Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Second children are "invisible"

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Second children are "invisible"

    In this country children from "second" families are not considered when assigning child support and extra expense amounts to the first kids. But in most European countries and in Australia, ALL children are considered when determining how much is money is appropriate to send to the first kids.

    With almost 1/2 of all marriages ending in divorce, second families are becoming the norm for both CP's and NCP's. Neither person, CP or NCP should be forced into such poverty by their CS payments that they can't AFFORD to have additional children.

    I don't think any parent (CP or NCP) would feel it's ok to put one of their children above the other, but that is exactly what the government is forcing many NCP's to do, by imposing high CS awards and then ADDING extra expenses ON TOP of CS, without any regard to the actual monetary status of the 2 housholds and the number of children they have to support (both full time and part-time when the "first" kids visit).

    "Second" children should not take away from the first children, but if reasonable amounts were set in the first place, based on the actual costs of the child without trying to "equalize" the households, this problem wouldn't exist in the first place.

    Also, benefits and tax treatments of CS need to be more fairly divided between the CP and the NCP. For instance, when assessing the child tax benefits for any second children, the Child Support paid to the 1st children should be deducted off the total income. As it is now, the 2nd children get a lower % based on actual income in their home, and the CP gets a higher % based on actual income in her home (as the CP doesn't claim CS rec'd for this calculation). There are numerous other tax and benefit changes that could be made, that would taking NOTHING away from the 1st kids, but would ensure fairer treatment of the 2nd children.

    It is time things changed!
    This is what needs to happen in Canada - below is the summary of the new Australian child support plans (which before was just like Canadas). It is really very simple and can and should be done:

    Under the new Australian Child Support Scheme:

    1)child support payments will be calculated based on Australian research into the actual costs of children

    2)the combined income of both parents will be used to calculate child support payments, treating the income of both parents in the same way (i.e. same tax treatment)

    3)both parents' contributions to the cost of their children through care and contact will be recognised, and

    4)children of first and second families will be treated more equally.

  • #2
    Well, as the parent of the "first" children... I'm of the opinion if you can't afford the first kids you made, you shouldn't be making more.

    I certainly wouldn't be able to afford more children in a second marriage and I won't be having any more. It's the sensible thing to do.

    On the other hand my ex, who can't afford the ones he's got (he's consistently a month in arrears), has been hinting to our kids "how would you like a little brother or sister?" ... I'm sorry if it sounds harsh... but don't be making more babies if you can't afford the ones you already have.

    Comment


    • #3
      gotta agree with phoenix. Here is something to think about. say the CP got pregnant with another baby. Should the NCP of the first child have to pay More child support because of her second child even though it was not the NCPs child? The show would be on the other foot in this case. Sure you can argue that the bio dad of second child should support child and there should be no change in CS for the first, but you are asking the CP to take a drop in CS for a child that is not their bio child. This would be a very complex issue and not so cut and dried as one would like to believe. It should go both ways,not just one, if it is to be fair. A second child by either party would affect that parties income.

      Comment


      • #4
        Hi There,

        I do echo with Phoenix and standing on the sideline.If the CP don't get extra money when have more kids then why the NCP's support payements should be reduced.If you can't afford don't be like animals stop making them.
        You are just asking a break in mortgage interest because bymistake you bought a 500,000 house whereas you can only afford 200,000.
        Sorry to be harsh but all the NCP there are equilavent to be not alive(I won't se dead) for their kids atleast support them financially otherwise be wise and adopt shared custody.

        Comment


        • #5
          I do understand many of the above mentioned concerns, here is a scenerio, man women meet marry have 2 children. Wife leaves gains 60% + time which equals full child support from father, we must support our children to the best of abilities, agreed 100%.

          Man meets another women still relatively young, always wanted to be a father not an every second week end visitor to his child, wow yes he now has another chance. Both work, is affordable to think about a new family with children, a second chance to be a father not a vistitor to his children. Ggood deal, and no problem can afford to continue paying full child support to ex, and start a new family with new love of his life, has a child or two (what ever) She decides after a certain length of time it just is not working out leaves and of course expects full child support.

          So are the children of the second family less deserving?

          Should a person who gets divorced and not be permitted to starting a family unless he has a certain income level?

          I clearly understand the concerns of those who recieve support we have budgeted our lives around this income, why should one family take a decrease in standard of living because Dad went out and tried to have a life too?

          All children deserve the support of both parents, Key word here is ALL CHILDREN.

          I am deeply distressed by many of the above mentioned comments. It speaks volumes to many of our family law problems.

          Comment


          • #6
            We could start a whole new thread on some of the above mentioned comments, one is who may be entitled to have children, (yes it hit a nerve) should people who recieve social assistance be permitted to have children, perhaps all men who do not work should be sent to be fixed, clearly in the event of divorce they will not be able to pay a reasonable amount of child support. Or perhaps...well I could go on and on and on and on.............................

            This is only one example of many that I could think of.

            Do not want to high jack the thread.
            Last edited by today; 06-21-2008, 08:01 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              My biggest concern is why take from the first children to give to the second? That is basically punishing the children from the frist family. Their support is reduced and therefore their standard of life that have is going to be reduced.


              today We could start a whole new thread on some of the above mentioned comments, one is who may be entitled to have children, (yes it hit a nerve) should people who recieve social assistance be permitted to have children, perhaps all men who do not work should be sent to be fixed, clearly in the event of divorce they will not be able to pay a reasonable amount of child support. Or perhaps...well I could go on and on and on and on.............................
              I think that is being a bit overboard. No one is saying that they cannot have second families, just that the first family should not get less then before in order to support the second family.

              Comment


              • #8
                Part I forgot to add was would it be fair for the NCP to pay extra just because the CP had another baby and that would affect her second families standard of living???

                Comment


                • #9
                  I do understand this is a very sensitive subject, when we talk about the possibility of a reduction in our income affecting our standard of living.

                  On the face of it, it really does appear to be a simple matter, but can become very complicated and emotional.

                  On my side as a father I want to support my children financially and emotionally, regardless if they are from my first, second marriage. I want to support them equally, regardless of what union they came from.

                  I do not think any one of us enters into a marriage and has children thinking about child support in the event of divorce. I think it is safe to say everyone here is very well aware of the financial hardship after divorce, at the very least a decline in standard of living.

                  I also understand you are simply trying to protect your standard of living for not only yourself but your child. Understandly one would ask why should I have to suffer because of his choice to have a second family.

                  My point is the children are relying on the fathers support, this begs the question should the father not support all his children to the best of his ability and more importantly equally.

                  When as family unit we chose to have second and third children, there is a cost to the first child if you want to look at it this way. It only makes things more difficult/complicated if it is within the context of a second family.
                  Last edited by today; 06-22-2008, 12:51 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I guess the inital post was a little confusing. I don't mean that when an NCP has additional children, his support should go down. I meant that support and EXTRA EXPENSES, here in Canada, are too high, regardless of wether there is a second family or not. And so if he chooses to have a family in his life daily (cause usually the woman has the kids), these high expenses (which include hidden spousal support for the "first wife") can mean a second family, where both parents work, just barely scrapes by.

                    Currently, we pay 50% of his net salary for CS and extras. The fact that we have second children to support was not allowed to be brought up in court. Hence they are invisible. And yet the CP is DIRECTLY affecting her ex's 2nd family, by quitting her job and making us pay 100% of extras, which increased our costs substantially and is NOT something we could have palnned for, so saying a man shouldn't have more kids if they can't afford them ingnores that fact that "things change". The NCP could never get away with quitting a job to "upgrade" himself and not pay any CS or extras.

                    It is an unequal and unfair situation. Why do his kids cost 25,000/year to raise? I have twins and I know they certainly don't cost anywhere near that. CS and extras are too high, and if a second family exists these costs can impoversish otherwise middle class paying parents and their new families.

                    In most European countries and Australia, ALL CHILDREN are equal, not just the "first kids" and they eliminate the hidden spousal support (thinly disguised as Child Support) that still exists in the Canadian system. Plus the tax treatment of BOTH parents contribution to their kids is treated equally.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      yes TODAY, good point. Does the "first" kid in an intact family get more than his "second" siblings? Does the "first" kid have the power to limit other siblings in his own family so he can be maintained at a certain level? Of course not, but that is the power the Can. system wants to give CP's and "first" kids.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I am a CP and I have yet to see those powers that you are talking about. I guess such powers exist only when the CP is the mom. My ex quit her job after we signed the separation agreement and court consent. Then she made me double her SS. My lawyer says don't even bring it up why she is not looking for a job because it will P/O the judge.

                        Outside the court, she has launched a defamation campaign against me. Just the fact that I have the custody is enough to prove that I am a manipulative and controlling person. On the other hand if she had custody, she would be the better parent(and I'd be the deadbeat father). Its not just the legal system. Its the way society is set up and made to think. Man can't have second family because he's gotta suffer for the first mistake he made but woman, by all means, can have as many families as she wants after that.

                        It will take at least one generation for the legal system to start changing because all these old crocodiles, who actually designed this system, aren't gonna let it change in their life time.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          This is a very sensitive topic with many, many independent issues that make each of them unique. I agree that the CP when it turns out to be a “mom” generally gets the better end of the stick.

                          If mom decided to have a second family, get a divorce, get a second CS payment then move on to a third family would anyone be complaining then?
                          Would the judge be telling her to stop having children? I think not, equally no one should take the position that another individual, even if they are literally the scum of the earth, cannot have a “chance” to try again.
                          We are humans, and as such crave and need human contact and all the emotional good and bad that goes along with it.

                          It really feels terrible to have to bare the financial burden alone when you know there is someone out there that is capable of helping. I won’t deny that. Everyone here understands that feeling, and equally we can empathise with the individual trying their best to do right by “all” the children.

                          When a CP has a NCP that is unwilling, or “seemingly” unwilling to help our emotions tend to cloud or understanding and/or compassion for the NCP and what they may be going through. This does not negate the despicable, “intentional” behaviour of some NCP.

                          But bottom line is that we all need to realise each of our situations, even though they carry common elements, are all unique. And as such a court should be able to look into the situation from outside the box, and God help them, clearly distinguish those that are really trying, from those that couldn’t care less. But we forget the judges’ are people too, and people make mistake. If the laws could be more gender neutral with more definition for guidance, I truly feel fewer lives would be hurt in the process.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            to "standing on the sidelines" and your comment "Part I forgot to add was would it be fair for the NCP to pay extra just because the CP had another baby and that would affect her second families standard of living???"

                            If you, as the CP takes the "table amount" of child support out of your income, and combined with the CS recieved by the NCP, and spends this ONLY on your first kids, then by all means, you can lower the amount of YOUR contribution to financailly raising your first kid, when kid # 2 comes along. Most families do spend a little less on all kids as the family grows.

                            But lets face it, the CS recieved for the 1st kids will in-directly (and maybe directly if you need a new crib for baby #2 and the CS for kid #1 comes in the mail) support the 2nd kid too. When you turn up the heat in the house, ALL your children will be warm. When you buy a watermelon with CS money, I'll bet both 1st and 2nd kids get to share it. Heck, the CS sent for kid #1 might be all used up for kid #2, we don't know as you don't have to prove where any of it went anyway.

                            So go right ahead, spend a little less of YOUR OWN income for 1st kid, and divert it to YOUR OWN 2nd kid. Go right ahead, you have that right. The NCP (and hence their 2nd kids) don't have that choice. The NCP's money goes directly OUT of their household to support their 1st kid, and their 2nd kids get NO benefits from this, even in-directly. So go ahead and lower YOUR contribution to kid #1 when kid #2 comes along. It is only fair and reasonable that you would want to support ALL you kids equally.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by phoenix
                              Well, as the parent of the "first" children... I'm of the opinion if you can't afford the first kids you made, you shouldn't be making more.
                              I think the argument is partially about whether where the money is really going, that is the NCP of the first person is effectively paying for the CP and the children, not just the children.

                              When a CP act likes a deadbeat themself and do nothing to contribute financially, other than to squeeze more money out of the NCP, it gets in people's craw.

                              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