Agreement in sight....advice on conditions

Status
Not open for further replies.
F

figc

New member
My ex added these conditions for when child support should end:

=========================================================

He will no longer be obliged to pay support for the children when one of the following events occurs:

a) the child ceases to reside full time with the Wife. "Reside full time''
includes the child living away from home to attend an educational
institution, pursue summer employment or take a vacation, while
otherwise maintaining a residence with the mother;

(b) the child becomes 18 years of age and ceases to be in full-time
attendance at an educational institution;
(c) the child becomes 24 years of age;
(d) the child completes their first post-secondary educational degree / diploma
(e) the child marries;
(f) the child dies; or
(g) the father dies, so long as he has complied with his obligations regarding life insurance.

=========================================================

I was wondering what conditions are common, and especially what everyone thinks of point a) and c)

Thanks in advance
 
A) is not common. The opposite tends to be true. (ie. even IF the child is still living away from home while attending post secondary, support typically continues to assist in maintaining a residence).

What you MAY want to counter with for A is:

In the event the child is living away from home to attend an educational
institution or pursue summer employment while otherwise maintaining a residence with the mother, support shall be directed to the child to assist in their expenses for the duration.

(ie. you only directly receive support for the months the child is ACTUALLY living with you)

Though you would be well within current legal standards to disagree with A entirely.

C is also not common, but I believe the intent is to prevent the child from becoming a "perpetual student". There should be no harm in agreeing to it. If the child is 18/19 when beginning post secondary, they will be at MOST 23 when they complete it, fulfilling item d. So not common, but I don't see any harm with it, it is perfectly reasonable.
 
Section A doesn't sound very reasonable. If the child goes on a vacation, the parents still need to pay rent, pay utilities, etc and maintain the child's residence until they return.

Mine says if the child resides elsewhere for university the child support arrangement is subject to a review.

Presumably, a portion should go to the parent to maintain the house, and a portion should go to child directly for their own expenses.

For section C, mine says age 22 which would be more in line with pursuit of full time studies in a timely manner.
 
My bf's agreement states,

16. Child support ends for each child when:

(a) The child no longer resides with the custodial parent, ("Resides" includes the child living away from home for school, summer employment or
vacation),

(b) The child turns 18, unless he or she is unable to become self supporting
due to illness, disability, education or other cause,

(c) The child becomes self supporting,

(d) The child obtains one post secondary degree or diploma,

(e) The child marries, and

(f) The child dies

Which ever shall first occur.
Click to expand...

I think it really depends on what you want to agree on. Point "a" can really be taken two ways... the way it was intended in their agreement was that if the child was living away for school, employment or vacation, means CS would cease for those months, however it has been discussed on here before that it could also mean that the word "resides" includes living away for post secondary, summer employment or vacation. I can see when the time comes my bf may have issues with this, however he has all emails between his ex and the lawyers stating the intention of this clause.

If you are unsure of any clause, ask the other side for clarification. Don't sign off on something you are not 100% sure on.
 
Term you are seeking is:

"as long as the child is a child of the marraige as defined within the Divorce Act"
 
I took A as if they are away at post secondary, that child support payments would be suspended to you because he'd be paying his proportionate share of university expenses....which includes housing, food etc....
 
FightingForFamily said:
Presumably, a portion should go to the parent to maintain the house, and a portion should go to child directly for their own expenses.
Click to expand...

That makes sense to me too.

So, while the kid is away, perhaps 30% of CS continues to go CP for maintaining home, the rest to residence costs, and any leftover to the child for food/transport/clothing/etc (both parents of course contributing to this).

The question is WHO does the redirecting. Following the convention of giving the CP full control over spending, then I guess it would be the CP redirecting it (and deciding the %). So in reality, there would be no change to how much CS is paid by the NCP.

Then an extra 'section 7' contribution from both parents for tuition/books/fees.
 
Agree wth the above posts but it should be written as parent neutral because who knows what custody might be when they turn 17, it may change. if it is written:

"the child ceaces to reside full time with either pareent" etc
 
When I was in university, my Dad paid me the amount of support directly. My Mom set her "rent" and I paid my mom with the rent, and the additional money I used for my bus pass and text books.

My brother took his support and moved out to live with room mates instead of paying my mom's rent.

It gives your adult children the control, something I agree with. Of course, it depends on the reasonableness of the ex partners.
 
Thanks for all the replies, its very much appreciated.

I spoke with my lawyer today, and he suggested in relation to point a) of my post that if the child goes to post-secondary away from Mom's residence then he would suggest either:
1) A portion of the child support goes to Mom to maintain home, while majority goes to child to cover expenses.

or

2) If child is away from home for school, Mom receives child support ONLY during the months when child is back living with mom. The months child is away, support goes to them.


While on the subject of education, my lawyer mentioned that the clause in the offer about educational expenses is too vague. He brought up "What if your kid wants to go to Harvard......." I assumed this was his attempt at 'stirring the pot'

The clause is as follows:

"The parties will contribute equally toward the costs of the post-secondary education of the children, which costs include tuition, residence, travel, supplies, equipment and other incidental expenses"

Personally I don't see anything wrong with this, but I was wondering what others thought.
 
I am curious to know also, as I plan to borrow the outline above and use as the clause for my CS for my son is going on 5. This of cause all hinges on the custody arrangement, in which am asking for 50-50 and nothing less. She wants sole custody so she can get more money, she has the task of trying to convince everyone that am a bad father
 
figc said:
My ex added these conditions for when child support should end:

=========================================================

He will no longer be obliged to pay support for the children when one of the following events occurs:

a) the child ceases to reside full time with the Wife. "Reside full time''
includes the child living away from home to attend an educational
institution, pursue summer employment or take a vacation, while
otherwise maintaining a residence with the mother;

(b) the child becomes 18 years of age and ceases to be in full-time
attendance at an educational institution;
(c) the child becomes 24 years of age;
(d) the child completes their first post-secondary educational degree / diploma
(e) the child marries;
(f) the child dies; or
(g) the father dies, so long as he has complied with his obligations regarding life insurance.

=========================================================

I was wondering what conditions are common, and especially what everyone thinks of point a) and c)

Thanks in advance
Click to expand...

I didn`t even read past the first line of `My ex added these conditions for when child support should end:`.

No. NO.

No again.

What the LAW says, is what you agree to.
That, and ONLY that.


Just my 2 cents.
 
a) the child ceases to reside full time with the Wife. "Reside full time'' includes the child living away from home to attend an educational institution, pursue summer employment or take a vacation, while otherwise maintaining a residence with the mother;
Click to expand...

Berner - once you define "Reside", it is apparent that the term is inclusive. I think your bf is in for a surprise.

While on the subject of education, my lawyer mentioned that the clause in the offer about educational expenses is too vague. He brought up "What if your kid wants to go to Harvard......." I assumed this was his attempt at 'stirring the pot'
The clause is as follows:
"The parties will contribute equally toward the costs of the post-secondary education of the children, which costs include tuition, residence, travel, supplies, equipment and other incidental expenses"
Click to expand...

I would amend that, to read "reasonable post-secondary education". It infers that reasonable is the expectation. And really, it is not stirring the pot - it is a legitimate question. I'm in this now - our kid wants to go to an out of town university because the undergrad program is one of the top in our country, although we do have a reasonably middle alternative more local.
 
mcdreamy said:
Berner - once you define "Reside", it is apparent that the term is inclusive. I think your bf is in for a surprise.
Click to expand...

I agree... but it came to a point with him about was it worth going back and forth over these little points, or just get an agreement signed and move on?
Unfortunately, I fell both their lawyers made some mistakes, as there were points his ex asked be added to the agreement, which he agreed to, but never made it into the agreement, despite them both having written their lawyers about it.

Time will tell and I am sure down the road there will be changes to the agreement...
 
figc said:
"The parties will contribute equally toward the costs of the post-secondary education of the children, which costs include tuition, residence, travel, supplies, equipment and other incidental expenses".
Click to expand...

It is important to go over the details and ensure the wording is correct because this is the one chance to get it right. Once signed it is difficult to change. Just don't come accross as demanding, say things like "it would be better..." or "we should word it as such..."

The law might require you change the above "equally" to "proportional of income".
 
"The parties will contribute equally toward the costs of the post-secondary education of the children, which costs include tuition, residence, travel, supplies, equipment and other incidental expenses"

Personally I don't see anything wrong with this, but I was wondering what others thought.[/QUOTE]

My CO has a line very similar to this. Ex interprets it to mean that we each pay half and D pays nothing (she is sitting on a 30k trust fund). What will a judge interpret this to mean, I will have to let you know but when I mentioned D should contribute something to her own education her & ex went off deep end completely. So my advice is be more specific about who pays what. Cheers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top