Originally posted by Janus
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Child support for
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
What we have here is an adult who is making an adult decision to continue to take money from another adult, but is hiding it under the guise of "child support".
I think a parent should be able to choose whether to support their adult children. I may choose to, I may choose not to, but it should be my choice.
Comment
-
I don't understand why I get punished for marrying a loser. My ex already got years of a better lifestyle from me than was deserved given my ex's level of education and work ethic, I don't understand why that benefit has to continue after the marriage has ended.
You either knew her work ethic before you were married or learned it through the marriage. Was this the cause of the breakdown? If not, why was it permitted if it was not acceptable? Your acceptance deems the behavior acceptable.
Your ex continues to benefit from the financial partnership into which she entered. Would you be less irate with her if the agreement had been made at arms length and her profit came from wise business decisions?
You don't have to live in residence, it is much cheaper to live off-campus, and you get to cook. You can't make lousy choices and then cry poor.
I'd rather force them to take a year off in contemplation of their actions than be obligated to fund their university vacations.
Comment
-
Originally posted by OrleansLawyer View PostThe law is not designed to protect consenting adults from the consequences of entering into improvident bargains.
You either knew her work ethic before you were married or learned it through the marriage. Was this the cause of the breakdown? If not, why was it permitted if it was not acceptable? Your acceptance deems the behavior acceptable.
Your ex continues to benefit from the financial partnership into which she entered. Would you be less irate with her if the agreement had been made at arms length and her profit came from wise business decisions?
Comment
-
Originally posted by OrleansLawyer View PostHistory has taught us that failing to oblige separated parties to meet the needs of their children will see those needs not met. You had a choice until the separation date. Your bests interests are secondary to those of your children. Society as a whole benefits from the financial support of children due to the correlation between wealth in upbringing and future earnings (and the decrease in criminality).
Until we force intact families to support their adult children, it is morally unacceptable to impose a higher obligation upon separated families. If society thinks that it is important, then force all parents to support their adult children. Until that happens, I don't buy your argument at all.
Comment
-
20 yr. and child support
thanks for all your previous responses. There is parental alienation going on with my daughter and has been since the beginning of the separation. Regardless in the separation agreement there is nothing about child support for my daughter when she is in college. She has one more year. Will live with dad full time. There are a change of circumstances: he is living with someone therefore has less the costs that I have living on my own. He also makes more money. My daughter is working full time this summer as well. Given all this would it make a difference what I would have to pay toward child support if it went to court. I am not avoiding paying just would like to know what your thoughts are on this. And please don't jump all over me with judgements. Thanks for your support Janus.
Comment
-
Originally posted by momiss2 View PostRegardless in the separation agreement there is nothing about child support for my daughter when she is in college.
She has one more year. Will live with dad full time.
There are a change of circumstances: he is living with someone therefore has less the costs that I have living on my own. He also makes more money.
My daughter is working full time this summer as well.
Overall, your child lives with your ex and is in school full time. If she lived with you more than 40% of the time, you could claim offset c/s. But until that happens, your obligation to pay c/s is the exact same as mine.
Comment
-
Like HammerDad said, none of that is relevant. You would still have to pay full child support until your daughter graduates.
The only thing that will change is if she decides to live with you at least 40% of the time. Then it would be considered 50/50 and the higher income earner would pay the other parent an offset amount for cs.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Janus View PostI...
Until we force intact families to support their adult children, it is morally unacceptable to impose a higher obligation upon separated families. If society thinks that it is important, then force all parents to support their adult children. Until that happens, I don't buy your argument at all.
If both parents don't want to pay for their childs education, they don't have to, divorced or married.
If divorced, one parent can force the other to help pay for the child education.
However if married, and one parent wants to help pay for their childrens education, they can and by association is spending the assets of the other parent.
So if you look at it that way, there is no difference between married and divorced when it comes to being forced to pay for post secondary.
Comment
-
Originally posted by billm View PostI used to think this way (that the law is imposing upon divorced parents to pay for education and not married parents), however there is another way to look at it.
If both parents don't want to pay for their childs education, they don't have to, divorced or married.
If divorced, one parent can force the other to help pay for the child education.
However if married, and one parent wants to help pay for their childrens education, they can and by association is spending the assets of the other parent.
So if you look at it that way, there is no difference between married and divorced when it comes to being forced to pay for post secondary.
There is a large difference here Bill. In most marriages most decisions are made jointly, especially ones with such a large financial commitment. So had I still be married and my wife states she wants to pay for the kids post secondary eduation, I would most certainly be able to argue my case.
As a divorcee, you dont have that right to decide whether this is something you can afford. As a divorcee its forced upon you...period. So I agree with Janus whole heartedly on this one.
Lord knows I wish I could think like you on this but I just cant.
Comment
-
Originally posted by cashcow4ex View PostThere is a large difference here Bill. In most marriages most decisions are made jointly, especially ones with such a large financial commitment. So had I still be married and my wife states she wants to pay for the kids post secondary eduation, I would most certainly be able to argue my case.
As a divorcee, you dont have that right to decide whether this is something you can afford. As a divorcee its forced upon you...period. So I agree with Janus whole heartedly on this one.
Lord knows I wish I could think like you on this but I just cant.
Comment
-
Originally posted by billm View PostYour reasoning here does not hold. I don't see the difference. If one decides unilaterally to pay for post secondary, both pay, divorced or not.
Whether married or not, if one parent chooses to pay for their kids college, than there isnt much that can be done about it. If they were married, yeah, it would likely start a argument between the parents. But what could the other parent do if their spouse was dead set on paying? Are they gonna close the accounts and/or otherwise remove their spouses access to funds?
It isn't a big difference here. It is just normally, when married, you don't have these sorts of issues because decisions are more likely to be jointly made. But that doesn't totally negate the possibility that it does happen.
Comment
-
Originally posted by billm View PostYour reasoning here does not hold. I don't see the difference. If one decides unilaterally to pay for post secondary, both pay, divorced or not.
The government should not dictate to people that they have to pay for their adult children's education.
Marriage is a financial union, so you are stuck with that, but once divorced, the other person should not be able to dictate how or if you support your adult children.
Comment
-
Originally posted by billm View PostYour reasoning here does not hold. I don't see the difference. If one decides unilaterally to pay for post secondary, both pay, divorced or not.
I dont know a single person other than millionaires that would be accepting or ironically not soon to be divorced if their spouse decided to spend that kind of household money "unilaterally"
Lets try and be a little realistic here. We are not talking about the spouse running out and buying a sofa or end table.
Comment
-
Originally posted by cashcow4ex View PostWell I am not sure how your previous marriage was but I can tell you that a decision to spend 10's of thousands of dollars in my last marriage was not one that could or ever would be done unilaterally. So my reasoning does hold in mine and most other marriages.
I dont know a single person other than millionaires that would be accepting or ironically not soon to be divorced if their spouse decided to spend that kind of household money "unilaterally"
Lets try and be a little realistic here. We are not talking about the spouse running out and buying a sofa or end table.
I guess you've never watched 'Til Death Do Us Part or any other shows like that....
Comment
Comment