Child support for

[HappyDays]

I fail to see the manipulation. You assume there is some big conspiracy against you.

After separation the kids went to live with their father and didn't talk to you for a year. They are teenagers and know what both parents are like. I don't see how the father could just tell them something, and all of a sudden their perfect mother is so bad they won't talk do her for so long.
Now they want to spend more time with their dad so it must be because he's lying to them again and they're believing it again...

They're teenagers so they're going to be messy and rude, and they should be able to come and go "conveniently" between both parents. Set your rules for your house, but it's sad how you're bringing your kids into this and coming down on them like they did something wrong.

You should take the opposite approach, be extra loving and supportive to them, and maybe they will want to come back and stay with you more.

 

[Janus]

If the daughter is taking a side, it is her own. She is assessing what choices are in her short term financial best interests and acting accordingly.

In other words, she is acting like an adult.

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 stand by my statement, this is theft.

 

[Janus]

I'm must be missing something.. Do they stop eating and stop having 20 minute hot showers, when they turn 16 to 18/19/20?

When I was 19, I worked through the summer and paid that money to my parents as rent for the year.

My parents had the right to kick me out at 18. They didn't, and I'm grateful, but they could have.

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.

Is this the reason why you are on these boards, and most of your vengeful postings? I don't feel the same way about my ex, or his financial growth. I don't like him, but I don't wish him harm. I would encourage him doing well, we both need to retire at some point.

Parasites live in a different world than payors, that is just a fact. Parasites can be sanguine about financial matters and marriage, the law basically helped them out. Payors are the ones who face the brunt and pain of family law.

I'm glad that you're happy for your ex, but that is because you live in a weird parallel universe where you can take money from a non-consenting adult and be proud of it. Frankly, I would find it humiliating to be making a living sucking from the teat of an ex-spouse, but clearly some people think that it is reasonable.

No, the daughter is not taking sides. She shouldn't even be introduced to the concept of sides.

The daughter is an adult. She fully knows the concept of sides, and she is taking one. The mother should be pissed, you can't steal money from people and expect a pat on the back for your efforts.

 

[baldclub]

Kids watch all kinds of shows on tv, with politics, intrigue, subterfuge and more. The concept of taking sides has been acquired a long time ago when dealing with peers and such throughout school, there is no doubt about that.

 

[mcdreamy]

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.

Sorry, I forgot that you were in charge of the fla rules. Get back to the definition of a "child of the marriage". As I said, none of us are going to change the definition. Have issues with that? Get out there to your mp, mpp, make something happen and have your voice heard. Looks like we are going to be having both a provincial (Ontario) and a federal election shortly, you have a great opportunity. Stop whining.

I'm glad that you're happy for your ex, but that is because you live in a weird parallel universe where you can take money from a non-consenting adult and be proud of it. Frankly, I would find it humiliating to be making a living sucking from the teat of an ex-spouse, but clearly some people think that it is reasonable.

You are talking to the wrong recipient (and yes, indeed I am a recipient). I've never taken table cs. I don't believe current table cs calculations are an accurate portrayal of both parents' financials of raising a child pre- and post divorce. I think at minimum incomes should be combined, from the get-go, regardless of access.

I'd like to think my ex feels the same way, after paying significantly less table amounts for the last 16 years, and keeping his own money. But heck, I guess I won't really know that, until and unless the kidlet takes the current car offer over at his house. Then I'll have the pleasure of knowing if he too feels cs table amounts are unjust, to my favor - or, in your words, if he'll take me for every penny that I own.

eta: perhaps he does feel just like you, and his measly monthly amount he pays causes some aggravation. Can we at least both agree, that some amount (however it can be quantified), is payable when we pull down our pants and have a child?

And honestly, I read these boards many days, read posts like yours and other Pigs, and wonder why I'm setting myself up to be the next jackass.

And last, but not least, can we talk about your education experience? (and I don't mean to sound antagonistic). But I'm currently looking at S7 expenses for an 4 year undergrad, 4 year minimum grad. 8 x $20 - $160,000.00. Exactly what job did you hold as an 18 year old, that offered you both the work experience and yet the financial coverage to allow you to complete your grad education AND pay your parents rent? Our kid works at Timmies, part time.

 

[HappyDays]

We can disagree with the law, but we are expected to follow it.
Child support has to be paid.
A child should not feel guilty about wanting to live with the other parent. Parents see the financial consequences. The child just sees what's better for them.

 

[Janus]

Sorry, I forgot that you were in charge of the fla rules.

I know the law (well, case law at least, not the real law) says that adult children are children. I have never disputed that, I just think that the law is ridiculous on this particular point.

Looks like we are going to be having both a provincial (Ontario) and a federal election shortly, you have a great opportunity. Stop whining.

It will never change until people believe that it is wrong. The problem is that half of the people involved in family law benefit from the ridiculous definition of a child, so change is not politically beneficial. It should be changed because extracting CS for adult children is wrong, not because it is politically popular.

eta: perhaps he does feel just like you, and his measly monthly amount he pays causes some aggravation.

It is hard to explain to a recipient just how aggravating it is. I've come to the realization that people who receive cash awards from family law just don't understand how it feels to be a slave to another adult, working for their benefit.

Can we at least both agree, that some amount (however it can be quantified), is payable when we pull down our pants and have a child?

I agree that parents have an obligation to support their child.

I do not believe that CS in its current form does anything to fulfill that obligation.

And last, but not least, can we talk about your education experience? (and I don't mean to sound antagonistic). But I'm currently looking at S7 expenses for an 4 year undergrad, 4 year minimum grad. 8 x $20 - $160,000.00.

Why are you multiplying by 8?

It is foolish to be specific on these boards, but there were a number of factors:

1) I did not pay $20,000 a year, that amount is ridiculously inflated. There is cheaper housing available. I have the ability to cook my own food.
2) Scholarships
3) Bursuries
4) OSAP loans
5) Coop Education
6) Years of productive summer jobs, certainly more than a timmies job.

I worked hard to get where I am today. Really hard. I didn't have the right to extract money from my parents, so I knew what I had to do to get what I wanted.

I find it sickening that the losers in life get to steal from those who have worked hard to get where they are. It is a fundamental injustice, and it is disgusting. 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.

 

[mcdreamy]

I know the law (well, case law at least, not the real law) says that adult children are children. I have never disputed that, I just think that the law is ridiculous on this particular point.

I disagree with you. Particularly given that the Gr. 13 year has been removed from our secondary education itinerary, and our children aren't receiving the benefit of that final 5th year in high school.

It will never change until people believe that it is wrong. The problem is that half of the people involved in family law benefit from the ridiculous definition of a child, so change is not politically beneficial. It should be changed because extracting CS for adult children is wrong, not because it is politically popular.

And you are prepared to simply accept, post statements on ODF and not attempt to make changes? I'm in the midst of a personal vendetta with our region to change a by-law, and implement a dark skies ordinance. I spend a lot of my personal time on this issue, I've met every one of our councillors, I know the players, I know the rules and I continue to research. I've been successful in one of my requests, and am now working with the MOE in an attempt to implement the 2nd.

I've come to the realization that people who receive cash awards from family law just don't understand how it feels to be a slave to another adult, working for their benefit.

I'm well aware of what I have to bring home every month, in order for the ex to continue to receive the benefit of my late night/weekend work.

I do not believe that CS in its current form does anything to fulfill that obligation.

I agree. See above re: change. There are many men's groups across the province, seeking support of a change to the rules. Get behind one. Of course, should a group ever be successful in introducing a proposal to change the definition of an adult child, I would be there to argue against it.

1) I did not pay $20,000 a year, that amount is ridiculously inflated. There is cheaper housing available. I have the ability to cook my own food.
2) Scholarships
3) Bursuries
4) OSAP loans
5) Coop Education
6) Years of productive summer jobs, certainly more than a timmies job.

Just a general note, many families are in rural communities, an away university is the only choice; you can't cook in residence; many families don't qualify for OSAP loans, bursaries. As we joked this weekend, kidlet is not disabled, a genius, nor of a particular ethnic background - scholarships are limited; co-op is only available at certain schools and for certain programs; I suspect until your children are older and you've been driving them around so they can submit applications, you will not quite understand how difficult it is for a kidlet to obtain anything more than a minimum wage job.

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.

As did mine.

 

[Janus]

I disagree with you. Particularly given that the Gr. 13 year has been removed from our secondary education itinerary, and our children aren't receiving the benefit of that final 5th year in high school.

I agree that it was unfortunate that OAC year was removed, but I'm not sure what that has to do with a custodial parent getting a cash award for having an adult child in their house.

I'm in the midst of a personal vendetta with our region to change a by-law, and implement a dark skies ordinance.

I'm a huge believer in dark skies ordinances. Good for you!

The difference is that there is no "light skies" group with a huge financial stake in maintaining the status quo. Imagine if half of the population benefited from having light spewing into the skies, and that there were hundreds of groups dedicated to fighting any dark skies ordinances. Imagine if there was a general public perception that those who want dark skies are social deviants.

Then we could talk about how easy it is to change a status quo that spits in the face of justice.

Just a general note, many families are in rural communities, an away university is the only choice; you can't cook in residence

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.

many families don't qualify for OSAP loans, bursaries. As we joked this weekend, kidlet is not disabled, a genius, nor of a particular ethnic background - scholarships are limited

Frankly, if a student doesn't qualify for a scholarship, then they are welcome to apply to a college program. University is not a right, we seem to have lost track of that in the mix. High school is easy, anybody who wants high marks and doesn't get them frankly doesn't deserve them. Choices have consequences.

If my kids slacked off in high school, I'd rather force them to take a year off in contemplation of their actions than be obligated to fund their university vacations. As a regular parent, I have the right to make that parenting decision. As a divorced parent, I have inexplicably lost that right.

 

[Mess]

I'd rather force them ..... I have the right to make that parenting decision....

Yeah, right.

 

[OrleansLawyer]

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".

Acting for short term gain and long term loss is a lack of foresight. This is a symptom of immaturity.

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.

History 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).

 

[OrleansLawyer]

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.

The law is not designed to protect consenting adults from the consequences of entering into improvident bargains. You decided to enter into marriage - a financial partnership - with someone. You are, it seems, unsatisfied with the consequences of that choice.

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.

Excluding tuition and books, it is difficult for a student to live on much less than $1k/month. Having the child fill out a proposed expense page (from the financial statement) may help with budgeting.

I'd rather force them to take a year off in contemplation of their actions than be obligated to fund their university vacations.

You are either ignorant of the job market available for those under 30 or have low expectations for your children. Attending college is a fair choice, however, and may lead to better job opportunities.

 

[Janus]

The law is not designed to protect consenting adults from the consequences of entering into improvident bargains.

I have already suffered the consequences, my ex has half of what I earned during our relationship. The contract is over, but for some reason the law doesn't allow me to actually end it.

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.

Not accepted, it was a major cause of the marriage breakdown.

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?

If my ex made money through wise business decisions, that would not bother me at all. My ex is making money by stealing from me. That is why I am irate.

 

[Janus]

History 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).

If society is interested in helping children, then they can feel free to raise taxes to pay for such programs. Many parents abandon their children. It sucks, but that is the way it is. Society as a whole would benefit from feeding children in school and funding the vast majority of the cost of a university education. We have chosen not to do that... unless you are the child of a divorced family, in which case we suddenly change the rules.

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.

 

[oink]

Good point, and I concur. Same goes for the recent grand parents access to bill and the push for it. If they really want to solve that problem, then go to the root cause of it (awarding sole to someone by default), leading to them cutting out the other party and their family

If society is interested in helping children, then they can feel free to raise taxes to pay for such programs. Many parents abandon their children. It sucks, but that is the way it is. Society as a whole would benefit from feeding children in school and funding the vast majority of the cost of a university education. We have chosen not to do that... unless you are the child of a divorced family, in which case we suddenly change the rules.

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.

 

[momiss2]

20 yr. and child support

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.

 

[HammerDad]

Regardless in the separation agreement there is nothing about child support for my daughter when she is in college.

Irrelevant, the law provides what qualifies as a child of marriage for the purposes of child support (college is included) and the c/s obligation where the "child meets that test.

She has one more year. Will live with dad full time.

Than you have one more year of c/s.

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.

None of these are relevant for the purposes of determining c/s. His income is relevant for determining s7 expense ratios only. His new partners income/salary is not comtemplated in any equations.

My daughter is working full time this summer as well.

This should allow her to pay her 1/3rd of her education. But for c/s purposes, it is irrelevant.


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.

 

[GoDiegoGo]

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.

 

[billm]

I...
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.

I 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.

 

[cashcow4ex]

I 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.