita123
View Post
To start off, I feel very sad that a person felt that they needed to end their life. Regardless of the 'real' story... when someone is capable of ending their own life, it's a pretty dark time for them.
Now, on the subject at hand.. I think we need to step away from mother / father and talk about the person paying CS versus the one receiving CS. Yes, statistics provide information that most cases it's the mother that is the one receiving the CS... and that starts with society where many jobs that are occupied by woman are paid at a lower rate.. (teacher, early childhood educator, etc..) but, nothing today prevents a woman from choosing a career that will provide her with a good salary. I have a problem with people who complain about not making enough money and then not doing anything to change it... Unless you have a disability - and even then - every human being is capable of choosing a career path that will suit their needs. If during your marriage you were lucky enough to have a job that paid 'less' because your spouse was the one who had a job that paid more.. and yet you still benefited from it.. well be thankful!
Now that you are separated... you need to realize that that time is over... your job now is to make sure that you provide to your children... and if you don't want to 'reduce' YOUR standard of living well, this should not mean that your EX should pay for it. Cause as it has been demonstrated many times, the amount of CS (when not in a situation of OFF-SET) is not accurate... why? because it does not take into account the amount that the custodial parent makes...
Here are 2 examples:
1-Custodial parent makes $40,000 Non Custodial makes $ 100,000 CS for 2 children in Ontario would be $1,471.00 a month
2-Custodial parent makes $200,000 Non Custodial makes $ 100,000 CS for 2 children in Ontario would be $1,471.00 a month
So, how can this be right? the CS is to make the living conditions or the child similar in each household.. ALL cases should take into consideration the income of BOTH parents to show that even if you are the custodial parent, you have a responsibility to provide to your children from your own income... Also, as Quebec does, it should take into consideration scenarios were the non custodial parent has at least the children 20% of the time.. most likely those cases are every other weekend, extended long weekends, some overnights, half/half summer, holidays like march break, Xmas.. etc... While the children reside mostly with the other parent, the non custodial parent still has to provide shelter, food, some clothing.. etc..
Another thing that is not fair...
Same custody arrangement meaning that the 40% has not been met...
Custodial parent last year made $40,000 and non-custodial parent made $100,000 .. CS for 2 kids in Ontario is again $1,471.00 per month...
Custodial parent gets a 2nd job to pay for vacations ... now makes $60,000.. non-custodial parent still makes $100,000.. CS again $1,471.00 per month
So the custodial parent has no 'obligation' to 'give any extra money to the children... BUT if the non-custodial parent decides to get another job because they struggle to pay for their things monthly... well THEY will be obligated to give some for more child support... how is that fair?
That is why BOTH parent's income need to count... and parents SHOULD be allowed to earn extra income with overtime or other job without having to pay even more...
To me, it's about fairness... and the children... As much as Québec is something 'out there' ... I think that they have a much better approach to CS than the federal guidelines...
And spousal.. don't get me started on that... if you studied to be a lawyer and gave up your practices to care for the children and support the other person in their career choice .. it's one thing... If YOU decided to start a certain career.. even before you had children.. and it was a lower salary... well your career choice had nothing to do with the fact that you had children... and you enjoyed the life you had while you were with someone who made more... now that it's over.. assume the choices you made, find another job, follow courses online..
All that to say that we need to start looking at this not woman versus man.. but at this point, the 'calculation' are wrong.. the 'purpose' and the actual effects of the guidelines along with the CCB stuff is not working.. children DON'T have the same living of standard in both houses...
Different people, different scenarios.. guidelines should be guidelines, not rules.. and if a case is well presented in court explaining why they are stating X amount of CS .. and it makes sense.. and it's factual... and the children are first in mind.. things would work out.. but at this moment, the GOV doesn't care.. they want to make sure that they get the most tax (since the payor who is mostly higher income is the one being taxed on that money) and as soon as you are common law, they cut CCB BUT that doesn't apply for CS... not saying that it should.. but just to show how the gov always thinks of them first...
Now, on the subject at hand.. I think we need to step away from mother / father and talk about the person paying CS versus the one receiving CS. Yes, statistics provide information that most cases it's the mother that is the one receiving the CS... and that starts with society where many jobs that are occupied by woman are paid at a lower rate.. (teacher, early childhood educator, etc..) but, nothing today prevents a woman from choosing a career that will provide her with a good salary. I have a problem with people who complain about not making enough money and then not doing anything to change it... Unless you have a disability - and even then - every human being is capable of choosing a career path that will suit their needs. If during your marriage you were lucky enough to have a job that paid 'less' because your spouse was the one who had a job that paid more.. and yet you still benefited from it.. well be thankful!
Now that you are separated... you need to realize that that time is over... your job now is to make sure that you provide to your children... and if you don't want to 'reduce' YOUR standard of living well, this should not mean that your EX should pay for it. Cause as it has been demonstrated many times, the amount of CS (when not in a situation of OFF-SET) is not accurate... why? because it does not take into account the amount that the custodial parent makes...
Here are 2 examples:
1-Custodial parent makes $40,000 Non Custodial makes $ 100,000 CS for 2 children in Ontario would be $1,471.00 a month
2-Custodial parent makes $200,000 Non Custodial makes $ 100,000 CS for 2 children in Ontario would be $1,471.00 a month
So, how can this be right? the CS is to make the living conditions or the child similar in each household.. ALL cases should take into consideration the income of BOTH parents to show that even if you are the custodial parent, you have a responsibility to provide to your children from your own income... Also, as Quebec does, it should take into consideration scenarios were the non custodial parent has at least the children 20% of the time.. most likely those cases are every other weekend, extended long weekends, some overnights, half/half summer, holidays like march break, Xmas.. etc... While the children reside mostly with the other parent, the non custodial parent still has to provide shelter, food, some clothing.. etc..
Another thing that is not fair...
Same custody arrangement meaning that the 40% has not been met...
Custodial parent last year made $40,000 and non-custodial parent made $100,000 .. CS for 2 kids in Ontario is again $1,471.00 per month...
Custodial parent gets a 2nd job to pay for vacations ... now makes $60,000.. non-custodial parent still makes $100,000.. CS again $1,471.00 per month
So the custodial parent has no 'obligation' to 'give any extra money to the children... BUT if the non-custodial parent decides to get another job because they struggle to pay for their things monthly... well THEY will be obligated to give some for more child support... how is that fair?
That is why BOTH parent's income need to count... and parents SHOULD be allowed to earn extra income with overtime or other job without having to pay even more...
To me, it's about fairness... and the children... As much as Québec is something 'out there' ... I think that they have a much better approach to CS than the federal guidelines...
And spousal.. don't get me started on that... if you studied to be a lawyer and gave up your practices to care for the children and support the other person in their career choice .. it's one thing... If YOU decided to start a certain career.. even before you had children.. and it was a lower salary... well your career choice had nothing to do with the fact that you had children... and you enjoyed the life you had while you were with someone who made more... now that it's over.. assume the choices you made, find another job, follow courses online..
All that to say that we need to start looking at this not woman versus man.. but at this point, the 'calculation' are wrong.. the 'purpose' and the actual effects of the guidelines along with the CCB stuff is not working.. children DON'T have the same living of standard in both houses...
Different people, different scenarios.. guidelines should be guidelines, not rules.. and if a case is well presented in court explaining why they are stating X amount of CS .. and it makes sense.. and it's factual... and the children are first in mind.. things would work out.. but at this moment, the GOV doesn't care.. they want to make sure that they get the most tax (since the payor who is mostly higher income is the one being taxed on that money) and as soon as you are common law, they cut CCB BUT that doesn't apply for CS... not saying that it should.. but just to show how the gov always thinks of them first...
Comment