2nd wives need to band together

[Suchislife]

I am a second wife. Well, spouse as the divorce is taking 4+ years!
I think the original point was veered away from as the discussion turned to the right to procreate!

What we need to alter is the 'FIRST FAMILIES FIRST' that gets thrown in our faces. It makes me feel as if my toddler doesn't 'count' or something. Right or wrong I found myself unexpectedly pregnant. Also, I didn't realize how some father's got slammed in court and how the divorce process never ends!

My partner pays half his income in combined S.S & C.S. He should not be bound to support his ex wife for the remainder of his days. And we just have to let it go when the 2 children come to us wearing clothes far too small while extensive renovations go into the matrimonial home of which she now has ownership.

It is also wrong that parents with joint custody have to set up a new home for children with no extra money when some of their possessions could actually be divided or at least travel back and forth. I.E. toys, DVD's, clothes.

It does seem unfair to pay C.S to the other parent when you have the kids but it is based on the whole year divided by 12 months. Hard to come up with it to send out of the home and ALSO feed and entertain the child(ren) at the same time.

Why the government does not take into consideration the support going out of your home when calculating tax breaks, I'll never know! I would like to qualify for GST rebates, a Child Tax Benefit of more than $60, daycare subsidies etc...

Helpful also, would be a government program automatically adjusting the C.S payments for the next year when taxes are filed for people with fluctuating incomes. This would save a court appearance to vary support.
Also, C.S tables that took into consideration OTHER minor children that need food and shelter.

Fortunately we have had alot of things given to us from clothes to toys to dressers to bedding... WE ACCEPT ALL DONATIONS!!

I raised my adult son myself, started out with nothing and still have most of it left! I do however feel very sorry for my partner who has lost his home and everything in it, battles to see his children as court ordered, is still battling over the NFP, has gone into debt for the first time in his life and has a lower standard of living then his ex. All because she filed for divorce and said she didn't want him anymore! She just wanted the house and his money every month!

 

[got2bkid]

Could you clarify this for me. Are you saying that everyone has the right to more kids except for the ex in your case??

It was a joke. Of course she has the "right". Sarcasm doesn't always come off well on emails.

 

[got2bkid]

Again, not to be a nuisance and I want to be sure I'm getting this, your husband has 4 children, 2 with his first wife and 2 with you?

I am not sure why it matters, but he has 2 children with ex. We have twins together. So yes, that makes 4. Is there a problem with this?

 

[got2bkid]

to Suchislife,

So good to hear from others in our shoes. Nobody seems to understand that the children of second families have the right to support from both their parents too!

What REALLY bothers me is what you talk about. The tax situations where CP's get all the breaks and NCP get no breaks. This is not taken into consideration by our courts, and the impact this alone has on a 2nd family. I mean to give your ex 10K/year in child support, you are really giving her 13000 or 14000/year off gross. It bothers me that CS is based on gross income, which nobody actually has to live on. And then the payor gets NO benefits for that money given. Another jab.

But what is totally unbeleivable ( in a country that porports to want to eradicate child poverty) is that SECOND CHILDREN SUBSIDIZE FIRST CHILDREN.

Why is the Can. Child tax benefit for 2nd children based on gross income, without taking into consideration the child support that directly leaves the house to support the 1st children. That means the 2nd kids get a lower "share" of CCTB based on the TRUE income in that home. And then the 2nd childrens CCTB gets calculated on the CP's income, NOT including the child support recieved. So they get a bigger proportion based on true income in that household.

And it is the same with every gov't benefit. We don't qualify for GST/HST, day care subsidies, health and dental stuff. Not that I want to work the system, I don't, but when I see the 1st kids get all the tax free money (CS and their "extras" paid for), then another 7000 tax free (in CCTB), another 700/yr in GST/HST, FREE day-care, FREE legal aid (mother), university subsidies (mother), about 2600 tax break (for having the 2 kids), I see how incredibly lop-sided all these additions add up to.

2nd kids subsidize first kids and 2nd families that TRULY need some tax relief or some gov't benefit for THEIR kids don't qualify cause it looks (on paper) like they have much higher income than they do (cause CS and extraordiary expenses are not allowed to be deducted).

It is a crime and I am sure these is a huge class of children living in poverty out there due to these issues, but of course they wouldn't even be COUNTED, as there is no record of the TRUE situation in that household.

I even contacted the Government "Child Poverty" group, the ones supposidly "helping" children. I explained this problem to them. They never have gotten back to me and don't return my calls. I am not doing this for ME, I am doing it because the DEPTH of the injustice in the family law system in this country literally makes me sick.

The attitude of custodial mothers is another thing hard to stomach. Second families scare them sooooo much. They base all their thoughts about this subject on their FEARS. Their fears of losing out, losing some cash, losing an argument. But these are REAL kids we are talking about. REAL kids with real needs that deserve the support of BOTH their parents just as much as the first kids do.

The Custodial mothers squash discussions about this as quick as they can, without realizing THERE ARE WAYS BOTH FIRST AND SECOND FAMILIES CAN BOTH BE TREATED WITH RESPECT AND EQUALITY. There are CS systems all over the world that have made great progress in ensuring ALL children are treated fairly under the law. Is there something wrong with that?

 

[logicalvelocity]

This is interesting. For the most part of this thread; emphasis has been placed on how second family obligations are treated differently than first family obligations.

However, I know of a few situations where first family obligations have suffered and have gone without because of second family obligations.

For instance, what if you have custody of the first family child. In the second family breakdown, you are basically an NCP and payable child support with NO consideration that you have a previous child and obligation to support such. Is it not appropriate to suggest that a notional amount of support should be affixed to the first family child when determining second family obligations.

My point is that there are significant flaws in the child support guidelines and they have come up significantly unfair with consideration to multiply families whether its first family obligations or second family financial obligations. I do think reform is required of the guidelines to reflect the modern trend that there are many individuals with more than one family obligation.



lv

 

[phoenix]

I am not sure why it matters, but he has 2 children with ex. We have twins together. So yes, that makes 4. Is there a problem with this?

No... not a problem at all... I'm just trying to figure out my opinion/feelings on your situation that you are complaining about.

Personally, in your situation, I think the unfair part is how long the spousal support has gone on for. If she is a young-ish woman, it is time she stood on her feet on her own. I do agree with that. The goal of spousal support is to help the person provide for themselves.

I know you are looking for support for your feelings on the amount of child support your ex has to pay. You are entitled to that. I'm just giving my "other" side/opinion of support for "first" families. As a CP of "first" children I know full well the child support amounts for Canada are meagre at best. The schedule amounts my ex sends certainly do NOT cover half of all my children's expenses. Who makes up the difference? Me. Because they live with me I won't see them go without, and he knows it. (I know -- we all have it bad when families break up.)

I still believe that in an ideal world, people would consider VERY carefully before creating a second family. I still believe that having a baby is not a right, new marriage or not -- sure it's easy to get pregnant, but that doesn't make it a responsible thing to do. That is why average families these days have 1 or 2 children instead of 7 or 8 like they used to a generation ago when providing for a family wasn't so costly. (I know you know that, I'm just soap-boxing here

)

I also believe that most children have 2 parents... and in this day and age both father and mother should be working to support those children. Your husband's ex should be working to provide for her kids, and you should be working to provide for your kids.

Obviously my opinion is in the minority... but for me, it is my perspective as the CP of "first children".

 

[got2bkid]

for the record, my husband does NOT pay spousal support. He pays CS and 100% of "extra-ordinary expenses" which include day-care, braces and health and dental insurance right now. He is giving his ex 50% of his net income, which would NEVER happen in an intact family. Maybe if you can't afford to live on what your ex gives your for CS you should live within your means.

And for the record as well, I DO have a job. And this post isn't to "support my feelings". It is to get the TRUTH out there. But I shouldn't have to support my children 100%, you don't. They have a father that WANTS to help support them to, but is unable to due to the huge demands from the "first" family.

But I notice you avoided all the REAL issues. The ones that have nothing to do with you seemigly "high and mighty" ideals like telling the world who can and who can't have kids. So am i to assume that anyone that doesn't "fit" your ideals and gets pregnant would be forced into having an abortion? Any man or woman without a "set" income should be sterilized. Nice world to bring up kids in. (that comment was sarcastic).

Anyway, you avoided the REAL issues once again, the tax breaks, the 2nd children SUBSIDIZING the first kids benefits and go't programs. The system is completely favored for the CP's and the first kids, and many CP's can't/won't acknowledge this and never will. That is why the title of the post is "Second wives need to band together". We KNOW what your arguments will be, they are the same every time. A real problem exists in which kids need help, not judgements that never solve anything.

 

[Suchislife]

It's a showdown, folks!!!

It's a showdown, folks!!!

In regard to Phoenix's comments, they are understandable but posted in the WRONG forum!
I too, have been on that end of the stick. I was ordered $167 a month in C.S and never got it. I never asked for S.S as I don't believe in it. You don't have the man, you don't get his money. Personal view.
Now as a SECOND WIFE I agree with you, got2bkid. The issue is not about a man NOT wanting/willing to support the children of a prior union but the unreasonable demands made upon his disposable income.

 

[standing on the sidelines]

for the record, my husband does NOT pay spousal support. He pays CS and 100% of "extra-ordinary expenses" which include day-care, braces and health and dental insurance right now. He is giving his ex 50% of his net income, which would NEVER happen in an intact family. Maybe if you can't afford to live on what your ex gives your for CS you should live within your means.

That last remark was kind of nasty.

 

[got2bkid]

yes, it was kinda nasty. what it is in reference to is that everybody has a definition of "enough". Some people are frugal by nature, some people are spenders by nature. Sending money to someone you know doesn't know how to manage money (the hubby's ex has declared bankrupcy in the past) is adding salt on the wound.

With the CS table amount, say both parents are making 55K and they have 2 kids. So he gives 9600 CS and she "gives" 9600 CS. Say the kids have dental working costing 5000, add that on top. Now the amount of money that goes directly to 2 kids is 24,200 for that year, AFTER tax.

Do 2 kids REALLY cost 2000/month? We all know they don't. So when a CP says the table amounts are not enough, ususally it is becasue they are not "chipping in" the amount they are supposed to "in the spirit of the guidelines" based on their income, or they are spending way too much on their kids.

 

[phoenix]

for the record, my husband does NOT pay spousal support. He pays CS and 100% of "extra-ordinary expenses" which include day-care, braces and health and dental insurance right now. He is giving his ex 50% of his net income, which would NEVER happen in an intact family. Maybe if you can't afford to live on what your ex gives your for CS you should live within your means.

Oh boy... you know what? I have a different point of view than you... I'm not the anit-christ. Sheesh. It's a forum, we are allowed to disagree.

Although you may not like my standpoint, I have not been rude to you at all... I'm simply offering my opinion, I'm asking questions because I accept that I could have some stuff to learn, and I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong.

And yes, I DO live within my means. I also believe the CS support amounts in the Canadian guidelines are BARELY enough, especially if no extraordinary expenses are covered -- which is my case.

And for the record as well, I DO have a job. And this post isn't to "support my feelings". It is to get the TRUTH out there. But I shouldn't have to support my children 100%, you don't.

That's wonderful! Of course you shouldn't have to support your children 100%, and you don't. You have support from your husband. That's great. You should have support from him.

But I notice you avoided all the REAL issues. The ones that have nothing to do with you seemigly "high and mighty" ideals like telling the world who can and who can't have kids. So am i to assume that anyone that doesn't "fit" your ideals and gets pregnant would be forced into having an abortion? Any man or woman without a "set" income should be sterilized. Nice world to bring up kids in.

Please don't assume my opinions. I will state them myself thank you. Your statement above is entirely uncalled for. I don't appreciate being painted as a someone who would force ANYONE to have an abortion. Entirely out of line.

(that comment was sarcastic).

Ya, no kidding.

Please re-read my posts... I KNOW that mankind will always be making babies... my point was, firstly: you knew what you signed up for when you married a divorced man. Until his kids are finished university and had their wedding receptions paid for he is going to have financial commitments to those other children. If your husband couldn't afford more children than his first 2, *maybe* he shouldn't have had more. Lots of people only have 1 or 2 children. Maybe that could have been considered prior to making more children. However, now that babies #3 & 4 are here, perhaps if you don't like the amounts ordered, perhaps you could go back to court. I know there are judges out there who aren't so liberal because I got one... my judge did not allow extraordinary expenses, he also allowed my ex to not help with my kids university costs so my son right now has $30K in student debt.

Anyway, you avoided the REAL issues once again

Duly noted. Again. Sheesh.

the tax breaks, the 2nd children SUBSIDIZING the first kids benefits and go't programs. The system is completely favored for the CP's and the first kids, and many CP's can't/won't acknowledge this and never will. That is why the title of the post is "Second wives need to band together".

Even in intact families nothing is fair... my oldest brothers wore second hand clothes and shared a room all their lives because my parents were young and struggling. By the time I came along I had my own room, new clothes, a bigger allowance, piano lessons, etc... family finances are never fair even in intact families. Dads lose jobs. Moms lose jobs. Other times they get raises and bonuses.

I hear your point... or at least I'm trying to hear your point, I'm offering up some other thoughts for consideration. I would just appreciate a little respect that I can say my view of things too.

We KNOW what your arguments will be, they are the same every time.

This is a public forum. I have been very polite. I have been open to hear your side and your argument. I have offered my point of view for consideration... just because you and I disagree doesn't make me wrong. It doesn't make you wrong either... but there is no reason for rudeness.

 

[standing on the sidelines]

Very well put phoenix. Your ideas are not based in bitterness but based on well thought out ideas. Of course the system is not perfect and some change is needed but just some tweaks here and there so the first family doesn't suffer. The second family gets the mother and father together, the first family it is just the CP. That has got to be worth something.

 

[paris]

Quite the thread going on here. It's all opinions.... correct? Here's my situation.

We've been together 12 years now. He has 2 kids with his ex. He has paid child support regularly all these years. He also pays for most of the extras, and all dental that is not covered (ie. braces for the oldest). She has a job, but has very low income.

For several of those years, the oldest came to live with us. We did not try to reduce child support. The oldest is now over 20, out of school, owns her own home. He still pays the same rate.

He lost his job a year ago. She lost her health benefits, but I covered his daughter on my benefits. I'm working. He still pays the same rate of child support. Well, I guess I pay it.

We did not have any children together. If we had, it never would have occurred to either of us to try to reduce what he pays. That's just the way we both feel about it.

Does that make him a better Dad? Or me a "good" second wife? I doubt it. I'm sure if she posted here, you'd get a totally different story about both of us.

 

[Fair4All]

Back to Choices

Back to Choices

It's understandable that one shouldn't commit to additional children without the means to pay for those children. However, why are there are no means to pay for those children? Should an NCP be prevented from having children with his new wife because his ex isn't willing to work full-time?

I think everyone agrees that the system isn't working and that something should be done to attempt to fix it. I had approached my MP about a year ago to ask how to get the government to re-examine section 15.2(6) of the Divorce Act with the goal of giving the "self sufficiency" aspect given more weight. I was told to start a petition and get signatures. However, other than changing the wording of paragraph (d) of Section 15.2(6) of the Divorce Act to stress that "reasonable time" doesn't mean "forever", I couldn't think of how to pose the question. Plus, any judge would interpret the wording his/her own way (as is the case now).

Another strategy would be to have judges educated in contemporary employment statistics. I just don't understand how a judge can look at a physically and mentally capable woman, with children who are in their teens or older, and state "this person cannot work" - we're 2008, not 1958... Even if a woman's been out of the workforce, it's not uncommon for people to retrain and start new careers in their 40's. Permitting the ex to remain under/unemployed is at the expense of the children, as money that could be put towards their post-secondary education is being put towards supporting an adult. Shameful really when you think about it.

In either case, I think if the ex were made to contribute financially, then the discrepancy between first family and second family would be reduced. In addition, the balance of "choice" would be more equal as the NCP wouldn't be totally at the "beck and call" of the CP (with respect to having to show T4's every year and not be able to change careers, take time off, etc.).

Let's focus on possible solutions.

Happy Canada Day week-end!

 

[got2bkid]

I agree this post should focus on solutions, I apologize if I have offended anyone with my comments. I feel very strongly about them and disagee strongly with Phoneix's point of view. You are entitled to your opinion, this is a post to debate and chat.

But why is there no reference from Phoneix about how she would feel if the gov't was more fair in distributing tax breaks? No comments on how she feels about the 2nd children subsidizing the 1st kids gov't. benefits?

And no comment about whether and "intact" family with an income of 110K/year (or about 82,000K after tax) would spend 24,200/ year on 2 kids. Or almost 30% of their total income directly in their kids. Of course they wouldn't spend a 1/3 of total income directly on the kids. But these are the percentages the child support tables are based on.

That is becasause the NCP is really forced to pay 100% of the TRUE cost of the child. You don't have to be a mathmatical whiz or economist to figure that one out.

Posts about who should and shouldn't have kids, and who is "responsible" by Phoneix's definition do not address the points brought up that affect 2nd kids. My ex-boyfriend wanted to have kids with me. I was unsure of the relationship at that time, so said "no" even though we both had professional jobs and a very high incomes. I felt it was more responsible NOt to have kids with someone who I was beginning to have doubts about, and not bring kids into a situationan like like. We broke up a year later. So responsibility isn't only to do with "money".

I would like to hear from Phoneix and what you think about sharing tax breaks? How about giving 2nd kids their fair share of benefits? Do you acutally beleive an intact family spends 1/3 of net income on kids?

 

[phoenix]

I apologize if I have offended anyone with my comments.

Thank you.

I feel very strongly about them and disagee strongly with Phoneix's point of view. You are entitled to your opinion, this is a post to debate and chat.

...hence no reason to attack me personally and accuse me of horrible things.

But why is there no reference from Phoneix about how she would feel if the gov't was more fair in distributing tax breaks? No comments on how she feels about the 2nd children subsidizing the 1st kids gov't. benefits?

Because I chose to discuss the aspect of your posts that interested me.

In other forums I have participated in usually people will offer thoughts, opinions, insight on the points that they have experience with, or interest them. This is a new thing to me that you expected me to make remarks on every single point you brought up.

So, for me, I remarked that I find it interesting when people choose to have children when, possibly, they can't afford to. I'm not a mathematician or an economist, I only know what I "live". For me, as a CP, the child support my ex sends does not cover my children's needs. Plus, for me, the judge did NOT order him to cover any portion of extraordinary expenses -- so it is all on me. Plus, the judge did not order him to help with college/university, so again, I do what I can to help my kids.

So... from my point of view I feel that the Canadian schedule of child support amounts is sadly LACKING. I think the few tax benefits that I am entitled to don't even begin to help me with my monthly/annual budget.

I think you and I are actually on the same side when you look at the bigger picture. You need a judge to make a more reasonable ruling on how much extraordinary expenses your husband should cover... and I need a judge to actually order my ex to PAY some of the extraordinary expenses.

And no comment about whether and "intact" family with an income of 110K/year (or about 82,000K after tax) would spend 24,200/ year on 2 kids. Or almost 30% of their total income directly in their kids. Of course they wouldn't spend a 1/3 of total income directly on the kids. But these are the percentages the child support tables are based on.

That is becasause the NCP is really forced to pay 100% of the TRUE cost of the child. You don't have to be a mathmatical whiz or economist to figure that one out.

My ex pays $881 per month in child support for 2 children. That's it. I receive nothing more from him and receive absolutely no physical help with my kids either... whether my child wants to play football on the high school team, or needs braces or has an extraordinary prescription, anything out of the ordinary... the judge told me I must budget everything from the $881 for my 2 younger children. I have a son in university right now and he/I receive nothing for him either in child support or help with tuition... the judge said that my son can fend for himself.

I would like to hear from Phoneix and what you think about sharing tax breaks? How about giving 2nd kids their fair share of benefits? Do you acutally beleive an intact family spends 1/3 of net income on kids?

I'm not going to butt heads with you -- I have remarked on the points that interested me, or that I felt *I* had something of interest to offer. I'm very sure other members of this forum are quite tired of all this...

I wish you well in your challenges with your family.

 

[got2bkid]

I wish you well too. However, you should be aware that your remarks have been attacking at times.

Your posts have implied we are irresponsible, poor and uneducated for having kids. None of these implications are true.

To hear somebody tell you that they think your kids ought not to have been born (because the husband has too high a debt to the 1st family) is really insensitive. My twins are the loves of my and my husbands lives and to imagine never having kids because he has to pay TOO MUCH to 1st kids is totally insane. We are responsible adults. It is the ex that is irresponsible and costing our family too much money.

This post was a way to explain to people that some women, who WANT to get away with not supporting their children, have the full support of the law behind them. If one parent is to be held legally financially responsible for their kids when they divorce, then BOTH CP's and NCP should be treated the same by our courts and the tax and benefit laws should be distributed fairly betwen the ex-spouses.

If this was the situation, second families would not be having the problems that are so common.

 

[logicalvelocity]

If this was the situation, second families would not be having the problems that are so common.

The problem is not isolated exclusively with second families having to go without because of first family support obligations. As I mentioned in my earlier post, some first family obligations are going without because of second family obligations.

The real problem is with the CS guidelines in itself. There is no provision other than a standard of living hardship clause that considers multiple support obligations across more than one family. Reform of the CS guidelines is required to recognize this trend of multiple obligations. Personally, I do think the children should be treated equally regardless if they are from a first family or second family.

lv

 

[standing on the sidelines]

That is becasause the NCP is really forced to pay 100% of the TRUE cost of the child. You don't have to be a mathmatical whiz or economist to figure that one out.

How does one figure out what the True cost of a child is. There are so many variables like sports, dental, accidents, medical issues and other things. There is more to consider then just food, clothing and shelter.

I agree that there should be more tax equality between NCP and CP. On the other hand the NCP also has an obligation to his/her first family that should be taken into account when planning a second family.

The CP should not be able to sit on their ass and not contribute anything to the cost of the child. If they go back to school to better themselves then fine but they should have a detailed game plan of how they are going to do it ( like what they are taking, how many years to finish etc) and actually do it prove they are making an effort with grades etc. In this case a NCP should be willling to pay the extra CS becasue the person is actually trying to make a better life for themselves (NCP) and their child.

Look, in a perfect world families would not split up, couples would raise their kids in a intact family unit. This is not a perfect world and no matter how things are someone on either side will not be happy and will have valid reasons of why they are not satisfied. Just because you do not agree (no one in particular) with their reasons do not make the reasons less valid as the debates here have proven. We never get two sides to the story here so we never actually get the big picture of what is actually happening. There is only one thing we can all agree on. The children are the innocents in all of this crap going on between NCP.CP etc.

 

[got2bkid]

Yes, it is sad that the children are the ones that seem to lose, no matter which "side" you are on.

Logical velocity - I wasn't sure what you meant by your example of how 1st kids get less when a second family comes along. You mention a situation where a CP goes on to have additional children, then gets divorced and pays CS for his/her second kids (NCP for them). But he/she would STILL be receiving a set amount of CS for the first kid, right? So the only reason the first kid would get less is if the CP chooses to spend less on kid#1 so he can afford to pay CS for kids #2. However, assuming the ex pays table CS, he/she still gets a nice chunck of tax free money for kid#1.

What currently happens for second families is that the NCP pays CS for first kids (at set amount) 2nd kids get less, and they are not "entitled" to any set amount (like 1st kid is from NCP's payment).

Also, I think the CP has a lot more options when their second kids come along. Most parents spend a little less per child the more children they have to look after. So the CP may use a little less of "their" income on kid #1 when they have kid #2. That is reasonable. They could even spend some of the CS on kid#2, it doesn't matter where the money goes in that family.

When the NCP has a second family, he currently does not have the option of lowering the CS amount to first kids even a little, like he would normally do in an intact family.

I know, there are soooo many unique situations and what we need are family courts that would evaluate EACH situation and provide solutions that are best for all the children involved, not just some "cut-and-paste" formula that really may not be helping at all.

I feel very sad for my husbands kids that the "system" has basically allowed their mother to impoverish her children for 6 years now (endless student). When/if she finally does graduate, her student loans will ensure that the kids suffer for even more years to come.