Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Reform Needed NOW!

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

  • #91
    Originally posted by mcdreamy View Post
    Except -- he abandoned them, gave up his 50/50 access, all for a piece of ass and a pay cheque.

    I think many of us are taking issue with his personal choices. Particularly given that so many posters here are still fighting and giving it their all, for 50/50 with their children.

    eta: I too remember a post about Australian family law practices, and they seemed to have the calculation of cs payable based on both parental incomes, regardless of access.
    They are two separate issues though. I cant imagine his kids felt too goof when he left. I bet there is or will be some resentment towards the step siblings.
    I think the new spouse sucks ass for even allowing that to happen.

    But several posters are only focusing on how its none of his business how the cs gets spent and therein is the issue. All I see its bitterness and anger.

    Im not much of a praying person but I HOPE I do not turn into some of tgese posters. They are the the epitome of what I dont want to be

    funny thing is I bet if the op met them in person and gave them a wink and I smile you wouldnt be able to beat them away with a stick..

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by mcdreamy View Post
      Except -- he abandoned them, gave up his 50/50 access, all for a piece of ass and a pay cheque.

      I think many of us are taking issue with his personal choices. Particularly given that so many posters here are still fighting and giving it their all, for 50/50 with their children.

      eta: I too remember a post about Australian family law practices, and they seemed to have the calculation of cs payable based on both parental incomes, regardless of access.
      I am done explaining my choices here...I did what I did for the right reasons including having a job to help support my children.


      And I take offence to you calling my wife a 'piece of ass'...that is uncalled for.
      Maybe that's how you refer to your significant other...not me.


      I thought I would dealing with intellectual people who are capable of rational thought here...I guess I was wrong.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by shellshocked22 View Post
        To "Justice4us" - for what it's worth my friend I TOTALLY agree with you and I suspect most "payors" (majority of whom are usually guys) would also back you up. I think its pretty obvious that the ones who are giving you a rough time are usually CS/SS "recipients" and likely the ones who feel the world "owes them' at that. Why bother actually working hard when you can leech off a former ex who DOES work hard ?

        It drives me insane also that the government will do ANYTHING for "the sake of the children" BUT doesn't give a rats ass how "child support" is used - if Mommy needs a new Gucci bag then that must be helping the kids, right ? I agree that if CS is only a few hundred bucks then you don't need to account for every hamburger but when its BIG money (like in your case) I don't think its unreasonable for the recipient to prove its actually used FOR the child's benefit. However, the feminist lobby is obviously not going to support that !! Think of all the high end fashion outlets and day spas that would close down !

        Also, the poster who mocked you for giving up "50 50" for a "mere" pay cheque would likely be the first one howling for your scalp if you LOST that "mere" pay cheque.

        Bottom line my friend - don't expect fairness or common sense in Family Law. Just try and avoid ever getting married/common law EVER and warn young guys about the meat grinder that awaits them also....
        I totally get you bud...glad there are actually some people here who understand and aren't responding with bitterness and anger (which in most cases are the recipients I think).
        Thanks!

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by takeontheworld View Post
          They are two separate issues though. I cant imagine his kids felt too goof when he left. I bet there is or will be some resentment towards the step siblings.
          I think the new spouse sucks ass for even allowing that to happen.

          But several posters are only focusing on how its none of his business how the cs gets spent and therein is the issue. All I see its bitterness and anger.

          Im not much of a praying person but I HOPE I do not turn into some of tgese posters. They are the the epitome of what I dont want to be

          funny thing is I bet if the op met them in person and gave them a wink and I smile you wouldnt be able to beat them away with a stick..
          My kids have not shown any resentment whatsoever...they seem to understand the decisions I have made because I took the time to talk to them way ahead of time. I am lucky in that respect.


          And by the way, I have been told I resemble Matt Damon...you definitely couldn't beat them away with a stick!! Haha

          Comment


          • #95
            But several posters are only focusing on how its none of his business how the cs gets spent and therein is the issue. All I see its bitterness and anger.
            I'm neither bitter or angry. I have zero reason to be either. I have no issue with anyone challenging the validity of the CS tables. The arguments for that are often very valid. What I take issue with is the idea that the system can micromanage how the money is spend. That is unrealistic and probably will never happen.

            What I also find hard to grasp is any parent that got awarded 50/50 and then left their children (with an ex they claim to be neglectful). There's a lot of people on this forum that would do, and have done, almost anything to be awarded joint access/custody of their children. This OP left an enviable parenting situation on his own accord.

            Since you seem so curious, she was never a great parent but she is the kids' mom. Whether you want to believe it or not, I was always the more nurturing parent and took care of the cooking and most of the cleaning as well.
            If you say you were, I do believe you. There's often one person in a relationship who provides more of the nuturing, not unusual at all. Given that you provided that, it makes it even more sad for your children that you left them.

            My point is simply that its hard to take your complaining about your ex seriously when you made the decision to leave them mostly with her.

            I work full-time, always have and have made major career changes twice due to child care issues. Changing jobs is definitely stressful and difficult but there is no job that would make me leave my kids. Any relationship that would cause me to have to leave my kids behind wouldn't work for me.

            But as previously mentioned, you have the right to make whatever decision you want to make...trouble is, you're responsible for those choices.

            I rant a lot in here about the system, because I never had a chance to get 50/50 from the start of our case with the way things transpired. My ex has succeeded at manipulating and deceit.

            If I ever got 50/50 I would NEVER give it up!
            THIS is unfair. The presumption of 50/50 should be default. Most people wouldn't give up 50/50 after fighting for it.

            Comment


            • #96
              I have a question for everyone here...

              What would the response be if the OP DID lose his job because he decided to stay and thus had to take a MUCH lower paying job? Would the ex be able to impute an income on him? If he lives in a small town, we all know jobs in small towns are hard to come by, so if he lost an $80k job to take say a $50k job and keep his 50-50 custody, how likely would it be for an income to be imputed?

              What do Judges think is more important? Time spent with children or money spent on children?

              I don't think one should be put down due to the decision to keep a high paying job, because it seems that incomes are imputed all the time, as he would not technically be working to his full potential.

              Also, it is easy to say that one should focus on their first family before they get involved with someone else, but it is totally different when you live that reality. The costs for a NCP are often the same or MORE than the CP.

              For my partner and I, we only have his kids EOW and some extended Holidays, however when we purchased a house, we had to purchase one with 3 bedrooms, as he has a boy and girl ages 8 and 5 and it was not appropriate they shared a bedroom, especially since they were getting older. Because we had to purchase a 3 bedroom house, our mortgage is more expensive, but cheaper than what we were paying for a 3 bedroom apartment we rented for 2 years.

              Even though we only have the children EOW, it doesn't change out mortgage, property tax, hydro, cable, cell phone, ect payments. The only thing that cost more is food for the weekends we have the children, but even that is barely any more expensive. So we are still providing a 3 bedroom house to house the children 4 nights a month and the ex provides a 3 bedroom house for 26 nights a month. Our average monthly expense are basically equal, but our disposable income doesn't even come close.

              We live about 2 hours from the children, we wish we could move closer, but the reality is, we would be leaving GOOD paying jobs, for minimum wage jobs, so the question remains... what trumps the other? Time, or money?

              Comment


              • #97
                Time, or money?
                All things being equal between parents...personally, I would say time but that's me.

                Its definitely possible to simply prove that you have a decreased income due to lack of certain employment opportunities. Happens every day in court. Particularly since this OP stated he was already driving 5 hours prior to moving...he had a great case to have CS reduced for a different employment opportunity. And since he's paying full-table CS now and has increased expenses...he's experienced the same loss in overall household income anyway and now has lost 50/50 access to his own children.

                Add to it that this particular OP is alleging that his ex is negligent. ie..."kids are starving at her house", "she was never a good parent", "he was the nuturer", etc....so I think that makes the fact that he left the kids behind somewhat more onerous.

                Of course, to each their own. Whatever you decide in life, you have to live with the consequences of your actions though.
                Last edited by Pursuinghappiness; 09-30-2013, 09:40 PM.

                Comment


                • #98
                  I think a judge would say income.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    I think a judge would say income.
                    Are you suggesting that this particular OP couldn't have his CS adjusted based on available employment in the area?

                    Comment


                    • I believe it would of been a battle. Based on situations that male friends and colleagues are in and where they are located.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Berner_Faith View Post
                        I have a question for everyone here...

                        What would the response be if the OP DID lose his job because he decided to stay and thus had to take a MUCH lower paying job? Would the ex be able to impute an income on him? If he lives in a small town, we all know jobs in small towns are hard to come by, so if he lost an $80k job to take say a $50k job and keep his 50-50 custody, how likely would it be for an income to be imputed?

                        What do Judges think is more important? Time spent with children or money spent on children?

                        I don't think one should be put down due to the decision to keep a high paying job, because it seems that incomes are imputed all the time, as he would not technically be working to his full potential.

                        Also, it is easy to say that one should focus on their first family before they get involved with someone else, but it is totally different when you live that reality. The costs for a NCP are often the same or MORE than the CP.

                        For my partner and I, we only have his kids EOW and some extended Holidays, however when we purchased a house, we had to purchase one with 3 bedrooms, as he has a boy and girl ages 8 and 5 and it was not appropriate they shared a bedroom, especially since they were getting older. Because we had to purchase a 3 bedroom house, our mortgage is more expensive, but cheaper than what we were paying for a 3 bedroom apartment we rented for 2 years.

                        Even though we only have the children EOW, it doesn't change out mortgage, property tax, hydro, cable, cell phone, ect payments. The only thing that cost more is food for the weekends we have the children, but even that is barely any more expensive. So we are still providing a 3 bedroom house to house the children 4 nights a month and the ex provides a 3 bedroom house for 26 nights a month. Our average monthly expense are basically equal, but our disposable income doesn't even come close.

                        We live about 2 hours from the children, we wish we could move closer, but the reality is, we would be leaving GOOD paying jobs, for minimum wage jobs, so the question remains... what trumps the other? Time, or money?
                        Alas...someone with an open mind...and similar situation?


                        In our case either I had to leave a small town and kids to keep my job (and by the way my income is not 80 grand, it's well into the 6 figures) or my new wife would have had to leave her govt job and kids...it made more sense for me to leave because both of us work closer to where we live now. Originally she was going to move to the small town but when the ex started making things more and more difficult for me with the kids I decided to make that decision.


                        Yes, people do have to move forward with their lives and even children need to adjust...again, I understood that I would have to pay child support but I did not expect that the amount would be so ridiculously high (considering she does very well for herself as well) and that she can literally do whatever she wants with that money.


                        I know I could give my kids a lot more if I had that extra money at my disposal, but my hands are tied.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Pursuinghappiness View Post
                          All things being equal between parents...personally, I would say time but that's me.

                          Its definitely possible to simply prove that you have a decreased income due to lack of certain employment opportunities. Happens every day in court. Particularly since this OP stated he was already driving 5 hours prior to moving...he had a great case to have CS reduced for a different employment opportunity. And since he's paying full-table CS now and has increased expenses...he's experienced the same loss in overall household income anyway and now has lost 50/50 access to his own children.

                          Add to it that this particular OP is alleging that his ex is negligent. ie..."kids are starving at her house", "she was never a good parent", "he was the nuturer", etc....so I think that makes the fact that he left the kids behind somewhat more onerous.

                          Of course, to each their own. Whatever you decide in life, you have to live with the consequences of your actions though.
                          I agree... as adults we all know that decisions have consequences and they are not always positive. I couldn't imagine leaving my partners children. We had an opportunity for me to take a higher position, but that meant relocated over 5 hours away, making us 7 hours away from the children. This promotion was a huge increase in pay and it would have certainly pushed us ahead of the game, since my income doesn't count for his CS, but it was not even discussed, I turned down the position before I even told him about it. If we could find comparable jobs closer to the children, we would jump on them, but at this time there is not.

                          It is easy to say that time comes first, but I think we have all seen many posters on her wondering how to impute income, they all say it is due to the ex trying to avoid CS and in some cases this may be true, but in the case of the OP, would his crazy ex be able to successfully impute an income on him ie he chose to stay?

                          OP- I am sure this was not an easy decision to move and I think on some level we all understand, but you also need to understand that you had something that MANY posters here, including myself, would LOVE to have. For those people who are fighting for equal access that fact that you had that and gave it up for money, seems like a slap in a face to those who fight every day. I don't find the CS guidelines fair at all, my partner's ex gets over 25% of his pay a month, we are doing okay financially, his CS will go up again next year and we will have no choice to pay it.

                          His ex seems to never have money for extras for the kids, but seems to have money to drive to her new bfs house every weekend, which is 2 hours away, has money to run into the liquor store every time we meet with the children (we meet in a stripe mall- not at a liquor store) We are told by the children that they eat out all the time and that at school they are hungry, but I also know that when they are with us and we make a big meal and they eat it all, an hour later they are STARVING and even though we have a huge fridge and 2 freezers full of food, we have NOTHING to eat. Heck those kids have every flavour of Jammers and juice boxes overflowing the cupboard, but we also have nothing to drink.

                          Kids say crazy things and it is often inflated. Unless your children are actually suffering, stop wasting your energy trying to analyze what your ex does.

                          Comment


                          • I believe it would of been a battle. Based on situations that male friends and colleagues are in and where they are located.
                            You might be right. In my opinion, its still a battle worth having. Of course, I'm biased because I fought hard to ensure my parental rights...so there's no way I'd give them up. My priority will always be my children.

                            Originally she was going to move to the small town but when the ex started making things more and more difficult for me with the kids I decided to make that decision.
                            Many ex's make co-parenting extremely challenging...its commonplace on this forum. They usually try to find ways to deal with it and stick it out though.

                            Comment


                            • It is easy to say that time comes first, but I think we have all seen many posters on her wondering how to impute income, they all say it is due to the ex trying to avoid CS and in some cases this may be true, but in the case of the OP, would his crazy ex be able to successfully impute an income on him ie he chose to stay?
                              I don't know. Were the kids worth trying for though?

                              Comment


                              • Unfortunately, you made what we, with our greater experience, consider a number of mistakes.

                                You gave up 50-50 access for income. You made the stereotypically male decision and chose providing the income over providing the nurturing, even though you knew your ex was a poor nurturer. Did you know when you did it that you would have no control over how she spent the money? Even if you had lost your job because you stayed, you would have kept your 50-50 access, and she would have had to pay YOU due to the offset system. And then you chose to get involved with a woman whose own situation made things worse. Without her, you could maybe have moved because of your job but found a midpoint that was closer to your kids.

                                Now, you cry that the family law system is unfair and needs changing, to suit your situation. The family law system did not have anything to do with your work from home job transforming into an office job, which started your whole set of problems. The family law system did not have anything to do with you falling in love with a woman with complications for your situation.

                                The family law system is a huge lumbering behemoth that changes very slowly. You are better off working to find ways to help yourself within the existing system, than you are whining on a message board about how the system should be changed.

                                My suggestions:

                                Look into having your CS reduced due to your access costs. It may be difficult because you were the one who did the moving away.

                                Look into a claim for undue hardship. This may be difficult because your income is pretty nice from the sounds of it.

                                Look into moving closer to your children. What is the farthest away from your current city towards your children's town that you could feasibly move, given your fiancee's limitations due to her own children and their father? What kind of commute are you prepared to handle?

                                Look into increasing your access. Maybe you can negotiate for increased holiday and summer time with them, and that might be enough to tip you over into 40% and the offset system. Depending on the ages of the kids, you may meet with objection from them as they'd have to leave friends and activities more often.

                                Look into dumping your fiancee and job and moving back. What's your priority? Being there for your children, or being there for your new relationship? It's an awful thing to balance. Reframe the money you pay your ex as being the cost of being with your fiancee instead of the cost of supporting your children. Is she worth it?

                                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