Divorce Law are a Joke and Dads are the Punch Line

[babybluetigger]

By the way, have you ever thought about the fact that your ex will have a new life, perhaps other children to look after, and needs to LIVE as well for future. The law is so unfair, as children of the first relationship are PRIMARY to the children of a second relationship..Perhaps an EQUAL rights issue! I am a divorced mother, who in 19 years have NEVER had my child support increased, even though the court order states annual indexing, and my daughter has a beautiful, healthy relationship with her father because I wasn't greedy! Now I pay her tuition, and her father bought her a car of his own accord, because I treat him with respect and understanding. Her father & I are friends, which few of you can really say with your ex, because you bleed him dry...greed is a sin! If your children really are a joy, then why are you pursuing the max 1200???? Good question huh. Think about it. On the other hand, my hubby's ex is greedy & evil and she destroyed the relationship with his 2 children and he hasn't seen them or spoken to them in years. GREED DESTROYS!!! I'd rather be happy and being FAIR is keeping us all happy. I feel good about myself!

[ALLAN JOHNSTON]

hi, i guess one would have to know each others situation before they could draw an opinion. but i m glad to hear your hanging in there .divorce is tough for all involved.

[John Jeffery]

Well said babybluetigger. If more women (and men) were willing to accept things and work to get along it would be better for everyone involved.

It's too bad the Law has to meddle in it and make things so difficult. (That should probably read lawyers.)

I know in my situation the only issue when I was served papers was that I was offered "reasonable access with reasonable notice" When I asked for reasonable to be defined more specifically on both sides her lawyer made it a huge issue and the war began.

I was quite happy to work something out, but he told her to give as little as she could and to let the children know how I was stopping things!

[billm]

I have to say that I totally diagree with these recent post that state CS tables are too high - they are a value that people spend on their kids who make that amount of money.

$1200 CS/month for more than one child is a lot??? Is excess?? I don't see it. The money is not for just direct spending on the child, it is for indirect spending including a larger house, gas, food, tons if little things that all add up when you have kids. If you look in the tables and see an amount of income and the CS associated with it - do you really think that a single person with no dependents would not be that much better off? I don't think of it as SS, but there certainly is an effect on income when you have kids - I know I would make substantially more money if I did not have children to raise.

I have shared parenting so I pay CS amount - ex's CS amount to her. I have my kids half time and I pay a lot to her for CS and it seems like a fair amount to me.

As for forcing the CS receipient to do accounting, I personally would not ask for it, and I also think that if that was enforceable it would mostly be used to harm the CS receipient and put pressure on them. It would be a nightmare with little value and no effect. You pay the money according to your actual income and the CS tables, and you keep the lines of communication going if you can - that is being a parent and looking in the best interest of the child.

[FreeNow]

Request for clarification

Billm,
Are you a man or a woman?

FN

[babybluetigger]

Perhaps you have money to burn, however, some of us legitimately can't afford these insane amounts due to job losses/operations, etc. Why should we lose our small and modest home (we have another child together)? We were never extravagant, no trips, just working to live. CS should merely be to help support your children...a bigger house isn't necessary, although it's more affordable with CS. Yes, providing accountablility for expenses should be provided from the recipient, for where do you pay for anything without seeing what you really are getting. If you care about your children, you'd like to see that this money truly is being spent on them, not the hair salon. Give anyone free run with your money and they'll take advantage of you, but, ask them to show you why this is needed and they'll be certain to be careful to apply that money to the necessary things FOR the children, perhaps like putting some away for college/university. Not spend on all the 'litttle things' that waste money. It's easy to spend somehone else's money, but if it were your own, you're cautious. We don't mind to support our children, but spoiling them is another thing. We have a future to plan for too.

[2boys]

$1200 is not in excess when our living expenses have always been around $4000 a month. Since I am paying all expenses and he $0 then how is that fair? But I'm not complaining since I guess I hold all the cards. The kids will be waking up on Xmas morning with me, blowing out their Bdays candles with me and I will see them thrive for my efforst. Also, slowly, as they grow, my kids will learn who made them a nice life and who didn't

PS.Babybluetigger, I believe that child support should include sharing the expense of the roof that's over the child's head. Unless they are living in a grass hut, a portion of the 1200 should be towards rent of where they are living. Also, have you seen the price of shoes for 2 kids? I'm going to assume here that your living standards are somewhat low if you think that $1200 is a month is a whole lot for 2 children's living accomodations, food, clothing, toys, activities...and without counting it, daycare for 2 kids can be anywhere from 800 to 1200 a month alone.

[2boys]

Sorry I didn't see further posts by you babybluetigger but you sound like you have mental problems to lash out at me the way you did for no good reason. Saying my children should live with their dad who is not paying any child support at all while I pay 100%? How is my paying 100% greed on my part? and not on his for avoiding payment and paying nil????? I use every cent I have towards the kids and have even depleted my savings to keep them well, while my ex hides income and makes a substantial amount...and again the amount on his part is $0 while mine is for everything in their lives. Again, I think it's people on here like you who froth at the mouth telling strangers off that can perhaps even be questioned as stable enough to raise children. The nerve!

[lulu46]

I guess what my point was here is that no matter the man or women the system needs changing. My ex husband has gotten away with contempt after contempt of our agreement makes no effort to see the children and blames me for it so he can sleep at night! He is under employed and a federal garnishment is in place and the system allows him to buy time by paying small amounts to keep him self out of jail and then makes motions that are ridicules to work the system. Get a job pay your child support and see your kids that's all I have ever asked! So men and women alike take your responsibilities seriously take care of your kids!

[babybluetigger]

This is for '2boys'...I didn't lash out at you, nor did I say you should pay 100%, however, I did say that if that wanted the lifestyle of dad, then they should live there, please read carefully. Income should be fairly split, based upon income, a percentage ratio. Sounds like you are the one who is angry. All I've ever asked for is fairness. And ps. I could do alot with 1200, shoes aren't that much if you bargain hunt and toys aren't necessity. Sorry you are so angry. I do hope you get some money from your ex, because CS is for sharing, not one supporting the other. You totally mistook what I said

[lulu46]

Sorry sometimes email does not come across as its meant I am not angry just agreeing the system is flawed and its not gender specific.

[babybluetigger]

Re lulu46, I do agree the system needs change, for as in your case not seeing the children is terrible. They need both parents, there's no doubt about it. It's sad he makes no effort to see his children and I wholeheartedly agree with paying CS, reasonably based on BOTH parents income because they are OUR children. Your ex going to jail would be bad as well, for it totally disables him from working. But paying reasonable CS contributions and spending time with the children is what it's all about...so important. If we keep the peace with the ex and try to be reasonable, then we'll be further ahead and he won't feel so corned & controlled and would be more than happy to pay his portion of CS and make serious efforts to enjoy the children, all pressure off. I like your attitude. I hope you get him to see the children, for when things become bad, it really is the kids who pay the ultimate price.
And ps to '2boys', not very nice to say that I have mental problems, wow! I didn't lash out at you, you just didn't like what I said!!!

[lulu46]

Well I am not sure my ex will agree~! LOL with my attitude. At any rate he is hiding behind the economy to not find a job cause he does not need to work as she is supplying everything! Its comments like I am not sure what you are going to do after my EI runs out really burns me and without enough money to fight in court he will get away with outlooking for work and cutting the cs to next to nothing. I would have asked the judge impute an income the same as mine which is thousands less then he was making but I am ok with that keep it fair...but I dont think he knows what fair is! At any rate. I usually uise this site to get info not rant so I am done now LOL

[babybluetigger]

Yes imputing income is the way to go. Payor's must pay CS to contribute for the wealth & happiness of their children. But I've learned alot being a divorced parent for 19 years and pressuring him & forcing him will only cause anger and my daughter would have been the one to suffer. They have a wonderful relationship and I know (since he owns his own business) that my CS for many years would be DOUBLE what I am receiving. But my daughter has been happy and I've always worked to give her the extra's that I feel she needs. I really wish you well and hope that you do get your money. Inevitably you will and he'll have arrears to pay, there's no way around it.
But lets try to change the system, so that we don't have to live by 'court papers' and 'judges decisions'...I'm sure there's a communicable way to keep both parties happy, especially for the sake of our children.

[got2bkid]

I was reading about how some feel child support levels are not too high, because the custodial parent has to keep a bigger house, a car that will fit all the kids etc. etc. It is not only custodial parents that need a bigger house and car that fits all the kids, the custodial parents need that too! Do you think the kids are supposed to sleep on the couch and don't need rides to go places.

I think the CP and NCP should both be responsible for keeping a roof over their heads and a car big enough for all. Child support should cover the BASIC necessities of the cost of raising a child. Child support amounts are FAR TOO HIGH, especailly when you consider that so many "extrAS`are added ON TOP. Custodial parents also get 100% of the CCTB and any other `benefits`for the kids.

Here is a great example of how the CP`s versus the NCP`s get treated. When the child (err-adult) goes to post-sec. education, they share the tuition costs in porportion to their incomes.

However, the NCP is still required to pay the CP child support - EVEN IF THE ADULT CHILD NO LONGER LIVES WITH THE CP. The judges say - well the CP still has to maintain a home for the child when he comes to visit on weekends and holdiay`s`. Well , the NCP has maintained a home for the children in the EXACT SAME MANNER, for 18+ years, without no fiancial support, or even ACKNOWLEDGMENT of these costs.

This blows that whole theory (it`s for the house expenses) out of the water. Because the NCP still pays the CP to `maintain a home`even when the child no longer lives there. But somehow, the fact that the NCP has always maintained a home is of no value.

It`s a travesty of justice that double standards and hypocisy like this are written into our guidelines.