Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

child support guidelines unfair for second famlies

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

  • child support guidelines unfair for second famlies

    Hello,

    I just wanted to let you know that a petition has been started about how unfair the legal system is towards people who are child support payors. The link to this petition is

    http://www.petitiononline.com/7869ryt/petition.html

    If you are interested in signing this petition please let me know. I am planning on speaking to the MP, Justice minister, the senator, and even the prime minister. It is time for a change especially since 50% of familes today are step famlies and blended families it would be the right thing to do. Im tired how the system treats divorced dads and it feels as if they have no rights at all. If anyone is interested in signing the petition please let me know by emailing me or if you have any questions. Apparently the petition on-line is not an acceptable format to use in the fight for this petition. I also need a minimum of 25 signatures or more for this to be read in the house of commons. Thank-You for your time. My email address is cspetition@yahoo.com. I am from London ontario so if your interested in this please let me know! The more signatures i can get the better. Please no mean or rude emails.

  • #2
    Your post would be so much more relevant had you chosen 'divorced parents' rather than 'divorced dads'. Perhaps you might reconsider your strategy.

    Comment


    • #3
      I pay c/s, I feel it is my obligation to my daughter.

      My position for second families is, if you can't afford to have kids, then don't. You know your obligations to the children you pay c/s for, you know there is no skirting around paying it. If you look at your budget and can't afford to have more kids in a new relationship, well that is just too bad. It shouldn't be the tax payers responsibility to help support you or your spawn because you made decisions that affected your financial position.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by HammerDad View Post
        I pay c/s, I feel it is my obligation to my daughter.

        My position for second families is, if you can't afford to have kids, then don't. You know your obligations to the children you pay c/s for, you know there is no skirting around paying it. If you look at your budget and can't afford to have more kids in a new relationship, well that is just too bad. It shouldn't be the tax payers responsibility to help support you or your spawn because you made decisions that affected your financial position.
        Totally unreasonable view - when you have kids (and by the CS guidelines), the more kids you have, the less money there is per kid.

        It should not matter where the kids live, or who they live with, a reasonable amount should be attributed to each child, and should consider the overall number of children and how many homes they live in.

        The order in which you have kids, or who you have them with should not dictate support - support should be determined by means in all cases.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by billm View Post
          Totally unreasonable view - when you have kids (and by the CS guidelines), the more kids you have, the less money there is per kid.

          It should not matter where the kids live, or who they live with, a reasonable amount should be attributed to each child, and should consider the overall number of children and how many homes they live in.

          The order in which you have kids, or who you have them with should not dictate support - support should be determined by means in all cases.
          I disagree, and if that were the case then why don't we all have a dozen and they can all live off of the government because we don't make enough to feed them all right? I want them therefore I should have them regardless of the fact I cannot afford to take care of them...makes no sense... For myself and once again in my OPINION its irresponsible to have kids that we are not prepared to support financially. Its the basics of keeping your fiscal house in order...I don't go out and buy everything I want because I cannot afford it, I don't go have more kids just because I want to because I cannot afford it..its that simple. If a couple never divorces should they continue to have children because they want them without thought of the financial responsibilities involved?

          That being said, life happens...nobody knows what kind of curve is going to be thrown at us and every one of us is at risk of losing our livelihood at any moment, in these economic times should I never have kids for fear of losing my job? Of course not, however I will plan for the future and situations to make that a less traumatic experience should it happen and not overextend myself...


          *disclaimer
          This email is intended for the use of the individual
          addressee(s) named above and may contain information that is
          confidential, privileged or unsuitable for overly sensitive
          persons with low self-esteem, no sense of humour or irrational
          religious beliefs. If you are not the intended recipient, any
          dissemination, distribution or copying of this email is not
          authorized(either explicitly or implicitly) and constitutes an
          irritating social faux pas. Unless the word absquatulation has
          been used in its correct context somewhere other than in this
          warning, it does not have any legal or grammatical use and may be
          ignored. No animals were harmed in the transmission of this
          email, although the yorkshire terrier next door is living on
          borrowed time, let me tell you. Those of you with an overwhelming
          fear of the unknown will be gratified to learn that there is no
          hidden message revealed by reading this warning backwards, so
          just ignore that Alert Notice from Microsoft: However, by pouring
          a complete circle of salt around yourself and your computer you
          can ensure that no harm befalls you and your pets. If you have
          received this email in error, please add some nutmeg and egg
          whites and place it in a warm oven for 40 minutes. Whisk briefly
          and let it stand for 2 hours before icing.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by whatsup View Post
            I disagree, and if that were the case then why don't we all have a dozen and they can all live off of the government because we don't make enough to feed them all right? I want them therefore I should have them regardless of the fact I cannot afford to take care of them...makes no sense... For myself and once again in my OPINION its irresponsible to have kids that we are not prepared to support financially. Its the basics of keeping your fiscal house in order...I don't go out and buy everything I want because I cannot afford it, I don't go have more kids just because I want to because I cannot afford it..its that simple. If a couple never divorces should they continue to have children because they want them without thought of the financial responsibilities involved?

            That being said, life happens...nobody knows what kind of curve is going to be thrown at us and every one of us is at risk of losing our livelihood at any moment, in these economic times should I never have kids for fear of losing my job? Of course not, however I will plan for the future and situations to make that a less traumatic experience should it happen and not overextend myself...


            *disclaimer
            This email is intended for the use of the individual
            addressee(s) named above and may contain information that is
            confidential, privileged or unsuitable for overly sensitive
            persons with low self-esteem, no sense of humour or irrational
            religious beliefs. If you are not the intended recipient, any
            dissemination, distribution or copying of this email is not
            authorized(either explicitly or implicitly) and constitutes an
            irritating social faux pas. Unless the word absquatulation has
            been used in its correct context somewhere other than in this
            warning, it does not have any legal or grammatical use and may be
            ignored. No animals were harmed in the transmission of this
            email, although the yorkshire terrier next door is living on
            borrowed time, let me tell you. Those of you with an overwhelming
            fear of the unknown will be gratified to learn that there is no
            hidden message revealed by reading this warning backwards, so
            just ignore that Alert Notice from Microsoft: However, by pouring
            a complete circle of salt around yourself and your computer you
            can ensure that no harm befalls you and your pets. If you have
            received this email in error, please add some nutmeg and egg
            whites and place it in a warm oven for 40 minutes. Whisk briefly
            and let it stand for 2 hours before icing.
            Talking about living off the government, or having a dozen kids is extreme and inflammatory, and provides no value to this discussion. However, if a married family decides to have 12 kids - there is no system in place to stop them, and subsequently have a lower standard of living for all the children, as compared to having less children.

            The question is not about being able to afford the kids, it is setting the appropriate amount of support considering all factors, and the CS guidelines do not consider second families, which simply does not make sense. When someone decides to have more children in a married family, the standard of living of the family goes down. I cannot see a valid argument that when a divorced person starts a second family that the standard of living of the their existing children should not go down.

            Not to mention that the CS guidelines only effects the payor who wants to have more children. If the children from the first relationship live with the person that is having more children, the standard of living goes down for the kids from the first relationship. However if the payor wants to have more children, that is not the case, and the first relationship children are not effected, yet the second relationship's children are effected - clearly this is not fair.
            Last edited by billm; 06-10-2011, 04:48 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              HammerDad,

              The child support guidelines are outdated and horribly unjust. These guidelines were flawed from the outset. I disagree with your statement " I pay c/s, I feel it is my obligation to my daughter"
              It is all parents responsibility to "financial support" their children. The current c/s scheme sets up the stage for a "winner take all" custody arrangement and guess what gender just happens to win this 85% of the time.

              This scheme needs immediate overhaul.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by HammerDad View Post
                I pay c/s, I feel it is my obligation to my daughter.

                My position for second families is, if you can't afford to have kids, then don't. You know your obligations to the children you pay c/s for, you know there is no skirting around paying it. If you look at your budget and can't afford to have more kids in a new relationship, well that is just too bad. It shouldn't be the tax payers responsibility to help support you or your spawn because you made decisions that affected your financial position.

                In my opinion your right on track HammerDad..kudos to you, you sound like a responsible parent!!

                Comment


                • #9
                  So if one were take this logic (or lack of) if a family who is together has more children, the first born will have more spent on them than the following children, come on, as we have children we do our best to support all of them eqully. Smply because we are divorced should not permit any to be considered less important.
                  The fact that the law does not alow this because we are divorced is absurb....
                  Last edited by today; 06-10-2011, 06:16 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    There is little doubt for me that HammerDad is a responsible parent. Paying child support is a legal responsibility. How responsible is it ,whatsup, to be forced by the state to pay child support amounts that are in excess of 50% of your gross (this happens all the time) income. If these amounts cannot be lowered through the courts ( happens all the time) you will eventually face jail time. Now in order to keep up with these "responsibilities" the payor cannot afford to see their ("his" most of the time) children. How "responsible is that? Is that what's responsible to ones children?
                    The "guidelines" are a racket...period

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by staysingle View Post
                      There is little doubt for me that HammerDad is a responsible parent. Paying child support is a legal responsibility. How responsible is it ,whatsup, to be forced by the state to pay child support amounts that are in excess of 50% of your gross (this happens all the time) income. If these amounts cannot be lowered through the courts ( happens all the time) you will eventually face jail time. Now in order to keep up with these "responsibilities" the payor cannot afford to see their ("his" most of the time) children. How "responsible is that? Is that what's responsible to ones children?
                      The "guidelines" are a racket...period
                      50% ????? geeze maybe my kids aren't getting enough! the ex makes 70grand gross a year 2 kids is 1043 a month...as per the guidelines....one is diabled and requires round the clock care...

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        It takes a great deal of devotion,care and fortitude to care for a special needs child and/or adult and oversee that their potential gets realized. Our country falls miserably short of ensuring adequate funding.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by staysingle View Post
                          It takes a great deal of devotion,care and fortitude to care for a special needs child and/or adult and oversee that their potential gets realized. Our country falls miserably short of ensuring adequate funding.

                          Yes your very right, and thank you for that acknowledgement. I consider it a pat on the back and good job high 5 when I hear someone say that!! Thank you For me its been 24/7 for the last 10 years. Most likely one of the contributing factors in our separation. He does not handle her physical special needs well and admits he can't and does not want to..I'll give him credit, he's tried but just doesn't have the stomach for it, not everyone does. I have not slept more than 3 hours at a time since she was born.. If there were more respite programs it sure would help! I get a small amount of funding for respite, but either there's a 5+ year wait list or there simply is not any workers and if you can't find a worker you start on the wait all over again. If someone wants a job where your about guaranteed to always have work you should get some medical training and become a caregiver...they are in super hot demand!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by billm View Post
                            Totally unreasonable view - when you have kids (and by the CS guidelines), the more kids you have, the less money there is per kid.
                            But the real onus is on the payor to determine whether or not they are financially capable of supporting more kids BEFORE having any more.

                            You know you have obligations. If having more kids is going to make money tight for you, the logical decision is to NOT HAVE MORE KIDS.

                            My c/s is about 1/6 my net income so I know the financial crunch that c/s can create. My life and financial planning, which includes more kids, takes into consideration my c/s obligation.

                            I do agree that they are higher then what I think would actually be necessary. By how much? I dunno. It isn't too unreasonable to me. I do have issues with the system and fairness, but my issue solely relates to how each parent is treated at tax time. Where each parent contributes (like me paying c/s) we each pay a proportion of what it takes to raise the child. But my ex claims 100% of the deduction, while only really contributing 55% (she makes more then me). That is where I feel the system is unfair, not because I have to pay.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              "...to be forced by the state to pay child support amounts that are in excess of 50% of your gross (this happens all the time)..."
                              Well, MY ex sure isn't paying more than 50% of his gross income!
                              He earns over $65,000 (I think his gross was over $ 70,000) and will be paying $ 609/month for two children (per the tables based on line 150 of last years income tax return). Even though he's hired by a company, he claims on his income tax he's still self-employed and reduces his gross income by deducting shares of household expenses.
                              But he sure isn't paying more than 50% of his gross income!
                              Last edited by Epona; 06-11-2011, 09:47 AM.

                              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