Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by paco View Post
    I just gave an example, these are the most expenses for our kids, and I would not pay for her new car, not to mention that my kids wear old clothes and so on. I feel sorry for hammerdad but definitely we're not on the same boat here.

    Sent from my SGH-I717D using Tapatalk
    My ex lives in an apartment. She has a bedroom for each child (which makes sense). If she didn't have the kids, she could save hundreds in rent, by getting a one bedroom apartment.

    So CS does reflect the additional expenses of having children and it isn't as simple as food and clothes, no matter how you feel about your ex.

    As for the car, it isn't absolutely necessary, but if you ex had a car before separation, and used it to take kids places, then it is reasonable that she be able to afford a car after separation.

    Comment


    • #32
      Vouchers...right, lets make the CP feel like they are food-stamps............ I generally couldn't give a crap about feelings, so for me to suggest this means the idea is ludicrous.
      it's definitely not ludicrous and definitely possible
      All you need is some imagination. It's funny ....
      I get all kinds innovative credit cards from
      All kinds of financial institutions with a plurality
      Of features and options but to create a simple
      Credit card where the credit limit is for example
      1200$/ month .... Ooooooohhh no no no that's
      Not possible right .... Unbelievable!

      The problem here is that the custodial parent
      has this feeling of being a victim and believes
      that life owes him/her everything to get by
      any obstacle. And therefore since any method
      Such as the food stamp
      method or the credit card method
      limits the payouts, then the ideas is frowned
      upon.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by DowntroddenDad View Post
        My ex lives in an apartment. She has a bedroom for each child (which makes sense). If she didn't have the kids, she could save hundreds in rent, by getting a one bedroom apartment.

        So CS does reflect the additional expenses of having children and it isn't as simple as food and clothes, no matter how you feel about your ex.

        As for the car, it isn't absolutely necessary, but if you ex had a car before separation, and used it to take kids places, then it is reasonable that she be able to afford a car after separation.
        What about two adults and two kids in a small one bedroom? She had not a very old car but good one before separation, then immediately after I started to pay CS she got a brand new car, it wasn't really necessary, anyway, kids are wearing poor clothes, special the little one old pink clothes from his sister... I definitely not paying for someone's luxury and not carrying after my kids, and that's exactly why these people needs to be held accountable for.

        Sent from my SGH-I717D using Tapatalk

        Comment


        • #34
          If you want to ensure that every nickel you provide is spent on your kid, you have control issues.
          Its definitely control issues.

          There are some men (and probably women) that try to control their wives during marriage to an extreme extent. Those spouses eventually wake up and realize they don't have to tolerate it. They get divorced and find a better quality of man.

          The control-freak turns into a bitter, raging, women-hating nutbag.

          They want to punish the ex-wife more than they want anything else in life.

          The idea that she's happy and getting CS to take care of the kids is unbearable to them.

          Luckily, no one cares. The ex wife has moved on to freedom and happiness either single or with a better guy and the court system forces him to support the children. All they're left with is the seething rage and frustration over their lack of being able to punish their ex for leaving them.

          Its not surprising that the OP thinks its a conspiracy...it fits the mentality. Men like this are so angry and bitter, they have a hard time moving on and they can't understand why everyone else isn't as infuriated as they are. They just don't get it. Again, luckily its irrelevant. The system exists to protect children from fathers like this who wouldn't support them at all if they had a choice.

          Comment


          • #35
            I can't even believe this thread is actually happening...

            A few are suggesting vouchers and holding someone accountable. Think of this scenario...

            CP is out grocery shopping... they need a loaf of bread, one which both the CP and children will share... who pays for that? Does it come out of CS or the CP's portion? Does she refund herself out of CS half of the cost of the bread because the kids will also eat half?

            What about milk? Should she pay $2 and then take $2 from the CS account?

            Hydro? Say $150 a month... the kids use the majority of the electronics, watch the most TV, constantly leave the lights on, so should the CP take $100 out of CS to pay for the electricity?

            Water bill, the kids like taking baths or long showers, leave the water on when they brush their teeth, in the summer they like to run through the spinkler, who pays the majority of the water bill? Is it 50-50 or should the CS be covering 75% of the water bill?

            Seriously, none of this makes sense and those who are suggesting that, like HammerDad said, obviously hate their ex more than they love their children. When you were with your ex, if you made $100K and she only made $30K, the kids were accustomed to a standard of living at $130K, why after separation should they have to live in a lower standard of living at Mom's house? If the kids are use to getting everything they wanted before divorce because the parents could afford it, why should they get whatever they want at your house, but not Mom's house?

            My partner pays CS every Friday, it never fails that when we meet to pick up the kids on a Friday, Mom goes straight to the liquor store... is that CS money? Maybe, but what if the day before she had to pay that $150 hydro bill, which the children were responsible for $100 of?

            If you are so concerned about CS, you have your priorities wrong. If you are paying full CS, do something to change it, like focus on spending more time with your kids. Shared custody is become the norm, but only if both parents are capable. If you are a business person that works 70+ hours a week and travels often, where as Mom has a 9-5 job, why would you expect shared custody? It is clear your job does not allow for it and it stands to reason that when you were together, Mom was responsible for the majority of the child care and raising because you were working the 70+ hours and travelling for work.

            It always amazes me how people are okay with such an arrangement until separation or divorce happens. It was your own greed for money and making more and more and more that put you in this position. No one actually requires $100K to live on in a year, but it was something you wanted, so while you were doing that to give your family that lifestyle, Mom was raising the kids according to that lifestyle. Maybe start realizing how you played a part in this as well.

            Comment


            • #36
              Th, w
              Originally posted by Pursuinghappiness View Post
              Its definitely control issues.

              There are some men (and probably women) that try to control their wives during marriage to an extreme extent. Those spouses eventually wake up and realize they don't have to tolerate it. They get divorced and find a better quality of man.

              The control-freak turns into a bitter, raging, women-hating nutbag.

              They want to punish the ex-wife more than they want anything else in life.

              The idea that she's happy and getting CS to take care of the kids is unbearable to them.

              Luckily, no one cares. The ex wife has moved on to freedom and happiness either single or with a better guy and the court system forces him to support the children. All they're left with is the seething rage and frustration over their lack of being able to punish their ex for leaving them.

              Its not surprising that the OP thinks its a conspiracy...it fits the mentality. Men like this are so angry and bitter, they have a hard time moving on and they cathn't understand why everyone else isn't as infuriated as they are. They just don't get it. Again, luckily its irrelevant. Theth system exists to protect children from fathers like this who wouldn't support them at all if they had a choice.
              What a load of crap, the idea is there is 0 accountability we aren't talking about nickels here we are talking about thousands of dollars a month for 20yrs....

              Comment


              • #37
                Berner Faith, I think that in the example you give, with a total family income of $130,000.00, it isn't possible for the children to have the same amount of money spent on them after divorce because after divorce the parents' financial resources are spread more thinly. Post-divorce, parents are maintaining two households whereas before divorce they only maintain one.

                Unless I'm missing something, post-divorce there is going to be less money to spend on the kids (unless one of the parents is lucky enough to have no housing expenses- or is unlucky enough to live on the street). Rent or mortgage x 2, insurance x 2, heat x 2, kids' clothes x 2...

                Comment


                • #38
                  My partners ex makes 80 grand a year and he makes 24 g on ei now (average about 35 the last few years). The kids were used to a life that was lived above that combined and they got into serious debt together because even when he said no, she did it anyway. Now he says no to what he cant afford and she makes his life miserable. Shes told him shes putting his cs cheques in the bank for post sec for the oldest. Meanwhile she tells the kids he took all her money (his equalization payment) and now wont pay for things, living off her salary and putting cs in the bank. Does he think its fair? No. Is he going to bemoan it and bitch about how cruel the system is? No. He does what he can for his kids and realizes he cant control it. You cant let this eat you alive. Things in the US arent the same as Canada. Yes there are corrupt places and people who lie and cheat. Personally I think there are enough checks and balances in the system to prevent it. Things have changed a lot since my parents split 25 years ago. We didnt have child support tables or FRO. Obviously the system is trying. Its not perfect. Lobby for change with the politicians instead of this fear mongering about something happening in another country.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by somethingelse View Post
                    Berner Faith, I think that in the example you give, with a total family income of $130,000.00, it isn't possible for the children to have the same amount of money spent on them after divorce because after divorce the parents' financial resources are spread more thinly. Post-divorce, parents are maintaining two households whereas before divorce they only maintain one.

                    Unless I'm missing something, post-divorce there is going to be less money to spend on the kids (unless one of the parents is lucky enough to have no housing expenses- or is unlucky enough to live on the street). Rent or mortgage x 2, insurance x 2, heat x 2, kids' clothes x 2...
                    You are correct, there will be less money, but does that means that in one household the kids lose $100K and in the other they only lose $30k? The household that loses 30K, will still have a high standard of living, where as the one who loses $100K is going to have a drastically reduced standard of living.

                    Say both household have rent/mortgage payments of $1000 a month because that is the going rate for a 3 bedroom apt/house, that is $12K a year, almost HALF of the 30K earners wages, where as it is only 12% of the $100K earner. That is a BIG difference in the standard of living. Essentially what is being said here is that the kids should have a lower standard of living at one parents house because the higher income earner doesn't want to share.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      What a load of crap, the idea is there is 0 accountability we aren't talking about nickels here we are talking about thousands of dollars a month for 20yrs....
                      Accountability to who? You? LOL, I'm sure a large part of the reason your ex moved on with a new partner is because she doesn't want to ever have to be accountable to you for anything. Its a typical reaction of someone who gets tired of dealing with someone with control issues.

                      Its simple....If you don't want to pay for kids, don't have them.

                      You will never get to control how the CS money is handled by your ex...get over it and move on.

                      Frankly, part of the reason that the family law system rules have become so extreme and strict is because of litigants who've abused the system by not paying CS. Most people would rather have it this way and ensure that the kids are being paid for rather than to have a system which lets deadbeats get away without paying fairly.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        geesh pretty soon people will be suggesting that instead of the cp getting the money that it goes to the kids and they (kids)buy their own groceries, cloths, pay for own extras and give the cp money for rent.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          lol SOS...you're right.

                          This is the rant of people who have control issues to the point where they lose focus of their own children.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by rockscan View Post
                            My partners ex makes 80 grand a year and he makes 24 g on ei now (average about 35 the last few years). The kids were used to a life that was lived above that combined and they got into serious debt together because even when he said no, she did it anyway. Now he says no to what he cant afford and she makes his life miserable. Shes told him shes putting his cs cheques in the bank for post sec for the oldest. Meanwhile she tells the kids he took all her money (his equalization payment) and now wont pay for things, living off her salary and putting cs in the bank. Does he think its fair? No. Is he going to bemoan it and bitch about how cruel the system is? No. He does what he can for his kids and realizes he cant control it. You cant let this eat you alive. Things in the US arent the same as Canada. Yes there are corrupt places and people who lie and cheat. Personally I think there are enough checks and balances in the system to prevent it. Things have changed a lot since my parents split 25 years ago. We didnt have child support tables or FRO. Obviously the system is trying. Its not perfect. Lobby for change with the politicians instead of this fear mongering about something happening in another country.
                            Very good point and while his ex may not need the CS, he is still supporting his kids to the best of his ability and how nice that they will have money to school.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Why not accountability to me?
                              Isn't it my money I earned?
                              Aren't they my kids as well?

                              You are trying to make it seem like this is about being a hard ass over a few dollars.

                              If a CP is getting 2500$ / month in CS is it so unreasonable to have an annual audit?
                              Or just any sort of accountability, I am not suggesting any specific method - just the concept!

                              There is no other instituion where there is transfer of money between 2 parties and the receiving party has 0 obligation to be accountable, why is that?

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Pursuinghappiness View Post
                                Accountability to who? You? LOL, I'm sure a large part of the reason your ex moved on with a new partner is because she doesn't want to ever have to be accountable to you for anything. Its a typical reaction of someone who gets tired of dealing with someone with control issues.

                                Its simple....If you don't want to pay for kids, don't have them.

                                You will never get to control how the CS money is handled by your ex...get over it and move on.

                                Frankly, part of the reason that the family law system rules have become so extreme and strict is because of litigants who've abused the system by not paying CS. Most people would rather have it this way and ensure that the kids are being paid for rather than to have a system which lets deadbeats get away without paying fairly.
                                What are you talking here?! Do you realize what BS are you saying? ...

                                Sent from my SGH-I717D using Tapatalk

                                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