Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

child support payments to increase May 1

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by Grace
    Confirms my point that unfortunately, this forum is turning into a Father's Right Forum, especially when comments like this are coming from a Moderator .

    Beltane, since you have stayed home in a long term marriage you are entitled to spousal support. I know the system is exhausting both financially and emotionally but hang in there.
    How about calling them "Parent's Rights"? I think that if we all accept that mothers and fathers are EQUAL as parents, there would be much less fighting.
    I also stick by my contention that custody should be 50/50 most all of the time. And that child-support payments should be offset most of the time.

    And that spousal support should be restricted to very, very few cases. Cases like Beltane's - where one parent stayed home for many years (not 2 or 3) and literally cannot support herself.
    Not cases where one parent chooses not to work ... in an ideal world we would all stay home and raise our children, in the real world, adults need to support themselves AND their children.

    Comment


    • #47
      I also feel offended at the free money comment as a support recipient. I definitely paid a high price for this "free money" with my career, my sacrificing all sorts of things for the sake of his career and the marriage in general. And yes I deserve to be compensated for it. It is far from "free" money. Any more then child support is free money, or the money you earn from your business.

      And yes it is easy to take things personally and really in the grand scheme of it- isn't it ? isn't it meant to be personal when we are called basically leeches? We expect "free money" from men we are no longer in relationships with. Gee why specify- why not say the same thing about ALL stay at home moms or housewives in intact marriages??

      Comment


      • #48
        Workingthruit- so what do you do with this " extra" money out of the 700 bucks you get for child support- assuming you gift it back to your ex?

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Jenny
          Workingthruit- so what do you do with this " extra" money out of the 700 bucks you get for child support- assuming you gift it back to your ex?

          What I actually do is use it to pay for childcare,

          This is my math, which was asked earlier - costs above and beyond what it would take to support only myself:

          rent: moot, as I own my home, nonetheless, I would presume shelter costs of an additional $300 a month to be reasonable
          groceries: perhaps an addtional $300 per month
          utilities (heat/hydro/water) - again highballing at $150 per month
          (my total utilites are about $350 per month as is - I can't imagaine them going lower than $200 - even if I were in a one bdrm by myself)
          phone/cable- the same
          car payment - the same, I drive an econo car
          gas - at the high end MIGHT be an addtional $30 a month (1 tank)

          this totals just over the $700 in child support I receive each month - tax-free, which therefore costs him more than $700 to pay it out. I intentionlly left out things like gifts, as he incurs the same expenses.

          Because of this, I do not have an issue covering the costs of childcare. Call me a fool if you like, but I like to think of it as taking the high road, and firmly believe that by not 'taking him for all he's got' I am building a strong and amicable relationship with my children's other parent, which will serve us all better in the long run.

          Perhaps because I didn't ever look at my marriage as a financial arrangement, I didn't even expect to benefit from it financially either.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by workingthruit
            My child support is about $700 total a month for 2 children. That SHOULD only be half of what it costs to raise our children. I SHOULD be contributing the other half. Too many people seem to think that CS should cover the entire expenses of raising children. Do you know what I mean?
            I do know what you mean in this last statement, I believe. Restated, you are saying that child support is theoretically to function as 50% of the actual cost of the childrens' basic needs, over and above what the recipient parent would have to spend to cover their own basic needs. So, since you recieve $700 in CS, theoretically, you should be inputting $700 of your own income in as well, totalling $1400 to spend on the children.

            However, IF it costs you only just over $700, by your thinking that child support should not cover the entire expense of raising children, you should return approximately $350 to your ex each month. ... Actually, perhaps more than that, since you don't 'actually' pay out the $300/month rent.

            Did you not later say (in this thread) that each spouse should contribute an equal percentage of their income to the basic needs of the child? My apologies if I'm wrong and it was someone else that said that, but I'm short on time and can't go look for the post just now.

            In any case, I would say that you are very fortunate; following the end of your marriage, you still had opportunity to build a better life, and could afford to take 'the high road' and refuse spousal.
            Last edited by sasha1; 05-01-2006, 02:57 PM.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by sasha1
              I do know what you mean in this last statement, I believe. Restated, you are saying that child support is theoretically to function as 50% of the actual cost of the childrens' basic needs, over and above what the recipient parent would have to spend to cover their own basic needs. So, since you recieve $700 in CS, theoretically, you should be inputting $700 of your own income in as well, totalling $1400 to spend on the children..
              That is what I mean, yes. I am not sure what you mean by 'theoretically' - what else should child support be used for, if hot to cover the cost of the children's needs, basic or otherwise?

              Originally posted by sasha1
              However, IF it costs you only just over $700, by your thinking that child support should not cover the entire expense of raising children, you should return approximately $350 to your ex each month. ... Actually, perhaps more than that, since you don't 'actually' pay out the $300/month rent..
              I do not accept a lower amount because of the expense of child care.

              Originally posted by sasha1
              Did you not later say (in this thread) that each spouse should contribute an equal percentage of their income to the basic needs of the child? My apologies if I'm wrong and it was someone else that said that, but I'm short on time and can't go look for the post just now.

              In any case, I would say that you are very fortunate; following the end of your marriage, you still had opportunity to build a better life, and could afford to take 'the high road' and refuse spousal.
              I did say that each parent should contribute an equal PERCENTAGE of their income, not an equal amount. There is a huge differece there. Sometimes very huge.

              I suppose you could call it fortunate - I call it making your own luck. I could have stayed home until my children were grown and collected spousal support - instead, I work full-time (just as their father does) and we both contribute to raising our children, and we both support ourselves, just as we would have had we never married.
              We were married less than 10 years - I was not significantly financially disadvantaged by our marriage - nor was he significantly enriched.

              I do feel badly for people who commit themselves to a long marriage, and end up disadvantaged - it is simply my positon that I was not one of those women, and for me to expect to be supported after the end of our marriage was morally repugnent.

              Comment


              • #52
                Free Money

                I will further clarify my use of the term "free money" as it has offended some recipients of support and perhaps gave them the sense that their issues are not somehow important. I will also address (again) concerns relating to the sense that this is a father's rights website or that it has been hijacked by the father's rights movement.

                On "free money". If you will look back in this thread to where I first used the term, it was in relation to a posting that Jenny placed stating

                I am not being obtuse - just trying to figure you out...

                Okay ... so you wouldn't have accepted spousal and if you had your way you would take less then the guidelines.
                To which I posted my comment about free money. That's the context of my statement and somehow it has been taken personally or taken as a slight against recipients of spousal support/child support or taken to diminish the years of stay-at-home parenting and the impact on a person's economic capacity. I further went on to state in another post that most payers should consider spousal support to be compensatory and rightly so.

                There is great importance in looking at the context of someone's posting on a forum and I should have put the quote in place prior to making the free money comment. I hope that clarifies things.

                On the subject of father's rights. Well, I am objective enough to know that this is definitely not a father's rights forum, though there are some who support that view of the world and there are others who don't. There are some who support a parent's rights view of the world and others who don't. Grace, I strongly urge you to read my postings to this forum regarding custody and access. There you will find a constant theme that is a deeply held belief of mine: that parents don't have rights - they have responsibilities. The only rights to be considered are the rights of a child.

                I advocate for parents learning how to manage their divorce because as I have mentioned in other postings on this forum, shared parenting, while the preference of father's rights advocates may be seen as the answer to all of life's problems, however, when two parents can't learn how to separate their issues with each other and work together, then shared parenting can never work.

                That's it, that's all. I was asked to moderate on this forum and if anyone has a beef with me, I strongly encourage you to contact the forum administrator and register a complaint.

                Otherwise, kindly read my postings to this forum. You will find nothing more than emphasis on parents removing themselves from conflict, strategies and solutions to overcome divorce obstacles and finally, emphasis on rebuilding your life.

                I also encourage you to listen to my podcasts - http://www.divorcecalgary.com/divorcecast.html

                There you will find the same kinds of information I have been posting here.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Divorcemanagement
                  There is great importance in looking at the context of someone's posting on a forum and I should have put the quote in place prior to making the free money comment. I hope that clarifies things.

                  That's it, that's all. I was asked to moderate on this forum and if anyone has a beef with me, I strongly encourage you to contact the forum administrator and register a complaint.
                  Sean rest assured I certainly DID read and RE-read the entire thread before I posted my opinion on your 'wording'... mostly because I really couldn't believe what I was reading.

                  I hope you don't feel attacked... my intention was simply to speak up as a person receiving spousal support and to give voice to my experience -- and express my point of view that spousal support is absolutely NOT "free money". I felt it was important that my side of your words needed to be said. To me, it was too important to just let it go. Especially given that you ARE a moderator.

                  I'm quite sure if you had to wait 20+ years for YOUR pay cheque you'd also find it insulting to have someone else refer to your income as "free money". I'm betting you feel that you work very hard for your money and it is certainly NOT "free".

                  I have no beef with you Sean... as I sure hope you have no beef with me expressing my own experiences and knowledge that I earned every penny of my "free money".

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Well now the air is clear.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Divorcemanagement
                      On the subject of father's rights. Well, I am objective enough to know that this is definitely not a father's rights forum, though there are some who support that view of the world and there are others who don't. There are some who support a parent's rights view of the world and others who don't. Grace, I strongly urge you to read my postings to this forum regarding custody and access. There you will find a constant theme that is a deeply held belief of mine: that parents don't have rights - they have responsibilities. The only rights to be considered are the rights of a child.

                      That's it, that's all. I was asked to moderate on this forum and if anyone has a beef with me, I strongly encourage you to contact the forum administrator and register a complaint.
                      Sean, I have no doubts that your views on custody and access are sincere and you offer great advice and are a valued member of this forum. My beef is with spousal support been referred to as "free money". In some cases it may seem unfair, but in other cases such as Beltane case it shouldn't be seen as that. But that is my opinion. And everyone is entitled to their opinions. And I also have no education in law. But from what I understand there are laws in place that would allow Beltane spousal support.

                      From a female prospective and judging by the amount of e-mails and PM's I received over this, I'm not the only female member that took offense to this and took it as a Men's Rights Position. If I were in Beltane's shoes and choose mediation instead of litigation, which I am a firm believer in, I would want the mediator to be unbiased in his/her views of spousal support.

                      I am very grateful to Jeff for offering us this forum to discuss and vent on, it has helped me out more than he will every know and I do trust in him that he has every confidence in you as a Moderator. And judging from past experience will continue to keep the forums open to all opinions.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        A mediator takes no position on anything between the parties other than helping the parties better understand each other's position. It has been my experience that where mediation is unsuccessful often the party who withdrew from mediation cites that the mediator was, in fact, biased.

                        What I can tell you is that in every mediation I have conducted where it wasn't successful, the reasons for it's failure were due to the issues the parties brought to the table and their inability to be flexible enough to come to a satsifactory agreement.

                        I believe the issue of free money has been talked to death at this point. As you mentioned, we are all entitled to our opinions and we all perceive information presented to us in the way we choose to perceive it. As the thread has moved beyond the issue of child support to that of spousal support, I am going to close the thread.
                        Last edited by Divorcemanagement; 05-01-2006, 09:39 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          I've re-opened this thread. I haven't previously given moderators any guidelines for how to moderate. I will do this shortly. Here's the start:


                          Guidelines for Closing Threads
                          A thread should only be closed if it goes downhill. A prime example is a flame war. However, do not close a thread just because the initial question was answered or because the thread moves off topic. So long as a normal conversation is going, do not close a thread. If you close a thread, you must explain the reasoning in a post.
                          Ottawa Divorce

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            [QUOTE=Jeff]I've re-opened this thread. I haven't previously given moderators any guidelines for how to moderate. I will do this shortly. Here's the start:

                            *Looking up to see the ominous "lock" is gone...*

                            Thanks Jeff!

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Payments not related to income

                              It's great to see the government is looking out for the children again! Too bad they do not check that they benefit in any way from the support paid.

                              I have been to Court 3 times with a Contempt motion because I have not seen my children in 3 years. There are Orders in place, but my ex-wife has NEVER followed any Order. Each time I go to Court the judge finds some way to make it a none issue.

                              At this point it is now almost useless, as 2 of the children are over 19.

                              The alienation things that have been talked about recently are perfect examples of why I no longer have any relationship with my children - yet I am expected to pay support for as long and as much as she can possibly concoct

                              My support had for a long time not been based on my actual income. I had been laid off over a year before she filed for divorce and she knew the situation. I then returned to school, so had no income for 2 years (with her knowledge) but was expected to pay based on an income of $50,000.

                              I now have $45,000 arrears acccording to the FRO. Hopefully I will finally get some action about the Contempt and the arrears next time I take her to Court.

                              She also complains I take her to Court too often. Last response she actually said that the only reason I take her to court is so that I can see her. That alone should show the Court her mental state!!!

                              My discusssion with the FRO this week again they streesed they are an enforcement agency, not a collection agency as I accused them. When I said that was good news and asked them to enforce my access Order, they apparently only enforce Support payments. Not a Coleection agency??

                              I disagree with the amount of arrears the FRO claims I owe, but they will not provide a statement unless I pay for it. I will NEVER pay to have them prove their claim, and will be using MY accounting for my Motion being filed.

                              NO ONE had betteer ever try to explain how this system is fair to both sides ever agian!!!

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                You're right, it's not fair for both sides, and sometimes not for either side. My ex nor his employer never bothered to inform FRO that he was on his regular seasonal layoff, I had to do that.
                                My ex did not inform FRO that he up and moved more than 90 minutes away and update his information on file, I had to do that.
                                Yet when FRO made an error and added an additional $500 owing on his arrears, I contacted them and let them know that was incorrect.

                                Even more sickening is that he has TWO federal orders on him, and when he filed his taxes this year and owed the government money, you can be sure they took the refund money to apply to what THEY were owed instead of putting that towards the children that they harp on and on about child poverty blah blah blah.
                                Either way, it's all smoke and mirrors.

                                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