Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CS & Step Parent's

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

  • CS & Step Parent's

    I have an odd question, but it's really trying to understand the courts perspective.

    I know that a parent who is re-married can go after the non-biological (Step) parent for child support, provided that the step-parent treated the child as a child of the marriage.

    Given this, why wouldn't household income come into play when both parent's are re-married and household incomes would be similar?

    In my case, the household incomes are similar, however I pay a hefty offset because only our respective incomes are considered and we are both treated as a single parent, when that's not a very realistic financial picture. As well, I would have to prove undue hardship to consider household income. Just looking for what is fair.

  • #2
    Originally posted by Gilligan View Post
    I have an odd question, but it's really trying to understand the courts perspective.



    I know that a parent who is re-married can go after the non-biological (Step) parent for child support, provided that the step-parent treated the child as a child of the marriage.



    Given this, why wouldn't household income come into play when both parent's are re-married and household incomes would be similar?



    In my case, the household incomes are similar, however I pay a hefty offset because only our respective incomes are considered and we are both treated as a single parent, when that's not a very realistic financial picture. As well, I would have to prove undue hardship to consider household income. Just looking for what is fair.


    This is incorrect. You can go after the step parent if they divorce you the child’s parent. Many second partners end up taking on the role of parent to a child after a marriage. If they were to divorce, the biological parent can go after their ex for ca as they were considered to be a parent. It is a difficult argument though with its own challenges.

    For divorced biological parents, they can re-partner and only their incomes are considered UNLESS the paying parent claims hardship. If that happens then the household income is considered.

    You could also re-partner with someone who is a millionaire and that would not mean your ex could go after your new partners income.

    Comment


    • #3
      Doesn't this seem like a flaw? The spouse becomes responsible for supporting the child only if they leave the marriage, otherwise, their income is irrelevant?

      Based on that, support is based on a false assumption (e.g. a single parent supporting 100% of the household).

      Comment


      • #4
        Petition parliament for a change.

        Comment


        • #5
          Nope. This should have been addressed when you were completing your agreement and your ex was underemployed. Their new partner is not responsible for paying for your kids.

          My husband’s ex tried this. Wanted my income considered for cs. They are not my kids. I have no problem supporting our household and how we live, I have a serious problem with being responsible for their household and expenses.

          Comment


          • #6
            Don't think that's gonna happen... support payors have a bad wrap and aren't going to get much love.

            Put a different non-intentional consequence...

            Ex spouse marries rich... quits job and now also get the benefit of full table support because "they can't work"

            Comment


            • #7
              Ex spouse marries rich... quits job and now also get the benefit of full table support because "they can't work"
              If their income was relevant, one could argue imputation in these circumstances.

              Comment


              • #8
                Gilligan your case is yours to manage. Its obvious your ex wants to get away with not working or paying. Even if there was something in the legislation to stop that, she would still find a work around. Your focus should be on getting disclosure on why she isn’t working and less on getting her.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Understood, just looking at the legislation and wondering why it is what it is.

                  Disclosure in my particular case has been very difficult and the courts have not been willing to compel my ex to disclose as they are citing an undisclosed medical issue, and privacy. That seems to be enough to convince the court.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I hope they don’t change it. I shouldn’t have to pay for his kids. His ex is welcome to go and re-partner as well.

                    As much as it is a hardship for you, your ex decided to get involved with someone else. How they spend their money is their business. Your ex is the bad guy not her new partner.

                    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