Unbelievable.... I nearly threw up!!!

[Concerned]

The bottom line is that no one receiving court appointed CS should ever have to be accountable to anyone for how they decide to spend that money on their kids. Most people don't even agree on that stuff during marriage. People's philosophies on how to spend money on children varies significantly.

Bof... suit yourself... women today more and more have no choice but to marry down, due to men realizing the old ridiculous marriage plot and standing by the sidelines of successful jobs, and eventually your own kind will complain of all the things I am pointing out!!! Its amazing to see how high career women that are paying CS/SS to their ex husbands how they agree with me... now that the tables are turned....

lol

[momforever1956]

This is not at all what I am preaching for men to do. I am saying that if your ex wasn't greedy, he would of paid your son's education outside the CS payments.

Now, I have nothing against a judge ordering your ex to pay part of the education.... the judge can simply order your ex to simply write you out a check made out to the school board and voila! Done!

You didn't gate anything at all ... not even CS??? Look people, I am not against helping the children... I told you that all I am seeking is transparency !

No, the law states that once a child is considered an adult there is no CS. Don;t feel bad for me or my kids, I took him to the cleaners and he is paying me HUGE. He was caught in all his lies and my SS is way beyond anything I have heard or seen here or elsewhere. I am not greedy, no Loubiton shoes for me or Channel handbags but my son who is in private law school has 0 student loans. My eldest son is a professional married to a professional and well on their way to success not because of finances but because they are contributing descent human beings. Lucky me--I have a great relationship with my kids and Dr Happy Tooth has nothing, just a financial obligation he resents. I may end up like those dames you see on Dateline NBC or 20/20, murdered!!

[Berner_Faith]

I have to ask Concerned... why do you care? You don't have children, you don't pay support and you are not married... why do you honestly care?

You see, court is always an option. The reason most people are forced (court ordered) to pay support is because they hide income, are not forthcoming, won't pay without a court order, etc. If high income earners were just forthcoming and worked with their ex's, they wouldn't be forced into what you believe is an unfair situation.

Momforever & Arabian for example... if their ex's were easy to get along with and were forthcoming with financials and such, I am sure they would have settled out of court and for a lot less than they are paying now. But when you have some big wig (male or female) who doesn't want to cooperate, is hiding assets/bank accounts you know exist and you have to take them to court just to get a dime out of them, why wouldn't you take them for all they have? Why would you make it easy on them, when they are not even willing to support their own children right out of the gate?

[Concerned]

So Rob - did you ever get married and have kids?

Sorry Arabian, I seemed to have missed your question.

No I never got married or had any kids. After I dibbled and dabbled here and there on how the law works, to me the benefits of being single clearly out weighted the benefits of being married and having children.

I m very happy and if I were to start over, I would do it all over again and stay single.

Hope this answered your question.

[Concerned]

Concerned, wake up!!! Do you think my x who was earning over 600k was reporting it??? Good for the government? Nope wrong again good for his ski vacations and his transsexual whores!! Who are you kidding.

That's off topic, in this thread we are all assuming everyone is HONEST. If you want to discuss NCP hiding money in a forest somewhere, then start a new thread.

Can you please stick to the justification as to why a CP deserves thousands more in CS from the NCP?

[Concerned]

No, the law states that once a child is considered an adult there is no CS. Don;t feel bad for me or my kids, I took him to the cleaners and he is paying me HUGE. He was caught in all his lies and my SS is way beyond anything I have heard or seen here or elsewhere

Again, I am not for men that try to trick the system. I am here to state that there is a CS payment done from the NCP to the CP which may be ordered by the law and which is hundreds or thousands of dollars more per year that it takes to raise a child. And I am here to try and justify why this should be okay.

Or better yet, I would like to justify why I should be able to go out tonight to a near by bar and end up at some ladies home, in her Jacuzzi eating sushi and drinking expensive wine paid by some hard working fellow's CS payment.

Justify why this is okay.... you guys can't do it... no one in this forum, and no one in any forum around the world can justify it ! Just can't do it!

Give me one good reason (in today's greedy divorce law system) why any young man or women would go to school until he or she is 25 and come out as a lawyer, doctor, MBA etc... and then go find a high paying job so that he/she can meet a marrying down candidate, get married, buy a house, have a few kids and then get destroyed by the CS/SS. Just can't do it....

Look people, I'm not making this up ... Jesus people, acquaintances around me are getting divorced at an alarming rate... and all are complaining about the payments being too high. Don't make me look like the bad guy... don't let me stop you, go right ahead and read/watch the millions of articles and videos on the internet with men (and some women) complaining about payments being too high lacking transparency.

Instead of telling me to turn gay or something, why don't you all look around... the testimonials are real and suffering. But it seems to me several here are turning a blind eye to this epidemic!

I am not against CS, I am against abusive child support. 1200$/mo is the standard cap, after that, any other colossal expenses for the child such as school tuitions, vacations, cars, owning their own donkey !!!! should all be paid outside of CS. Why is everyone resisting this so logical proposition and trying to convince me that aaaaaaaaaallll expenses for the child should be included in the CS payments and that if there is a few hundred dollars or a couple of thousand dollars extra ... its up for grabs by the CP???

If the CP wants extra money because she has the burden of raising the child 70% of the time, well then that can be settled in SS, but not in CS payments.

I don't get what is so complicated. The questions is very simple.

Why would a CP deserve hundreds or thousands more from a CS payment paid out by the NCP?

Don't come and tell me I should stay single, or that I am bitter, or that I am loosing my sense of reason... stick to the question...

Don't come and explain to me all the baggage and issues that you may be going through and yada yada yada... don't get me wrong, not that I don't sympathize, but the problem with all those stories is that the question never gets answered.

[Rioe]

That's off topic, in this thread we are all assuming everyone is HONEST. If you want to discuss NCP hiding money in a forest somewhere, then start a new thread.

Can you please stick to the justification as to why a CP deserves thousands more in CS from the NCP?

As long as we're assuming everyone is being honest, why would you think a CP would spend the CS on anything but the child? That would be dishonest. Your posts seem to present the NPC as a hard-working victimized man who is manipulated by a lazy, gold-digging CP woman. Pretty prejudiced, don't you think?

Anyway, it probably boils down to the fact that the child is a minor, therefore the CS money must go to their legal guardian. Give a child $600 a month, and do you really think they would help their CP with the rent, heating, groceries, car expenses, etc?

Again, I am not for men that try to trick the system. I am here to state that there is a CS payment done from the NCP to the CP which may be ordered by the law and which is hundreds or thousands of dollars more per year that it takes to raise a child. And I am here to try and justify why this should be okay.

I think we're finally getting to the meat of your issue. You believe that because children CAN be raised on a meager $600 a month, that all children of divorce MUST be, regardless of the wealth of their parents? Just to prevent the CP from possibly misusing a portion of the CS funds?

A child of an intact wealthy family enjoys a great many privileges a poor child does not. They live in a larger home, get driven around in a better vehicle, take exotic vacations, attend better schools and summer camps, eat more expensive food, wear brand new designer clothing, participate in more expensive activities, have nannies, etc. Why should the divorce of the parents mean that these privileges should be taken away from the child? Family law has many precedents to prevent this, and if the cost is that the CP also benefits peripherally, this has been concluded to be acceptable. It is considered better to have the CP live nicely than to have the children suffer.

I also remind you that CS comes to an abrupt end at one point in the child's life. What do you think the CP does then? Downsizes.

[Concerned]

He believed that was the way it should be. He didn't want to pay our oldest daughter's tuition...while I felt we should pay her tuition (with the money I had had many arguments to save for that purpose). I believed she should help by paying for her lab fees, parking and books. He expected her to work full-time...I expected her to work part-time and keep up with school work. I literally had to fight every time I spent money on the kids. Christmas was a nightmare....he hated the presents I bought for the kids.

Coming up with situations like this is shady. There must of been a reason why he was always opposing you when you wanted to spend money !!!

[Pursuinghappiness]

I am here to state that there is a CS payment done from the NCP to the CP which may be ordered by the law and which is hundreds or thousands of dollars more per year that it takes to raise a child.

I disagree...as do most of the people who are on this thread.

Kids are expensive. I deem what's important for my child and I spend far more of my own personal income on my kid than the amount my ex pays.

Most women getting CS aren't living large....they're managing. There is a small percentage of women who's ex's earned large sums of money and may benefit from a larger CS payment but they are the exception, not the rule.

Again, you can shout from the rooftops and rage all you want but a lot of people disagree with you. If your purpose for being here is to convince someone of something...besides the fellow ragers that are ever-present on the forum...it hasn't worked. Maybe its time to move on.

[arabian]

I came from a privileged family. I grew up with kids from very wealthy families. I went on to live a fairly good life while married so I am making these comments based on my personal experience.

When wealthy people get divorced privacy is a pretty big issue as often these people own or run large corporations or are in public office etc. You will note that most cases published in CanLii are of typical middle-class Canadians. There are the odd case here and there of wealthy people but as a rule there aren't too many to read about.

Not so unusual activities of a child from a wealthy family would include - extensive travel, expensive sports (own horses and board at private stables etc), private music lessons, private tutoring etc. High achievers generally want their children to succeed and therefore every opportunity is afforded to their children.

When wealthy people get divorced they often opt to put their children in private boarding schools (if they aren't already enrolled).

The amount that you propose capping CS is totally unrealistic. It wouldn't even cover the children's airfare for going to and from school, not to mention the other sundry costs (uniforms, foreign school exchange fees, summer school, etc.).

You'd best stick to posting about things that you have some experience with. I am quite confused as to why you opt to post on a divorce forum when you have absolutely no personal experience with marriage, children or divorce.

[Serene]

This forum and his opinions are free

[Concerned]

As long as we're assuming everyone is being honest, why would you think a CP would spend the CS on anything but the child?

Simple, >>>> greed!

There are some very honest individuals that are swayed in as fund managers for various committees... could be governmental building management, governmental emergency funding etc... you pick one!!!! and they are given a certain amount of money every year for managing and maintaining the structure of the operations. Just like CS is given to the CP.

Every year the amounts go up... why do think! You think that money doesn't get used to purchase frivolities within the organization. Its called corruption, and I don't agree with it happening within governmental communities or within CS payments. And neither should anyone here!

Anyway, it probably boils down to the fact that the child is a minor, therefore the CS money must go to their legal guardian. Give a child $600 a month, and do you really think they would help their CP with the rent, heating, groceries, car expenses, etc?

CS = 1200$/mo
600$ each parent! <<<< that's the cap!

Yes!, the CP needs to pay her own rent, heating and groceries and especially car expenses just like the NCP has to. Here's why:

If an individual called "x" lives alone all his/her life, then we may strongly presume that "x" will be paying perhaps 600$/m for a 3-1/2 apartment (ignoring inflation here).

However, if at some point of "x"'s life, "x" gets married to "y"and then "x" divorces and becomes a CP, he/she may end up living in a 4-1/2 apartment given that he/she is now the CP and needs an extra room for the child. The 4-1/2 may cost 800$ per month instead of 600$ /mo.

We see that the delta between the two life cases is really 200$ because the latter case involves a child. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to get this. So to summarize this, if "x" would spend his/her life single, its 600$/mo rent, but if "x" doesn't stay single and gets married and becomes a CP, after a divorce "x" is subject to pay 800$/mo rent. Either way the base cost of the rent for "x" will always be 600$/mo plus 200$ if a child exists for the rest of his/her life. In other words, weather "x" likes it or not, the 600$ / mo of rent will be a standard cost weather he stays single or becomes a CP.

But yet, the law is under the impression that the child costs the CP 800$ in rent. And therefore the law presumes that the NCP should pay 50% or more of the rent. Which is wrong. I don't need to be a judge to know that this sort of calculation is rigged.

The same scenario goes with the hydro, groceries, car and any other costs of living. That's why I say, the real cost of the child should not get mixed up in the generic costs of an adult.

600$/ parent (or 1200$ both parents) may not seem much at first glance, but if we really look closely, 1200$ is a huge amount to cover the *NON* generic adult costs. We've already saw that the actual cost implicating the child for the rent is an added 1/3 more which is only 200$. Using the same rationalization, when we take the car for instance, how many times will the CP use the car for non child related activities. In other words if the CP parent never got married and had no kids, are you telling me that this single person's grocery shopping wouldn't exist?

All these things add up, and when you assign a cap of 1200$ or even
1500$ for heavens sake, that is a lot of money attributed to the child when you juxtapose both life cases and their related expenses.

This is why men often get mad.... and really mad when SS on top of that is awarded. Not that I want to get off topic with SS.

A child of an intact wealthy family enjoys a great many privileges a poor child does not.

Yes and that's often thanks to the richer parent! And that's ok.

Why should the divorce of the parents mean that these privileges should be taken away from the child?

Their not, the privileges' source is changed only. Rich mom/dad gives the child what they can afford and poor mom/dad provides the child what they can. And here I say... So what! the child will see one of the two parents as wealthier... Big deal! The child will still recognize that he is loved by both parents.

Well that's what it means to be successful! The poorer parent can simply get a new job and make his/her own money... after all it shouldn't bother most women as isn't what most feminists say all around the world.... "women don't need men!" "men are scum", men are this and men are that.... why all of the sudden when we do an elaborated math report of the sort, a women's shame to lack of success should be hidden away through lob sided CS formulas.

Harsh words, yes they are. Do I feel good about saying these things. No I don't. Are they lies......... ?

A BIG FAT NO! <<<< that's the problem ... its the truth!!!!!!

Family law has many precedents to prevent this, and if the cost is that the CP also benefits peripherally, this has been concluded to be acceptable.

why? And I will tell you why ... You just can't justify it... no one can! I think I am the only one here brave enough to justify it in public.... and here it is:

It is to preserve the CP's personal integrity from the stand point of the children's eyes! and that's it... It has nothing to do with the child's best interest.

It is considered better to have the CP live nicely than to have the children suffer.

I told you, I am with you on that one, the children shall never suffer because they *are* covered by the CS cap plus the CP's salary from the job they hold or from the welfare monies... you pick your choice.

I also remind you that CS comes to an abrupt end at one point in the child's life. What do you think the CP does then? Downsizes.

When the child is 18:

CP GOES TO WORK!!!!!

And often, the CS goes on until the child finishes his/her education, even if its against the law, it often happens that way.

Now I am not interested in any individuals getting back at me and saying I am a bad person or a control freak and so forth... this post has taken certain twists and turns and insulting me really won't get us anywhere. If you do comment, please stick to the core of the topic as I too enjoy a good conversation about this subject.

c

[Concerned]

When wealthy people get divorced they often opt to put their children in private boarding schools (if they aren't already enrolled).

The amount that you propose capping CS is totally unrealistic. It wouldn't even cover the children's airfare for going to and from school, not to mention the other sundry costs (uniforms, foreign school exchange fees, summer school, etc.).

These expenses should not be done by using CS payments. I won't repeat this any longer...

You'd best stick to posting about things that you have some experience with. I am quite confused as to why you opt to post on a divorce forum when you have absolutely no personal experience with marriage, children or divorce.

Arabian,

I am simply expressing my point of view. I apologize if this disturbs you, but I am in a public forum that allows discussion to go on with freedom of speech so long as there is no violent terminology being used.

So please, should you feel more comfortable to disregard my thread, please do !

[Links17]

Don't beat dead horses. I don't agree with a cap either.

Basically you are saying at the point where the cap "kicks in" for example 100k - will have that person paying the same CS as somebody who makes 300k. I would say THAT is unfair.

If a parent is wealthy their kid (not ex-wife) should have the best of everything and every parent wants that for their kid.

No caps - instead we need some sort of meagre ACCOUNTABILITY!!!

All you - "I really would resent my ex telling me what to do with CS money" I have a simple solution:
- let your ex spend that money themselves on kiddie and you offer to hold THEM responsible or just dont take the money.

There is a clear sense of "ethical" entitlement to CS when all you have is a "legal" entitlement to it. Don't get confused!!!

I love women!

[Concerned]

Most women getting CS aren't living large....they're managing. There is a small percentage of women who's ex's earned large sums of money and may benefit from a larger CS payment but they are the exception, not the rule.

So why not rectify that... Even more reason
To provide caps for CS and SS.

And I will tell you why you don't want to rectify
That.... And that's because it really does benefit
most women in smaller scale such as women
With ex husbands not earning
so large sums of money.

And I am not bitter or pissed off.... I am simply having
A discussing which makes women like you uncomfortable.

I just don't know why!