Originally posted by Hanging On
"First, it is assumed that within the principal residence of the children, the parent and the children will share the same standard of living. "
Right there, in b/w, the opening line states that the paying parent's (PP) SOL is not concern, only the receiving parent (RP) and the children.
Lets further see what the report states. Let me quote:
"The following model, and the mathematical equation derived from it, makes the technical assumption that the household of the paying parent has one member: the paying parent. The receiving parent is also assumed to be single; the household of the receiving parent is made up of one parent and all the children of the marriage. "
I shall return to those two statements in a moment. One of my issues with the way finances are split in a divorce is the fact that each component is dealt in isolotation. Lets begin with assets: So, through the Equalization formula, it is basically done 50-50. There is no consideration for age, length of marriage, who contributed what, the contributions based on incomes or careers, or who did what during the marriage. I think the formula works fine for the long term marriage or the long-term marriage where one parent stayed home (like my mom). Fair enough. But in this day of short marriages, duel career tracks, etc., one person can really be wiped out. So immediately you have a huge fiancial loss. And I can gautantee it is almost impossbile with out remarriage for Dad to live in a $200,000 house and mom live in an aprtment. Most likely the other way around.
Now we set aside this division of assests, and see who has the kids. It is a distinct financial advantage to have the kids. Why, because you will get support, and lots of it. Thus begins the custody and access fight. But I'll save that for another discussion.
The awarding of child support will always be from the higher earner to the lower earning, and is at least the table amount unless proven otherwise. Even 50-50 may not get you a break (as our recent SCC decision stated). Unless you can get the offset amount, the table amount only use your income. That means, with the same income, you could be paying the full amount of support. I know many guys that are doing this. Or your ex can be making more than you. As long as she has the children more than 60% of the time, you will pay the full amount. Even at 50-50, with any difference in income to your benefit, you will pay. So, if the objective is to equalize the SOL, how can one parent pay the full amount regardless of the other parent's income? And, this payment does not take into consideration the assets split above or the ramifications of that split.
To top all this off comes spousal support. Awarded for various reasons as stated in the Divorce Act, and adjusted up if there are children (double-dipping?). No b/w rules on how awarding works, but suggestions are a short term marriage may allow you to revisit terminating the support quicker. Most likely your combination of CS and SS will be 60% of your net income. Again spousal support is awarded in almost complete isolation of other factors like asset division or various considerations given during a marriage. It is factored with child suppotr and children.
So there appears to be a lot of money going one way to ensure one parent (the custodial parent) retains a SOL. But not the paying parent.
Lets put the cherry on the cake. You are the involved parent. You have been lucky enough to get 50-50. Now, all the above is still true. You may, I repeat MAY, get a break on child support, but don't count on it. So, where are those children living when they are with you? I assume in your house. Well, who paid for all that? You did. But who is ensuring your and the children's standard of living. No one. The laws don't no how to deal with all this. Money goes A to B. That's it. Any variation, and we are in in front of the SCC. To make matters worse, you also have to feed, cloth, provide an infrastructure for the children. You pay twice for everything. All those day-to-day expenses can kill you. Mine is currently running around $400 per month. And that does not include food, shelter or utilties (hey those children take baths, showers, have dirty laundry, have dirty dishes, etc).
On top of tall this you get hit with extra expenses. Again not factored in anywhere and dealt in total isolation of all other monetary awards. So, daycare, medical for sure you pay (well your portion based on income). But you will also be hit with lessons, birthday parties, presents. You can make a choice though, not to pay for things. Or go to court over every extra expense.
I have never said people should not take care of their children... but this is madness.
Comment