Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Your perspective on no child support.

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

  • Your perspective on no child support.

    No child support where there is shared custody.

    What if one day the law said that when there was shared custody no child support would be ordered.

  • #2
    That might not be fair. But if we can dream that how about the law would say the child support should be spent on the child?

    Comment


    • #3
      I'm all for shared custody, 50/50 should be the norm unless there are proven issues. IMO if both parents have sufficient incomes to provide the basics for their children, there would be no need for court ordered CS.

      What if one day, couples wishing to marry or have kids would have to earn similar paychecks - the problem would be solved. When choosing a life-partner, people seem to forget that there's a 50/50 chance that things will go sour - add kids to the mix, a big difference in earning potential and voila! somebody is going to be ordered to pay support.

      Each case should be judged on it's own merits so no, I don't think that day will come.

      Comment


      • #4
        No CS is fine with me.

        It happens more than you think too. Many people are owed it and never receive it....

        Comment


        • #5
          I have to disagree. What if one parent earns an extremely good income, and the other parent doesn't? Then you get the kids living in a fabulous house with fabulous things half the time, and living in a crummy house and going without the other half. Kids are materialistic. Soon enough, they're going to resent life with the low-income parent and want to live all the time at the nice house. So I do think that CS flowing from the high-income parent to the low-income parent is necessary so that the kids' lifestyles don't have drastic differences in each house.

          That said, however, I do think that the current system is in need of overhaul. SS should definitely be calculated before CS. That way, if the high-income parent is already supporting the low-income parent's income, the adjusted amounts are used to determine CS.

          Also, a half-offset method should be used for all situations, in proportion to time spent with the children, so that the money imbalance is smoothed out, and parents are truly supporting their children in proportion to both their income and their access times. There would be a lot less fighting over access that way, and a lot more likelihood of 50-50.

          Both parents put their table CS amounts into a common pool. They draw from the pool in proportion to their access time (by 10% or something).

          A high-income parent might put $1500 a month into the common pool, while the low-income parent might put in $200. The pool has $1700 a month. If access is 30-70 (one parent has 3 nights in 14) the low-access parent pulls out $510 a month, while the high-access parent pulls out the remaining $1190. If access is 50-50, they each pull out $850. Only if one parent has zero access would the other parent get full table CS from them.

          Comment


          • #6
            Technical point - shared custody (shared decision making) is not the same as shared parenting, where kids reside with each parent not less than 40% of the time over the course of a year.

            If both parents have similar incomes, CS doesn't make a big difference. But situations change, and so I think some sort of CS framework needs to be in place so that if mom or dad loses their job (or goes bankrupt or whatever), the kids don't end up in a situation where they have very different standards of living in the two houses because there's no way of collecting CS from the other parent.

            I also agree with Rioe's point about SS coming off the payor parent's income before CS is calculated.

            Comment


            • #7
              Parent A prior to marriage goes to university and gets a great paying job.

              Parent B prior to marriage decides all I need is my grade 12 education, minimum wages job.

              Both have at this point in time made the choice of how they will support their family.

              Why should parent A have to pay for parent B choices? People have to be held accountable for their life choices, not live off the ones that work hard to make it.

              I know not fair to the kids. In life nothing is fair and that why it will never change.

              Agree with Rioe CS after SS and it would be a great start.

              Comment


              • #8
                I have to disagree. What if one parent earns an extremely good income, and the other parent doesn't? Then you get the kids living in a fabulous house with fabulous things half the time, and living in a crummy house and going without the other half. Kids are materialistic. Soon enough, they're going to resent life with the low-income parent and want to live all the time at the nice house. So I do think that CS flowing from the high-income parent to the low-income parent is necessary so that the kids' lifestyles don't have drastic differences in each house.
                Is the answer that the poor parent's house is pimped out by the rich parent's wealth?

                So in reality the rich parent never really gets fully divorced because entitlement to their wealth by the poor parent flows through the children...
                The poor parent still lives almost like they were married to the richer parent
                due to CS?

                Comment


                • #9
                  You know what? I really don't think that day will ever come. And for many reasons.

                  Long before CS would be scaled down, SS would have to be eradicated. And that wouldn't happen in our lifetime.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Links17 View Post
                    Is the answer that the poor parent's house is pimped out by the rich parent's wealth?

                    So in reality the rich parent never really gets fully divorced because entitlement to their wealth by the poor parent flows through the children...
                    The poor parent still lives almost like they were married to the richer parent
                    due to CS?
                    Table CS is nowhere near someone's full earnings. The CS recipient is still going to live a much reduced lifestyle. Not to mention the sudden cessation of CS when the children are grown!

                    The wealthy parent is supporting their children, no matter where they live. It's just an unfortunate side effect that the ex also benefits for a time. The only people who have a problem with this are those who hate their ex more than they love their children. And maybe also those who have an ex who clearly spends the CS money on themselves instead of on the children.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Yes but what if parent b earns a lower income because parent a placed demands on their career and living situation? i.e. Parent a demanded they live in an area that doesnt support career choices for parent b and then parent a decided to spend more than they brought in? My partner has had more career opportunities now that he has the freedom to move and the money to train and get designations for his industry. He wasnt able to do any of this while married. His ex makes more money than him but continues to overspend and racked up a second mortgage to pay his equalization. No matter what he does, he will always be the bad guy because he "took moms money" and is living with me so we have two incomes and no children. No matter how much child support, s7, proportion of post sec. or gifts he gives, hes still the bad guy because they cant afford their house or the expenses she carried after the divorce.

                      Spouses should be responsible for cs and ss where its warranted. But the attitudes about being owed or blaming the other spouse when the case is that a spouse cant afford their lifestyle shouldnt be the responsibility of others.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Rioe View Post
                        Table CS is nowhere near someone's full earnings. The CS recipient is still going to live a much reduced lifestyle. Not to mention the sudden cessation of CS when the children are grown!

                        The wealthy parent is supporting their children, no matter where they live. It's just an unfortunate side effect that the ex also benefits for a time. The only people who have a problem with this are those who hate their ex more than they love their children. And maybe also those who have an ex who clearly spends the CS money on themselves instead of on the children.
                        CS/S7 is 25-30% of somebody's net income.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by rockscan View Post
                          Yes but what if parent b earns a lower income because parent a placed demands on their career and living situation? i.e. Parent a demanded they live in an area that doesnt support career choices for parent b and then parent a decided to spend more than they brought in? My partner has had more career opportunities now that he has the freedom to move and the money to train and get designations for his industry. He wasnt able to do any of this while married. His ex makes more money than him but continues to overspend and racked up a second mortgage to pay his equalization. No matter what he does, he will always be the bad guy because he "took moms money" and is living with me so we have two incomes and no children. No matter how much child support, s7, proportion of post sec. or gifts he gives, hes still the bad guy because they cant afford their house or the expenses she carried after the divorce.

                          Spouses should be responsible for cs and ss where its warranted. But the attitudes about being owed or blaming the other spouse when the case is that a spouse cant afford their lifestyle shouldnt be the responsibility of others.

                          Your partner chose to not pursue his career and/or limit his opportunities. His ex didn't make him - he chose to.

                          He needs to be accountable for the decisions he made then - as dumb or as intelligent as they were - they were HIS decisions, not his ex-wife's.

                          How are we ever going to raise children to be accountable and responsible when the children's parents have avoided accountability for their own decisions?
                          Last edited by MS Mom; 06-16-2014, 12:57 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Hallelujah!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              So what youre saying is he should have left his wife and child because there were no opportunities for him? Or it was ok that she overspent both the salaries they were earning during the marriage?

                              He tried saying no. He tried stopping her. He tried doing what was best. He made the only choice left to him which was get divorced and it still goes on. He can say no now because they both cant afford it, she still does it and it becomes a case of "dad wont let you do this" or "dad doesnt pay enough child support".

                              Youre absolutely right about teaching responsibility but its hard to do when both parents arent on the same page.

                              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