billm
New member
Your reasoning here does not hold. I don't see the difference. If one decides unilaterally to pay for post secondary, both pay, divorced or not.
Child support for
- Thread starter momiss2
- Start date
- Status
Your reasoning here does not hold. I don't see the difference. If one decides unilaterally to pay for post secondary, both pay, divorced or not.
I agree here.
Whether married or not, if one parent chooses to pay for their kids college, than there isnt much that can be done about it. If they were married, yeah, it would likely start a argument between the parents. But what could the other parent do if their spouse was dead set on paying? Are they gonna close the accounts and/or otherwise remove their spouses access to funds?
It isn't a big difference here. It is just normally, when married, you don't have these sorts of issues because decisions are more likely to be jointly made. But that doesn't totally negate the possibility that it does happen.
True...and it takes us back to the ol financial matters that most couples don't want to discuss. Anyone watch the hsow on SLICE with Gail Vaz Oxley..til debt do us part and the new show called Money Moron?
If you can't discuss money matters when you are dating, you sure as hell ain't going to discuss it when you are married, and you know what happens after
billm
New member
However, that being said. Once divorced, your money and decisions should be separate.
The government should not dictate to people that they have to pay for their adult children's education.
Marriage is a financial union, so you are stuck with that, but once divorced, the other person should not be able to dictate how or if you support your adult children.
cashcow4ex
New member
Well I am not sure how your previous marriage was but I can tell you that a decision to spend 10's of thousands of dollars in my last marriage was not one that could or ever would be done unilaterally. So my reasoning does hold in mine and most other marriages.
I dont know a single person other than millionaires that would be accepting or ironically not soon to be divorced if their spouse decided to spend that kind of household money "unilaterally"
Lets try and be a little realistic here. We are not talking about the spouse running out and buying a sofa or end table.
I guess you've never watched 'Til Death Do Us Part or any other shows like that....
cashcow4ex
New member
Yes I have seen them. However your quoting TV shows which are stories based off extreme cases and not average, everyday, real life.
Again, who in their right mind would accept their spouse emptying 10's of thousands of dollars from their joint money when you dont agree on what it will be going towards?
I hear you and agree. But it does happen.
You get people with gambling/drinking/drug addictions etc. While they are addictions, the reason is not quite the same, but I am sure the end effect is no different.
And in most cases, most parents don't see supporting their kids and assisting them better themselves through education as a burden. Yes, there are those that can't afford it. But that doesn't mean most parents don't want to help their kids. I find it is almost as rare where you have couples that are together that absolutely refuse to help their kids with post secondary, as there are instances where one parent assists against the will of the other.
Freudian slip? I think you meant Til Debt do us part
Then there is the new one, Money Moron, bythe same lady. They also have one for the little spoilt girls called Princess, also by the same lady...all on SLICE tvFreudian slip? I think you meant Til Debt do us part
lol, maybe a small slip.
I've saw Til Debt do us Part and Princess. And I will tell you one thing, I have no idea what the guys are thinking when dating the girls on that show Princess....man, they are all diggin hard for gold....
A person blind-sided by sex, or one that is being blackmailed with divorce by a manipulative spouse who is ready to use the fact that there are multiple kids to get at the guy, and he scared of having to lose house and pay CS?
Janus
New member
Interesting way of looking at it.
Not all marriages are structured with joint accounts. Many have three accounts: A separate account for each person, and a joint account for joint expenses that is funded (often proportionally) by both partners. If one partner in this situation decided to unilaterally pay for a post-secondary education, they would probably lose almost all of their discretionary spending. This allows a couple to make some independent financial decisions, while other decisions are made in a more cooperative manner.
Some marriages are completely financially joint. In those cases, your analogy is stronger, though in those marriages spending decisions are usually not unilateral. Joint accounts are usually held by people engaged in joint-decision making.
In a divorce, the financial structure is closer to that of a marriage with 3 accounts: 2 separate and 1 joint. Parents can engage in unilateral decision making up to a point (eg. I'm going to serve my kid filet mignon every day for a month) but that hurts their own financial position without affecting the other parent.
In divorce, the situation is aggravated by the fact that the parents can have wildly different financial positions. One parent could be wealthy (perhaps through remarriage), and, under the current rules, can force the other parent to incur a financial hit that is unaffordable to the poor parent, but well within the means of the wealthier parent.
That said, I'm not directly rejecting your analogy, I'm just pondering.
OrleansLawyer
Active member
No, the marriage is over. You signed on for life. Support payments flow from breach of contract, if you choose to see it that way.
Intact families are deemed to take reasonable care of their children. Separated families are deemed to require the state's intervention for the financial protection of their children.
Wise words.
There are safeguards against this in the current rules. A re-reading of s.7 of the FCSG may be edifying.
Breach of contract….you say.
How about the breach of contract some do by not working to there full potential or at all in a marriage?
Now hear me out, I’m not talking about stay at home parents with young children.
Let say a spouse works in a field that only employs part-time workers yet there is the regular availability of extended hours to full time yet refuses to accept the hours.
Let say spouse A and B get married have 2 kids and both have the intentions of working but spouse A decides to quite their job in order to “find themselves” and puts the burden of supporting the family on spouse B.
Can spouse B place a legal claim on spouse A for their obligation to support the children?
Parents are supposed to provide for their children to the best of their abilities.
So can the application of law be applied to married couple?
I find it ridiculous that if you leave the marriage because you are with a non supportive spouse that you then end up paying for their share of CS that they should have been working for all along and then you may end up paying SS….the system is screw up!
I see the need for the law when it pertains to stay at home parents but not for lazy asses that can work!
CS should be based on the cost of raising the child with a min. set to not see the child in poverty.
If I work harder, better my career by going to school part-time why should I have to provide the other side with that benefit?
They should be able to do the same and better their own situation. I’m not saying this is the case for all situations….but things have to go away from creating a dependency!
Please note I’m French and dyslexic, so spelling and grammar are not my strong points!
How about the breach of contract some do by not working to there full potential or at all in a marriage?
Now hear me out, I’m not talking about stay at home parents with young children.
Let say a spouse works in a field that only employs part-time workers yet there is the regular availability of extended hours to full time yet refuses to accept the hours.
Let say spouse A and B get married have 2 kids and both have the intentions of working but spouse A decides to quite their job in order to “find themselves” and puts the burden of supporting the family on spouse B.
Can spouse B place a legal claim on spouse A for their obligation to support the children?
Parents are supposed to provide for their children to the best of their abilities.
So can the application of law be applied to married couple?
I find it ridiculous that if you leave the marriage because you are with a non supportive spouse that you then end up paying for their share of CS that they should have been working for all along and then you may end up paying SS….the system is screw up!
I see the need for the law when it pertains to stay at home parents but not for lazy asses that can work!
CS should be based on the cost of raising the child with a min. set to not see the child in poverty.
If I work harder, better my career by going to school part-time why should I have to provide the other side with that benefit?
They should be able to do the same and better their own situation. I’m not saying this is the case for all situations….but things have to go away from creating a dependency!
Please note I’m French and dyslexic, so spelling and grammar are not my strong points!
Pursuinghappiness
New member
good mom:
That's why the court allows for imputed income.
That's why the court allows for imputed income.
DowntroddenDad
New member
I would entirely agree. My ex and I had always agreed that when all the kids were in school full time, she would return to the workforce, where she made a decent income. In my case just as that time came, she was diagnosed with a incurable degenerative disease.....or so she convinced me, and her friends and family. Years later I found out the truth....she never had that disease.
So now we are divorced, and I'm on the hook for SS and a huge CS bill.
But I can't prove it. He said, she said.
Pursuinghappiness
New member
Was it called "laziness?"
Downtrodden, that's pretty scandalous. Her friends/family weren't outraged at her lying about having an incurable disease?
DowntroddenDad
New member
Her friends and family are under the impression that it was a mistaken diagnosis, but she had a fall a few years back, which she is now calling a stroke. I found out about her not having the disease from the tech doing the followup EKG. She showed me her chart, and wrote on a blank page and underlined NO (name of disease). I also saw a letter she wrote to a psychiatrist apologising for lying about her condition and asking her to reconsider taking her on as a patient. Of course she never told me she was seeing a psychiatrist.
So if I had to give my own diagnosis, laziness would be part of it. But she has deeper issues I think.
The shattering of all trust had a great deal to do with the breakdown of the marriage. Sadly the kids don't know the truth, they think she is a martyr. She has done much to perpetuate that story.
When we first separated, she was claiming disability. I countered by suggesting she had never qualified for ODSP or any other support. I gave her forms that would have saved me thousands in taxes if I filed amendments to previous years taxes, but required a doctors signature, and told her I would split the refund 50/50. She never got the doctor's signoff. My lawyer advised that I could seek an occupational assessment, but that it would take years to force through, cost $30K plus, and had no guarentees that a judge would accept it. I decided against it.
She did get a job before we finalized our agreement then lost it a few months later.
I do accept some responsibility here. I knew she had issues with the truth before we married, though I thought she had reformed. I knew she had spotty job history.
Last edited:
frustratedwithex
New member
The decision to spend any money was all done by my ex. during our marriage. We had multiple joint accounts, however, it was well understood that I was not to access any of them other than the checking account.
I bought groceries and clothes for the kids. We had a budget for these items and I followed it.
Ex decided on car purchases, motorcycles, golf memberships, holidays, etc. And yes this was cause for many arguments. He would say we should talk about a particular purchase, but in fact he had already purchased it and was just informing me of it.
He was unilaterally deciding where the money went.
cashcow4ex
New member
I am sorry to hear that your ex was allowed to make all the financial decisions in your union.
I know my ex tried to force this same controling mentality on me at the begining of our marriage, however I put a stop to it real quick.
I simply threatened her that if she wanted to control the money she could control her own earnings by paying 50% of all the bills and keep the rest to spend how she saw fit and same for me. She chose wisely because she didnt earn enough to pay her share and have any left over.
So in the end all our financials were jointly decided as it should be in any marriage where the money is combined...that is until the divorce of course.
- Status