Update: Daughter chose to live with me part time which is awesome. She understood why I chose to say that she can live with dad, but can't come and go as she likes... in other words no overnights as I felt she was taking advantage of me and her dad. I normalized this as well. Her dad said she can't have the car when she is at my home. She has to drop it off every 2 weeks to him. He is still trying to play games to get her to stay full time with him. So will see what happens. Love havng my girl live with me 1/2 time.
Child support for
- Thread starter momiss2
- Start date
- Status
mcdreamy
Moderator
I'm curious -- will you now be asking for setoff cs from the ex?
DowntroddenDad
New member
Only you can decide how much hassle you can endure.
Go to mysupportcalculator.ca and plug in the numbers.
Add up the monthly CS you would get assuming it stays the same, until she finishes school or reaches the age of 22.
Ask yourself what it would cost to get it? Lawyers usually want $5000 retainer to start, and very rarely would you ever get it back.
If there isn't much to gain and you are ok financially, I'd let it slide. If you need the money to provide for your daughter, then you can try it on your own.
The manipulation may stop, but I doubt it, if I just let CS slide. It would be worth it if that happened. He does need to owe up to SC though which is only 150 a month. If nothing else I'll get back the cash he took when we separated, and the lawyer fee's it took just to get an equitable sep. agreement. To keep her out of it I'd gladly drop the CS.
Just tried to speak to x about this and he hung up because of course this is all my fault. Don't know what I'll do now. The drama apparently continues.
Just tried to speak to x about this and he hung up because of course this is all my fault. Don't know what I'll do now. The drama apparently continues.
DowntroddenDad
New member
Don't talk to him. Seriously. Write. Write clearly, plainly, without emotion. Make an offer you think is reasonable, but be prepared to give a little more.
mcdreamy
Moderator
Oh, I've never changed my stance on cs being required while the child remains a child of the marriage, pursuant to the definition. I also wholeheartedly agree with the definition. However, I'm also fully aware that I could at any time be the payor, at the whim of said child (mine is now 18).
From your thoughts above however, you seemed upset that you would be paying cs for a 20 yr old kidlet if she stayed with him. Now that potentially you could be a recipient, you aren't so upset? Double standard? Cs is payable, regardless of whom is the payor/recipient.
If I were in your shoes, I most definitely wouldn't be having telephone conversations with him -at all. And I would try my best to not let his manipulation and game playing suck me back into the drama. This is water. Sometimes, it's not worth the emotional drain on ourselves to continue the drama, but that's a judgment call you'll have to make.
From your thoughts above however, you seemed upset that you would be paying cs for a 20 yr old kidlet if she stayed with him. Now that potentially you could be a recipient, you aren't so upset? Double standard? Cs is payable, regardless of whom is the payor/recipient.
If I were in your shoes, I most definitely wouldn't be having telephone conversations with him -at all. And I would try my best to not let his manipulation and game playing suck me back into the drama. This is water. Sometimes, it's not worth the emotional drain on ourselves to continue the drama, but that's a judgment call you'll have to make.
standing on the sidelines
New member
glad i wasnt the only one who thought that.
Janus
New member
Natural consequence of a family law system that provides a massive cash incentive to the winner of the "suck up to your kids" game.
If family law cared about the children, it wouldn't let them make such important decisions. There is a lot of good talk about shielding the children, but if you are going to put tens of thousands of dollars on the line based upon the decision of a child, you are setting the kid up for a stressful few years.
The daughter has made a decision to impoverish her mother. I think it is reasonable for the mother to strike back. Don't blame the mother, blame the system that puts so much power into the hands of children.
Kids should not have to make those choices, kids should not be allowed to make those choices. Parents should have to argue the best interests of the child in court, and children who ignore the court directive should lose their child support, since they are making adult decisions.
The system may be wrong, but a child is still a child… and here we have 2 grown adults punishing the child for wanting to live at their other home.
Young children can't decide where they want to live, so we're really only talking about the last few years of cs. One parent already benefitted the majority of the child's life by having extra time with the child and having extra money. By the child switching homes it the teen years, I would assume it had more to do with their relationship with the custodial parent rather than simply the other parent bribing them.
There are laws that stop young kids from being manipulated into switching home, but by their teenage years they are more than capable in making a decision on where they want to live. Sometimes teenagers might go back and forth a few times between the homes. They should never be put in the middle of financials and especially bickering parents.
Why is the daughter looking to impoverish the mother as opposed to just wanting to get away and live with her dad? If you believe that cs is just for the parent's pocket and not the child, then why do you think the child is thinking about money in making this decision.
CS needs to follow the child to cover the extra costs in living, food, activities, etc (moreso in this case where it would be over 60% of the time - actually 100% because the mom won't allow the daughter back if she leaves).
While it seems like you’re coming down on the child, is your position that the child is free to live in whatever home but the cs payment should stay with the same parent forever?
Young children can't decide where they want to live, so we're really only talking about the last few years of cs. One parent already benefitted the majority of the child's life by having extra time with the child and having extra money. By the child switching homes it the teen years, I would assume it had more to do with their relationship with the custodial parent rather than simply the other parent bribing them.
There are laws that stop young kids from being manipulated into switching home, but by their teenage years they are more than capable in making a decision on where they want to live. Sometimes teenagers might go back and forth a few times between the homes. They should never be put in the middle of financials and especially bickering parents.
Why is the daughter looking to impoverish the mother as opposed to just wanting to get away and live with her dad? If you believe that cs is just for the parent's pocket and not the child, then why do you think the child is thinking about money in making this decision.
CS needs to follow the child to cover the extra costs in living, food, activities, etc (moreso in this case where it would be over 60% of the time - actually 100% because the mom won't allow the daughter back if she leaves).
While it seems like you’re coming down on the child, is your position that the child is free to live in whatever home but the cs payment should stay with the same parent forever?
Last edited:
- Status