Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Duration of Child Support and lump sum?

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

  • Duration of Child Support and lump sum?

    I had a one night stand and it resulted in an unplanned pregnancy. I'm meeting with a lawyer next week. I'd like to settle my financial obligation to the child with a lump sum payment based on my expected income and extras (daycare, etc).

    I'm not seeking any parental rights.

    My question: when I'm calculating my lump sum payment, am I doing an 18 year calculation, or one that includes university? (Up to 22 years?). If the latter, what are the extras that are calculated for university? Tuition, books, residence?). I'm flummoxed.

    I know lump sum payments are generally not recommended but I think it would be agony dealing with issues/payments on a month to month basis for the next 18-22 years. I think even with risk, for my own mental health, lump sum is the way to go.

    Has anyone on here done that or entertained the idea and decided not to?

  • #2
    I am not sure that you can actually do lump sum when it comes to CS. For SS your can.

    With CS there are too many variables that can change from year to year.

    I would first be wanting a DNA test to prove you are the father. You said it was a one night stand so there could be a chance you are not the father.

    Comment


    • #3
      I have never heard of that. How would you accurately estimate that? How can you know what sort of raises or income Change you will
      Have for the next 22 years? How can you know what sorts of sports or activities or if you need a tutor or not , or if and when child goes to university or what tuition in 20 years will be? I can’t see how that would work

      Comment


      • #4
        You won’t get to do a lump sum and even if she accepted, nothing would stop her for coming back for more.

        Get a dna test and then prepare yourself for 22 years of support.

        Also, this is your child and as much as you don’t want anything to do with it, your kid is not responsible for its parents irresponsibility.

        Comment


        • #5
          Child support can definitely go beyond 18, not just post-secondary but also if the child has any physical/mental issues that restrict their ability to lead an independent adult life. As well, you can’t accurately predict how your income will increase over the next 20+ years.

          I don’t see how a judge would rule the way you want, or sign off on a consent agreement as it is not in the best interest of the child. A lot of very smart people put a lot of years into creating the guidelines. You don’t have any valid arguments for setting case law aside. The child’s needs come first.

          Comment


          • #6
            Burt, you sound like a prick.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Karma2016 View Post
              Burt, you sound like a prick.
              If he was female, he could have had an abortion and that would be the end of it. Alternatively, he could have given birth to the child and then given it up for adoption or otherwise ensured that he had no parental responsibilities. Unfortunately, as a male, he can be forced into having an unwanted child. Just because the mother wants the child does not create any moral obligation for burt to have any interactions with the child.

              He does not sound like a prick. He does not want to deal with the mother at all. I do not think that is an unreasonable feeling. Unfortunately of course he will not be able to do the lump sum payment, but I can easily understand why he would want to do so.

              Honestly, given that he does not want to see the kid, I would seriously consider leaving the country. The child support burden will be devastating. Mom wanted the kid over dad's (presumed) objections, so let mom pay for it. There is no moral obligation to pay child support for a child that you never wanted.

              To anticipate the response: Yes, he could have avoided having sex. However, in this day and age, sex and procreation are not inherently mixed. Child support is not an appropriate punishment for casual sex, not the least because unless you are a religious puritan, there is nothing wrong with casual sex. The one night stand was almost certainly accompanied by an unspoken agreement of "this is not for procreation, this is for fun". The mother broke that agreement. Legally, she is allowed to do so, but that does not make it right.

              Comment


              • #8
                Janus...if he did not use a condom would you still feel like he has no obligations?

                Comment


                • #9
                  An old diet expression comes to mind: "five seconds on the lips can mean a lifetime on the hips."

                  I strongly agree about the DNA test and would hope that you have made it clear to the alleged pregnant one that you want nothing to do with her or the kid. It would be naive of anyone to think that women don't try to trap men. It was a one-off, so presumably you have not heard or spoken to her since being informed? How far along is she? Are you certain she is pregnant or is this just a high-school drama thing? Perhaps once she knows that you want NOTHING TO DO WITH HER OR THE KID she will miraculously be 'without child? Hopefully this isn't one of those situations where your family knows her family.

                  Yeah I'd be thinking along the lines of Janus. Certainly, don't communicate with her aside from requesting the DNA test.

                  If she goes through with the birth then yes you are financially responsible... for what will seem like an eternity.

                  I presume you are wealthy as not many people could contemplate paying off 22 years' worth of child support. This 'wealth' is likely attractive to preggers.
                  Last edited by arabian; 06-30-2019, 05:21 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by standing on the sidelines View Post
                    Janus...if he did not use a condom would you still feel like he has no obligations?
                    I would see a case for damages in terms of the abortion procedure, or at least the pregnancy. However, not using a condom does not mean "I consent to raise a kid and/or financially provide for a child".

                    Not using a condom is a foolish idea, because it has foreseeable negative consequences. Similarly, a woman walking naked on the street in a bad part of town at night might be a foolish idea, but just because rape was a reasonably foreseeable unintended and unwanted consequence, it does not follow that she consented to a rape should it occur.

                    Or, less violently, when a woman is making out with a guy, she is consenting to the making out, she has not yet consented to the sex. They are distinct events.

                    When a guy has sex, he consents to the sex. That is all. If a woman wants to saddle him with CS obligations, then that should be a separate consent.

                    My point was that fathers are constantly being saddled with obligations for things over which they provided absolutely zero consent. It is legal, but it is wrong. Burt didn't want a kid. He is going to have one, and he is screwed. He is not a jerk.

                    Well... he might be a jerk, but not wanting to pay CS for an unwanted child does not make you a jerk, it makes you human.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Janus View Post
                      However, not using a condom does not mean "I consent to raise a kid and/or financially provide for a child".

                      Not using a condom is a foolish idea, because it has foreseeable negative consequences. Similarly, a woman walking naked on the street in a bad part of town at night might be a foolish idea, but just because rape was a reasonably foreseeable unintended and unwanted consequence, it does not follow that she consented to a rape should it occur.

                      When a guy has sex, he consents to the sex. That is all. If a woman wants to saddle him with CS obligations, then that should be a separate consent.

                      My point was that fathers are constantly being saddled with obligations for things over which they provided absolutely zero consent. It is legal, but it is wrong. Burt didn't want a kid. He is going to have one, and he is screwed. He is not a jerk.

                      Well... he might be a jerk, but not wanting to pay CS for an unwanted child does not make you a jerk, it makes you human.
                      Janus, you’ve escalated into a prick as well.

                      Yes, not using a condom equals consent to raising a child physically and emotionally. If you do not, then you are a jerk.

                      A women walking naked down a street should not expect to be raped. A man seeing a naked woman walking down a street does not make him rape her. Victim blaming much?

                      If a man consents to sex, he’s consenting to the consequences of sex whether it be a pregnancy, STD’s or whatever. Had he protected himself that would indicate he did not want those things although they are still possible. The woman isn’t “saddling” him with CS obligations; that will be a consequence from his unprotected sex.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Men and women, on the whole, are raised to be somewhat responsible. In my last year of high school there were eight pregnancies. It was like a cautionary tale every day.

                        As a woman, I put my future first and didn’t engage in unprotected sex that could lead to a pregnancy. My husband did the same through school.

                        While I understand abstinence is the only fool proof way of preventing an unplanned pregnancy, I also understand people have sex. If you don’t want to get someone pregnant be smart.

                        He came here asking (in a dick way in my opinion) how to avoid the consequences of his one night stand. We were honest, there’s nothing wrong with that.

                        Tell us this Janus, if you had a daughter who came home pregnant, what would your reaction be? Let the guy off of his responsibility?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          This thread just proves women can’t take emotion out of thinking lol

                          Burt’s a prick because he just asked about paying money?? Serious. We don’t even know if she’s seeking. NORMALLY kudos would be given for wanting to take “responsibility” here. But instead. He’s a prick. I’m sure this female would GLADLY take money vs none at all

                          And Janus is a prick for offering logic and reason as to why A guy SHOULDNT be on the hook, yet points out legally he is....


                          Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            If you consent to sex then you consent to the possible effects of sex - pregancy in the case of hetrosexual sex. If a man does not want children then he can take all possible precautions such as sterilization or not having sex. If he didn’t get sterilized (and routinely tested to make sure it is still effective) and still engaged in sex then he was accepting the possibility of pregnancy. Men have bodily autonomy to choose sterilization (and I believe it is covered over provincial health care so it is free).

                            Otherwise, the man is responsible for the consequences of his actions, same as the woman.
                            Last edited by tilt; 07-01-2019, 11:53 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by rockscan View Post
                              Tell us this Janus, if you had a daughter who came home pregnant, what would your reaction be? Let the guy off of his responsibility?
                              My daughters are responsible for their birth control. If they wants to have sex and not have a child they have a choice. If the birth control fails, they have the option of getting an abortion.

                              These are not hypothetical discussions, all my kids are familiar with birth control and failure rates. I'm not too worried about my daughters because at the end of the day they can protect themselves. My son has a trickier issue, but hopefully he chooses his girlfriends well and doesn't get stuck with the one who has no ambition in life. He will likely be wealthy so he is definitely at risk.

                              I guess I can teach abstinence, but sex is fun and I want my children to enjoy life. Sex is not a crime that needs punishment or consequences, unless, as I said before, you are some religious fruitcake.

                              Honestly, for my daughters, I don't see how the guy factors into the equation at all. Their boyfriends have no rights or responsibilities when it comes to pregnancy. (Note, I still promote condom use as protection against STD's, but as birth control those things are not even remotely foolproof.)

                              So I guess, to answer your question, I would be letting the guy off his responsibility, because at the end of the day, he has none beyond ensuring that everyone is consenting to everything that is happening.

                              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