Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Remarriage and child support

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

  • #31
    Has anyone ever stopped to think that having a step parent doesn't mean that that there are any LESS costs? My bf and I live in a home. We have a backyard, and a playroom etc. But what we each contribute to this home/family is equal to what we would each spend living in a basement apartment

    I laugh when this argument is brought up. How many single parents out there can actually afford to own a home? Not many, unless they have full custody.

    In the case where there is 50/50, I see most singles living in comparable circumstances, basement apartments, or each having to downsize. If they happen to find a partner, and can buy a bigger home, that doesn't mean the expenses are automatically less. In most cases it STILL takes the parent and new partner working full time to pay for that household.

    So no, it is not fair to argue that a new partner means less expenses, so the single parent should pay less. That single parent should shut up and be happy that the other parent can give the child just a little bit more. And then focus on finding themself someone who will bring them happiness!

    Comment


    • #32
      there are less costs to the CP because with a step parent there is a second income. CS includes costs for shelter, food, etc which with a second income parent are shared 50/50.

      The problem is the CS gudelines formula doesn't take this into consideration. So the CP gets a financial relief and more money in their pocket while the NCP continues to be left hung out to dry.

      Expenses are less with two incomes because you share a kitchen, bed room, bathroom, transportation and typical household utilities.

      Comment


      • #33
        I don't agree that costs are always less.

        Transportation, well my family has 2 cars. My wifes car is more expensive then mine. Costs for food and utilities increases due to the extra person.

        One doesn't know what if any other expenses the new spouse may have. They may be divorced and have large debt or c/s or s/s payments of their own. They may have student loans or other financial baggage. To lump all new relationships as financially beneficial is, IMO, short sighted.

        I pay c/s for my daughter. My spouses income is irrelevent to the equation as she isn't the person responsible for my child at the end of the day. Even then, our financial situation isn't all that better off as we still have car payments, mortgage and other bills that we pay. We live within our means and that is the way it should be.

        Guess what happens if c/s was adjusted due to incomes of new spouses? The people won't get married. They would co-habitate and may be even sign a co-hab agreement providing that they are not to be deemed as married or common law (which would get trumped by the birth of another child, but hey....it could be done). To drag in new parents would only cause them to find ways around being deemed "spouses".

        The income of the new spouse of a parent, whether they be the cp or the ncp, should be irrelevent. If the child should benefit from the increase in disposable income in one home due to remarriage, so be it. It is good for the child.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Canadaguy View Post
          there are less costs to the CP because with a step parent there is a second income. CS includes costs for shelter, food, etc which with a second income parent are shared 50/50.

          The problem is the CS gudelines formula doesn't take this into consideration. So the CP gets a financial relief and more money in their pocket while the NCP continues to be left hung out to dry.

          Expenses are less with two incomes because you share a kitchen, bed room, bathroom, transportation and typical household utilities.
          Um, 50% of twice as much is the same as what one would pay on their own...no?

          Comment


          • #35
            2 adults with no kids have approximately the expenses of 1.4 adults living on their own. 2 adults with one child have the expenses of approximately 1.7 adults living on their own. 2 adults 2 kids, 2.0 adults living on their own.

            These numbers are obtained from the document that explains the implementation of the CS tables. Why the equation doesn't account for this I don't know.
            Last edited by SingingDad; 08-02-2012, 05:51 PM.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by SingingDad View Post
              2 adults with no kids have approximately the expenses of 1.4 adults living on their own. 2 adults with one child have the expenses of approximately 1.7 adults living on their own. 2 adults 2 kids, 2.0 adults living on their own.

              These numbers are obtained from the document that explains the implementation of the CS tables. Why the equation doesn't account for this I don't know.
              SingingDad, I don't think that the tables can take into account all scenarios of a new household with a child from a prior marriage, and presuming that new relationships co-mingle finances.

              I entered into a new relationship when my dd was 4, and we bought a house together, but our finances were never co-mingled.

              We each agreed to bring to the table our proportionate share of the cost of the purchase of the household, and I signed a cohab confirming his initial deposit was higher than mine, and would be returned first upon dissolution of our relationship. My new partner makes significantly more than I. Many months, even with cs from my ex, I was strapped for anything over my share of the mortgage/utilities/household costs. I pay for 1/2 of the costs of our home, and for all of the costs of my daughter (subject, of course, to cs). My new partner does not pay any costs for the dd.

              Yes, she receives some indirect benefits, like eating salmon for dinner instead of kraft dinner.

              Many new partners in this day and age, I suspect, (and particularly those of us who have come out of a divorce), are more aware of the financial implications and won't co-mingle funds.
              Start a discussion, not a fire. Post with kindness.

              Comment


              • #37
                Interesting thread... however I don't feel every aspect is being thought of.

                In my situation with my boyfriend, his ex wife makes more than him and I put together. He pays full child support... she has a higher standard of living alone, than we do together... but the way some are thinking my income should still count...

                His CS with my income included would go from $397 to $740... how would that be fair to our household? She would have an extra $4100 a year, increasing her income to $76000, while decreasing ours to $45900.

                Or is the thought process that new partners incomes only count when the new partner makes more than the parents?

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by billiechic View Post
                  In the case where there is 50/50, I see most singles living in comparable circumstances, basement apartments, or each having to downsize. If they happen to find a partner, and can buy a bigger home, that doesn't mean the expenses are automatically less. In most cases it STILL takes the parent and new partner working full time to pay for that household.

                  So no, it is not fair to argue that a new partner means less expenses, so the single parent should pay less. That single parent should shut up and be happy that the other parent can give the child just a little bit more. And then focus on finding themself someone who will bring them happiness!
                  Billiechic, I have one question.

                  What, in your opinion, is the purpose of child support in a 50/50 situation? To put it another way, how is the paying of child support in a shared custody situation supposed to help the child?

                  I am not asking you about "fair" or "unfair". I am simply using the "best interests of the child" paradigm, and I will construct my response using that angle. If that is too abstract, give me a situation where the child support is appropriate, and why it is appropriate, and how it is in the best interests of the child, and we'll go from there.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by mcdreamy View Post
                    Many months, even with cs from my ex, I was strapped for anything over my share of the mortgage/utilities/household costs. I pay for 1/2 of the costs of our home, and for all of the costs of my daughter (subject, of course, to cs). My new partner does not pay any costs for the dd.
                    Bulls**t.

                    Fungibility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Here is a lot the tables con't take into consideration.

                      Your situation is just one of the many, as is the situation where the receiving parent has no income and is being supported by a new spouse, or has reduced expenses by being in social housing or other government benefits, or whatever.

                      There will never be a system that is perfect and people (myself included) have to deal with the system that is place right now, and make application for a reduce/increased amount of CS where there is cause.

                      I would suggest that in your situation that even with the even split of expenses, your costs are less than if you were living on your own with your child. That may not be true in your situation, but I would say that typically it is true when anyone starts to cohabit with another adult.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Please disregard the (slightly incoherent) post above. I didn't mean to post that one.


                        Originally posted by mcdreamy View Post
                        SingingDad, I don't think that the tables can take into account all scenarios of a new household with a child from a prior marriage, and presuming that new relationships co-mingle finances.

                        I entered into a new relationship when my dd was 4, and we bought a house together, but our finances were never co-mingled.

                        We each agreed to bring to the table our proportionate share of the cost of the purchase of the household, and I signed a cohab confirming his initial deposit was higher than mine, and would be returned first upon dissolution of our relationship. My new partner makes significantly more than I. Many months, even with cs from my ex, I was strapped for anything over my share of the mortgage/utilities/household costs. I pay for 1/2 of the costs of our home, and for all of the costs of my daughter (subject, of course, to cs). My new partner does not pay any costs for the dd.

                        Yes, she receives some indirect benefits, like eating salmon for dinner instead of kraft dinner.

                        Many new partners in this day and age, I suspect, (and particularly those of us who have come out of a divorce), are more aware of the financial implications and won't co-mingle funds.
                        (Before reading on please note that I'm not trying to dump on you or say that you shouldn't receive the CS that you do; I'm just using your situation to illustrate another approach to a common problem)


                        I'm not suggesting that co-mingled funds are the issue. It's the reduction in an individuals own expenses from a new cohabitation relationship that should be accounted for. Are your expenses now less than if you were living on your own?

                        Assuming the proportions I quoted are right (I'm not saying they are)...

                        2 adults one child have the equivalent expenses of 1.7 adults. How you apportion each persons expenses in the house is up to debate. Let's keep things simple and assume you, your new spouse and your daughter each have an equal share in the expenses. That would mean your expenses are equivalent to 1.13 adults and your new spouse has the expenses of 0.57 adults (1.7 = 1.13 + 0.57).

                        If you were living on you own with your child you would have the equivalent expenses of 1.4 adults (this is the ratio that is used in the CS calculation for one child) and that because of your new living arrangements your expenses have decreased by a 0.27 equivalent adults.

                        Is that exact? Is it perfect? No to both, but it shows a way that cohabitation with a new spouse could be accounted for without implying that the new spouse has a responsibility to support the children of another marriage.
                        Last edited by SingingDad; 08-02-2012, 11:52 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Berner_Faith View Post
                          Interesting thread... however I don't feel every aspect is being thought of.

                          In my situation with my boyfriend, his ex wife makes more than him and I put together. He pays full child support... she has a higher standard of living alone, than we do together... but the way some are thinking my income should still count...

                          His CS with my income included would go from $397 to $740... how would that be fair to our household? She would have an extra $4100 a year, increasing her income to $76000, while decreasing ours to $45900.

                          Or is the thought process that new partners incomes only count when the new partner makes more than the parents?
                          That is an interesting situation to think of. There would have to be a cap of some sort on the effect of the consideration. Maybe you set the full table amount as the maximum that can be paid out? There are a lot of different situations.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Janus View Post
                            Billiechic, I have one question.

                            What, in your opinion, is the purpose of child support in a 50/50 situation? To put it another way, how is the paying of child support in a shared custody situation supposed to help the child?

                            I am not asking you about "fair" or "unfair". I am simply using the "best interests of the child" paradigm, and I will construct my response using that angle. If that is too abstract, give me a situation where the child support is appropriate, and why it is appropriate, and how it is in the best interests of the child, and we'll go from there.
                            From the Divorce act 26.1 (2)

                            "The guidelines shall be based on the principle that spouses have a joint financial obligation to maintain the children of the marriage in accordance with their relative abilities to contribute to the performance of that obligation."

                            My interpretation is that it means how much the support payer would spend to "maintain" the child(ren) if they were in their care.

                            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