Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Challenging the child support tables... possible?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Some very wise words for all parents to live by:

    Originally posted by involveddad75 View Post
    The best advice I was ever given was this:

    If your in court step back from the system and focus on the children, until you get thought the system.
    Be the better parent, the parent who is most reasonable, most flexible.
    The most likely to encourage relationship between both parents.
    Get through the system, before you try and change it.

    The reason a lot of parents lose be it father or mother is because they take their interests and place them on their children's.

    This is not a child focused perspective. Maintain a child focused perspective and Judges will take notice.
    I couldn't agree more.

    Good Luck!
    Tayken

    Comment


    • #32
      Just to briefly comment....

      I certainly did not mean to breach someone's privacy with respect to my question as to what Tayken's personal experience was in regard to the Family Law system. The reason I asked if he would be willing to mention that was simply that I questioned if someone who thought the system was basically "fair" had ever been essentially held at knifepoint by the system to pay ridiculous levels of support ("in my opinion"). I know very few "payors" who think the system is "wonderful, fair, unbiased etc....".

      I suspect someone's perspective on whether the system is "fair" is largely determined if they have been "on the wrong side" of it (ie. the payor forced to pay out hundreds of thousands of dollars to an ungrateful spouse who refused to work and is now being rewarded by the system for such refusal). Keeping in mind that being imputed min wage is peanuts if you can even get it.....

      I've yet to meet ANY payor (just my experience) who didn't think they were screwed over big time by the "system".

      My point is simply that until YOU have been basically robbed by the government and put in "financial slavery" - and make no doubt - that's what it is ! - you really don't appreciate what a horrible system it truly is (for the one working, that is.....). Whatever happened to looking after one's own welfare and working hard instead of "expecting" someone else to pay your way.....

      Also, I've seen quite a few posts where one member asks questions of another - there is certainly no obligation to comply and I certainly respect someone who opts not to, as Tayken as done.

      While I certainly don't agree with Tayken's assessment of how wonderful and fair the system is, I respect his opinion (and unlike some don't assume that just because someone disagrees with my opinion they are mentally unbalanced.....).

      Absolutely Tayken does a GREAT job of providing case references which no doubt are very useful to those of us who lack his skill and experience and he is to be commended for it. I just don't happen to have a pair of rose coloured glasses when it comes to Family Law and I strongly suspect those who end up paying HUGE amounts of support to a spouse who was well taken care of, didn't have to work, feel a not inconsiderable amount of anger of being punished for being foolish enough to work hard for their families - a sin which the government SEVERELY punishes. No good deed goes unpunished, right ?....

      At any rate, I have no desire (or time) to exchange verbal barbs - and I do thank Tayken for responding and for the valuable service he certainly provides to this forum

      Note: before someone complains that I've assumed Tayken is male (I have no idea of this poster's gender and it's really irrelevant) I've simply used "he" rather than "he/she" ....
      Last edited by shellshocked22; 06-26-2013, 09:57 PM.

      Comment


      • #33
        888888888888888888888
        Last edited by shellshocked22; 06-26-2013, 09:53 PM. Reason: posted twice in error

        Comment


        • #34
          Shellshocked, I generally agree with what Tayken posted, and I think you have misinterpreted.

          "Family Law" in the sense of legislation is fair. It is written in gender neutral terms and doesn't favour one parent or the other. This is what Tayken is trying to say, and he is correct.

          You cannot change the system by rewording legislation that is already gender neutral. There are some things that can and should be ADDED, such as the assumption of equal parenting unless reasons are given to show otherwise. But the legislation is neutral.

          Are the child support tables neutral? If you are a father receiving support from an NCP mother (and there have been many on this board) then the tables are applied the same way as if the mother were receiving. The tables are gender neutral.

          Are the tables fair to the payor? There is debate over that, and yes they should be regularly revisited, but the bias is financial, not gender. They are biased against the breadwinner.

          You are going to argue that most breadwinners are men. That was your choice, to enter into a relationship where the economics and careers were not equal. The marriage wasn't "fair" for any number of reasons, and the support awards will generally reflect that.

          As I have written at length elsewhere, if you are not equal parents during the marriage, you won't be seen as equal parents by the courts after the marriage. If you can't see that, take your blinders off. Custody, access, shared parenting, support orders, are all based on the different roles the parents played while married.

          If two people had roughly equal careers, had roughly equal roles with childrearing, have roughly equal relationships with the children, then there will be no good reason not to have shared parenting and setoff support that roughly cancels out.

          If one parent had a superior career and spent less time with the child to pursue that career, then of course this is going to be reflected in the result after divorce. Why should you expect otherwise?

          There is bias in the system due to bias in the individuals within the court system. DROs, mediators, arbitrators, judges, are all humans who have their own biases and stereotypes. This comes out sometimes, and yes we have all experienced it. But that can't be changed by modifying the law. It is only changed by modifying the people involved.

          Comment


          • #35
            I completely agree, we have to have public awareness campaigns to make judges, media, lawyers, mediators, etc. etc. and parents themselves that somethings are simply a problem that is gender neutral.

            My favorite example of this is Domestic Violence.
            The mainstream media, the ads on tv, the notices of government support all continue to point that men are the cause and women are the victims. By not publicly stating we have to stop all violence and simply state we have to stop violence against women, we fail society.

            How can we change society when we change society when we ignore half the population.

            But again this was simply an example, didn't want to change the subject of the original thread.

            Comment


            • #36
              Thank you for your comments Mess. I don't disagree the legislation is formally gender neutral although as you have noted, some of the parties in the system may have their own biases which could have an impact on the final outcome.

              As you note, the system IS BIASED without a doubt to the higher wage earner - we certainly concur on that. I know we can't change anything, but it's so disheartening ...........

              Sometimes I really wonder why I even bother working - if I had any guts I would simply tell the system to screw itself and gladly kill time in jail, - I hear they have cable there !!!!! Afterwards, simply go on welfare. Maybe if enough "higher wage earners" did that the system would change....... It's incredibly expensive to keep people in jail and then there would be ZERO support for everyone.

              How I wish I NEVER had got married.........

              I don't mind paying a "reasonable" amount of support for a reasonable time, but the SOBs who designed this system were incredibly generous with other people's money. I truly wonder if they would be happy if THEY were caught up in their own twisted little system.....

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by shellshocked22 View Post
                Just to briefly comment....

                I certainly did not mean to breach someone's privacy with respect to my question as to what Tayken's personal experience was in regard to the Family Law system. The reason I asked if he would be willing to mention that was simply that I questioned if someone who thought the system was basically "fair" had ever been essentially held at knifepoint by the system to pay ridiculous levels of support ("in my opinion"). I know very few "payors" who think the system is "wonderful, fair, unbiased etc....".

                I suspect someone's perspective on whether the system is "fair" is largely determined if they have been "on the wrong side" of it (ie. the payor forced to pay out hundreds of thousands of dollars to an ungrateful spouse who refused to work and is now being rewarded by the system for such refusal). Keeping in mind that being imputed min wage is peanuts if you can even get it.....

                I've yet to meet ANY payor (just my experience) who didn't think they were screwed over big time by the "system".

                My point is simply that until YOU have been basically robbed by the government and put in "financial slavery" - and make no doubt - that's what it is ! - you really don't appreciate what a horrible system it truly is (for the one working, that is.....). Whatever happened to looking after one's own welfare and working hard instead of "expecting" someone else to pay your way.....

                Also, I've seen quite a few posts where one member asks questions of another - there is certainly no obligation to comply and I certainly respect someone who opts not to, as Tayken as done.

                While I certainly don't agree with Tayken's assessment of how wonderful and fair the system is, I respect his opinion (and unlike some don't assume that just because someone disagrees with my opinion they are mentally unbalanced.....).

                Absolutely Tayken does a GREAT job of providing case references which no doubt are very useful to those of us who lack his skill and experience and he is to be commended for it. I just don't happen to have a pair of rose coloured glasses when it comes to Family Law and I strongly suspect those who end up paying HUGE amounts of support to a spouse who was well taken care of, didn't have to work, feel a not inconsiderable amount of anger of being punished for being foolish enough to work hard for their families - a sin which the government SEVERELY punishes. No good deed goes unpunished, right ?....

                At any rate, I have no desire (or time) to exchange verbal barbs - and I do thank Tayken for responding and for the valuable service he certainly provides to this forum

                Note: before someone complains that I've assumed Tayken is male (I have no idea of this poster's gender and it's really irrelevant) I've simply used "he" rather than "he/she" ....
                Shellshocked child support is for the children period.

                We could argue that the payor should get to see how the money is spent. But the point is the parents are separated.
                Parents have to be child centered, not focus on what the ex is or isn't doing.

                Both parents have a responsibility to support their children.

                I am a payor and a receiver as I have shared parenting. But just as I wouldn't want my ex to investigate every time I decided to feed our children kraft dinner or steak and make arguments that they are wrong. I also have to respect that my ex doesn't want me to do that to her.

                CS was set up that way, if it wasn't then you would have parents arguing over every penny. Be Careful what you wish for.

                If you ask for your ex to disclose how she spends the child support, then they might come back and ask you how you spend your money and you to justify it.

                The point I'm trying to make here is your separated, let go, move on.
                Be emotional teflon. Thats my mantra.

                I've been through hell and hell's hell. I've come out remaining positive and forward looking, child focused. And our children are better for it.
                I can't control anything my ex does, anything she says, anything she feels.

                All I can control is how I react to it.

                And I can tell you at age 3 and 4 our children get it.

                I don't agree with the child support guidelines and think they are unfair.
                I believe that the 40% threshold creates a system where parents fight more.
                They are what we have, instead of complaining about it, speak to your MPP and your MP and make valid arguments to change it.
                Last edited by involveddad75; 06-27-2013, 01:32 AM.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Involveddad, I really do appreciate your "pep talk" and I'm NOT being sarcastic. I realize CS is not always squandered but I'm sure you'll agree that at HIGHER levels (and Im talking THOUSANDS of dollars a month IN ADDITION to BIG SS) that a good chunk of CS can be really disguised SS (but without the tax break).

                  Do I expect a recipient getting $300 or $400 to itemize everything ? Of course not...... But at big dollars, I just think its sad that "CS" is NOT used for the children. To stress, I'm not bitching that I don't want my kids to have that financial support, I'm bitching because I DO want them to have it - NOT the other spouse to party with ! I would gladly pay MORE CS if I was able to ensure THE KIDS actually got it - but of course that's not politically correct......

                  You also mention "both parents" have an obligation to financially support the children. Too bad the system didn't really enforce it. I can tell you, at least in my case, that I am generating 99% of all financial support for the kids and I doubt it will change. When the recipient of CS and SS is getting such HUGE dollars, why bother working ? Imputing income is of little point since in some cases at most you'll get min wage if that.....

                  Yeah, so I am bitter that my kids are NOT getting all the "CS" which is ridiculous. Why doesn't the govt interefere with married couples with respect to how much they spend on kids ? I'm tired of being stripped of basic rights just because I'm divorced.

                  I can tell you my friend, that because of these effing rules, my kids WILL suffer financially as well as myself. I'm realistic enough to know that there is no political will to change the CS regime - certainly not in my lifetime...... The only thing I can do is urge my kids NOT to get married if they want any hope of financial (and mental) security....

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    There needs to be a way to periodically conduct audits of Child Support at the cost of the payor and with reasonable cause.
                    As I have written at length elsewhere, if you are not equal parents during the marriage, you won't be seen as equal parents by the courts after the marriage. If you can't see that, take your blinders off. Custody, access, shared parenting, support orders, are all based on the different roles the parents played while married.
                    This is the approximation theory and it is no longer endorsed as far as I understand. This means a stay at home mother would always get custody, the reality is that after divorce there is a break that is supposed to happen and both parents become strive to be full-time employees and thus have the same availability. This would effectively cut off fathers who were sole bread-winners in order to give their kids one parent full-time and another part-time.

                    After divorce, life changes both parents now have to be self-sufficient and work full-time where practible...

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by shellshocked22 View Post
                      Thank you for your comments Mess. I don't disagree the legislation is formally gender neutral although as you have noted, some of the parties in the system may have their own biases which could have an impact on the final outcome.

                      As you note, the system IS BIASED without a doubt to the higher wage earner - we certainly concur on that. I know we can't change anything, but it's so disheartening ...........

                      Sometimes I really wonder why I even bother working - if I had any guts I would simply tell the system to screw itself and gladly kill time in jail, - I hear they have cable there !!!!! Afterwards, simply go on welfare. Maybe if enough "higher wage earners" did that the system would change....... It's incredibly expensive to keep people in jail and then there would be ZERO support for everyone.

                      How I wish I NEVER had got married.........

                      I don't mind paying a "reasonable" amount of support for a reasonable time, but the SOBs who designed this system were incredibly generous with other people's money. I truly wonder if they would be happy if THEY were caught up in their own twisted little system.....

                      If all the payors did quit, the law would change. Support payments are social policy to keep people off welfare thats why even a woman who refuses to work can ride the spousal support train for a long time because what is the alternative - go on welfare? Sorry the government can't afford to pay for x% of recipients who refuse to put a serious effort to work in.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by shellshocked22 View Post
                        ... The reason I asked if he would be willing to mention that was simply that I questioned if someone who thought the system was basically "fair" had ever been essentially held at knifepoint by the system to pay ridiculous levels of support ("in my opinion"). I know very few "payors" who think the system is "wonderful, fair, unbiased etc....".
                        Re-read your posting. Identify the dramatic language you use (almost histrionic)...

                        "held at knifepoint"
                        "rediculous levels"

                        It is very difficult to respond to someone who is so obviously over-emotional about their own experience to assist them when they are viewing something in such a manner.

                        Originally posted by shellshocked22 View Post
                        I suspect someone's perspective on whether the system is "fair" is largely determined if they have been "on the wrong side" of it (ie. the payor forced to pay out hundreds of thousands of dollars to an ungrateful spouse who refused to work and is now being rewarded by the system for such refusal). Keeping in mind that being imputed min wage is peanuts if you can even get it.....
                        I recommend you re-read this and see how you project the other parent... or in your own words "ungrateful spouse". Have you ever considered that your personal feelings, how you project them may in fact be why you are in the situation you are in?

                        Originally posted by shellshocked22 View Post
                        I've yet to meet ANY payor (just my experience) who didn't think they were screwed over big time by the "system".
                        Because generally angry, upset, vengeful and spiteful people seek each other out so they can lament together. It is a common pattern of behaviour of highly conflicted people.

                        Originally posted by shellshocked22 View Post
                        My point is simply that until YOU have been basically robbed by the government and put in "financial slavery" - and make no doubt - that's what it is ! - you really don't appreciate what a horrible system it truly is (for the one working, that is.....).
                        More overly dramatic statements...

                        "robbed by the government"
                        "financial slavery"
                        "horrible system"

                        It may be a benefit for you to re-read what you write and contemplate the dramatic tone you put to the statements you make.

                        Originally posted by shellshocked22 View Post
                        Whatever happened to looking after one's own welfare and working hard instead of "expecting" someone else to pay your way.....
                        Child support is the right of the child. It is the responsibility of a parent to take care of their children.

                        Originally posted by shellshocked22 View Post
                        While I certainly don't agree with Tayken's assessment of how wonderful and fair the system is, I respect his opinion (and unlike some don't assume that just because someone disagrees with my opinion they are mentally unbalanced.....).
                        You can project how you interpret my writing on how "wonderful" you think I think the system is. You don't know me and clearly have not read most of my postings on this site if that is what you "think" and "project". If you haven't noticed, the majority of my knowledge (and focus) is on a particular aspect of family law... One that has to do with urgent motions brought ex-parte and child abduction.

                        Originally posted by shellshocked22 View Post
                        Absolutely Tayken does a GREAT job of providing case references which no doubt are very useful to those of us who lack his skill and experience and he is to be commended for it.
                        Actually, CanLII's software engineers who provide a full text search should be. You can thank my high-school typing teacher for inspiring me to learn to type.
                        As mentioned before I am of low to average intelligence.

                        I just know where to look for information. I am not that intelligent and not deserving of any praise for using a search engine.

                        Originally posted by shellshocked22 View Post
                        I just don't happen to have a pair of rose coloured glasses when it comes to Family Law and I strongly suspect those who end up paying HUGE amounts of support to a spouse who was well taken care of, didn't have to work, feel a not inconsiderable amount of anger of being punished for being foolish enough to work hard for their families - a sin which the government SEVERELY punishes. No good deed goes unpunished, right ?....
                        This is because you are looking through blood red glasses. See the dramatic language you use in your own response here as a prime example of what I am stating.

                        Originally posted by shellshocked22 View Post
                        At any rate, I have no desire (or time) to exchange verbal barbs - and I do thank Tayken for responding and for the valuable service he certainly provides to this forum
                        Yet, you throw wild assumptions, use dramatic language and don't expect people to respond.

                        Originally posted by shellshocked22 View Post
                        Note: before someone complains that I've assumed Tayken is male (I have no idea of this poster's gender and it's really irrelevant) I've simply used "he" rather than "he/she" ....
                        My gender is know but, it is irrelevant really.

                        PS: Mess, excellent review and response. You basically hit the nail on the head.

                        Good Luck!
                        Tayken

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by shellshocked22 View Post
                          As you note, the system IS BIASED without a doubt to the higher wage earner - we certainly concur on that. I know we can't change anything, but it's so disheartening ...........
                          No, the system is not biased. The people interacting with the system can be biased. You are again, trying to put words in someone's mouth that they didn't write or say Shellshocked22. You really should study your own style of argument as it probably doesn't serve you well before the court when testifying by affidavit or orally. Just an assumption.

                          Originally posted by shellshocked22 View Post
                          Sometimes I really wonder why I even bother working - if I had any guts I would simply tell the system to screw itself and gladly kill time in jail, - I hear they have cable there !!!!!
                          Now, this is just pure drama - one would even say... Histrionic.

                          Originally posted by shellshocked22 View Post
                          Afterwards, simply go on welfare. Maybe if enough "higher wage earners" did that the system would change....... It's incredibly expensive to keep people in jail and then there would be ZERO support for everyone.
                          Honestly, seek help.

                          Originally posted by shellshocked22 View Post
                          How I wish I NEVER had got married.........
                          Then the children would have never been born. May be cathartic to state this, but your children deserve better than a parent who thinks this. In fact, this thinking may be why you are not an equal parent?

                          Originally posted by shellshocked22 View Post
                          I don't mind paying a "reasonable" amount of support for a reasonable time, but the SOBs who designed this system were incredibly generous with other people's money. I truly wonder if they would be happy if THEY were caught up in their own twisted little system.....
                          Really, if the problem was so large, and with 50% of marriages ending in divorce... You don't think some person, a judge, lawyer, politician, or someone else in a position of power would have done something? For some reason, the "rights" movements for any gender identity seem to all be run and organized by angry and overly emotional people for some reason... Look around the meetings of any of these organizations and see who is there... Really take an inventory...

                          Good Luck!
                          Tayken

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            For some reason, the "rights" movements for any gender identity seem to all be run and organized by angry and overly emotional people
                            the SOBs who designed this system were incredibly generous with other people's money.
                            Without involving specifics, I would comment that a system of family law needs to balance several competing values, including:
                            - Ease of use;
                            - Sufficiently swift;
                            - Sufficiently thorough;
                            - Consistent results;
                            - Flexible;
                            - Within the set financial limits available.

                            There are times when the Guideline amount of child support is more than adequate to support a child's lifestyle. There are times when it is insufficient.

                            The vast majority of payors will view their support obligations as being too high. This is because, as two homes are now being supported with the resources that once supported one home, the vast majority of newly separated individuals experience a dramatic decrease in their financial security and purchasing power. At a time when they are already pinching the belt, more is lost.

                            The vast majority of recipients will view the support obligations as being too low for the same reasons.

                            It is inevitable that there will be some circumstances where individuals find results that are less fair than they would have liked. The family court system in Ontario strives to reduce the number of these situations, while keeping the overall costs low.

                            Would it be worth having fewer hospitals to afford more judges and court houses? We live in a world (and province) with limited resources. Perfect justice, that being fast, fair and cost effective, cannot exist in such a world.

                            The family court system operates to see fair results for all parties, often in situations that have no happy ending. Ultimately, however, the best guarantee of fair and satisfactory results are reasonable negotiations conducted by adults who decide that acting with integrity and considering compromise is the most effective way to show their children how to behave, and to show their love for their children is greater than their hate for their ex.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by OrleansLawyer View Post
                              Without involving specifics, I would comment that a system of family law needs to balance several competing values, including:
                              - Ease of use;
                              - Sufficiently swift;
                              - Sufficiently thorough;
                              - Consistent results;
                              - Flexible;
                              - Within the set financial limits available.

                              There are times when the Guideline amount of child support is more than adequate to support a child's lifestyle. There are times when it is insufficient.

                              The vast majority of payors will view their support obligations as being too high. This is because, as two homes are now being supported with the resources that once supported one home, the vast majority of newly separated individuals experience a dramatic decrease in their financial security and purchasing power. At a time when they are already pinching the belt, more is lost.

                              The vast majority of recipients will view the support obligations as being too low for the same reasons.

                              It is inevitable that there will be some circumstances where individuals find results that are less fair than they would have liked. The family court system in Ontario strives to reduce the number of these situations, while keeping the overall costs low.

                              Would it be worth having fewer hospitals to afford more judges and court houses? We live in a world (and province) with limited resources. Perfect justice, that being fast, fair and cost effective, cannot exist in such a world.

                              The family court system operates to see fair results for all parties, often in situations that have no happy ending. Ultimately, however, the best guarantee of fair and satisfactory results are reasonable negotiations conducted by adults who decide that acting with integrity and considering compromise is the most effective way to show their children how to behave, and to show their love for their children is greater than their hate for their ex.


                              marriage has 4 children

                              mother gets custody of children

                              father struggles to make child support payments

                              mother marries - her/husband make x4 $ than with previous husband

                              does child support stop for dad ? after all the children are now living at x4 the lifestyle they had with him

                              most likely dad is put the run too cause he dragged his oil leaking car up onto the cobblestone

                              so is family law really concerned with the children's standard of living or the fact he just pays otherwise her sense of self.entitlement be readjusted.


                              just imagine the lawyers (if any) rubbing their hands together on this one, if dad has any $ left they also get a crack at x4
                              .
                              Last edited by pokeman; 07-01-2013, 12:10 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by pokeman View Post
                                marriage has 4 children

                                mother gets custody of children

                                father struggles to make child support payments

                                mother marries - her/husband make x4 $ than with previous husband

                                does child support stop for dad ? after all the children are now living at x4 the lifestyle they had with him

                                most likely dad is put the run too cause he dragged his oil leaking car up onto the cobblestone

                                so is family law really concerned with the children's standard of living or the fact he just pays otherwise her sense of self.entitlement be readjusted.


                                just imagine the lawyers (if any) rubbing their hands together on this one, if dad has any $ left they also get a crack at x4
                                .
                                50/50 custody should be standard but if you separate that from the money, it seems as though some get angry when ex gets a new partner.

                                As far as your post above, so what? Why are you so angry that another man is providing a great life for your kids? You still need to support them and would have to do exactly the same if she was still single.

                                You know, the other side of the coin exists. Ex makes $72,000 a year currently. I made $11,000 last year. He pays $1600 in CS and SS making his income $52,000 and mine $31,000. Ex lives with new g/f who makes $80,000.

                                Do I moan about it? No. It is only his job to pay a proportionate of what he makes for his children. A proportionate of his income for compensatory spousal support.

                                I don't know why men or women are so mad when their ex goes off to find a wealthier spouse. You should try to do the same if you think it is so great.
                                Last edited by SadAndTired; 07-01-2013, 10:50 AM.

                                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