My common law wife has been divorced from her ex husband since last Dec they have 2 children aged 10, and 13. They have joint custody with 50/50 access for the children back in Nov of 2008 her son decided to live with us full time and were trying to vary the court order for him now. We have been together for almost 3 years and are getting married in Aug. After a waiting period of 1 year after living together I added her children to my bennefits last spring. Her court order states that her ex is to maintain bennefits for the children throughout so long as such bennefits are available to him. He pays 50% and his employeer pays the other 50%. We just found out from the dentist that he cancelled his bennefits last fall for the children because her son needed orthodontics. He states in emails you expect me to pay for half the braces! He also says she will have to pay because his new common law wifes bennefits don't cover orthodontics. I have 50% co-bennefit coverage up to $1500 but it costs $3000. My fiance gave him post dated cheques of $300 according to their agreement because she makes about $65,000/yr and he has been cashing the cheques eery month since last Nov even though her son has not been living with him. Can she get retro back? The funny thing is after doing some resaerch we found that her benneits actually cover the orthodontics but he just wants her to pay out of her pocket. His gravey train of $$$ is coming to an end and we believe that he cancelled them to save himself the money. I should point out that he makes over $50,000 per year. Wondering if anyone can give us some advice on any experiences they've had with judges, ie/ is it ok if he cancells his bennefits because his common law wife which he calls his girlfriend has bennefits for the kids? What if he breaks up with his girlfriend/ commonm law wife? Ever since I met this guy my wife has been paying him CS but she pays for everything the kids need ie/ school costs, extra curricular costs Dr's costs she has $3000's of reciepts dating back the past 2 years, I thought that CS was to cover these types of things? They have an order that states they are to split extra expenses but he has never given her a dime!
Children's bennefits
- Thread starter Wiser2008
- Start date
Hmm... interesting situation. I would imagine - in any normal relationship - the partner with the "better" benefits is the one that maintains coverage for the family. Therefore whether it's your or your wife, or the ex and his wife... each household should have the best benefits package available to the children. After all, if each parent is to provide coverage, then they are to do just so - whether it be through their own benefits or throug benefits available to them through their spouse. Just my two cents.
As for special and extraordinary expenses (such as extracurricular activities that necessitate high travel costs for tournaments or expensive equipment; medical and dental costs not covered by benefits) they should be split 50/50 between the parties, and all other expenses (such as extracurricular activities like swimming lessons or karate; day-to-day school necessities) are covered by child support. I don't see why a judge would not order your wife's ex to pay her back the child support she paid for the child that is living with you. I think it's time you get the support order re-evaluated, if not for financial reasons, then for peace of mind.
Good luck to you!
As for special and extraordinary expenses (such as extracurricular activities that necessitate high travel costs for tournaments or expensive equipment; medical and dental costs not covered by benefits) they should be split 50/50 between the parties, and all other expenses (such as extracurricular activities like swimming lessons or karate; day-to-day school necessities) are covered by child support. I don't see why a judge would not order your wife's ex to pay her back the child support she paid for the child that is living with you. I think it's time you get the support order re-evaluated, if not for financial reasons, then for peace of mind.
Good luck to you!
Sounds familiar, my husbands seperation agreement says that they are both to keep coverage, if avail. through the employer so most costs can be covered using both plans. Seeing as how his ex wife didn't work, she has never had coverage. My husband was left paying $120/month in medical coverage, and then when one child needed braces his coverage only covered $1500. They were $6800 braces as she has alot of problems that will be on-going. We pay 90% of this total. And the 90% was on the whole 6800, they didn't even subtract the $1500 that we had already paid for through the coverage we paid for!
Sorry I have no real ideas on how to solve this, we just had to make a deal with the dentist to pay $200/month for 2 years (yes, on top of CS and every other extra she makes him pay for). It seems in family law the more stubborn person, or the one who makes life hard for the others, gets it their way.
Sorry I have no real ideas on how to solve this, we just had to make a deal with the dentist to pay $200/month for 2 years (yes, on top of CS and every other extra she makes him pay for). It seems in family law the more stubborn person, or the one who makes life hard for the others, gets it their way.
I agree! And the one who is willing to work cooperatively and provide their obligated child support and shares of obligated expenses is often made to pay more than necessary or required by law. It's frustrating, isn't it?
PhoenixRising
New member
Quoted from the link below.
Child Support : Canadian Divorce Laws
The whole point being that a child should not suffer financially from a marital breakdown.
Child Support : Canadian Divorce Laws
The whole point being that a child should not suffer financially from a marital breakdown.
Children's Bennefits
Children's Bennefits
Thanks for the information.
So I guess its pretty safe to say that if a child doesn't reside with the parent for half a year but the previous agreement stated 12 post dated cheques and the parent that is recieving CS collects the money for him/herself a judge would not look to kindly on that person?
Is it best to continue paying and let the other parent collect a pay cheque even though they and their lawyer have stated in letters that they understand that the child wishes to reside with that parent and will not contest it?
How is it in the best interests of the children if you knowingly send $ to another parent who doesn't contribute and the child doesn't reside with that parent? Just because one parent was awarded primary residency in a joint custody arrangement shouldn't the children have to reside with that parent for them to retain primary residency?
It seems to me that this parent is collecting the money to try to use as a negotiating tactic while a new parenting agreement is being arranged!
Children's Bennefits
Thanks for the information.
So I guess its pretty safe to say that if a child doesn't reside with the parent for half a year but the previous agreement stated 12 post dated cheques and the parent that is recieving CS collects the money for him/herself a judge would not look to kindly on that person?
Is it best to continue paying and let the other parent collect a pay cheque even though they and their lawyer have stated in letters that they understand that the child wishes to reside with that parent and will not contest it?
How is it in the best interests of the children if you knowingly send $ to another parent who doesn't contribute and the child doesn't reside with that parent? Just because one parent was awarded primary residency in a joint custody arrangement shouldn't the children have to reside with that parent for them to retain primary residency?
It seems to me that this parent is collecting the money to try to use as a negotiating tactic while a new parenting agreement is being arranged!
PhoenixRising
New member
Child support by the definition is intended to financially support the child. If child support is being paid to that parent who is listed as the primary residence, I would take this to mean that based upon the abilities of both parents the one receiving the CS is the one that is in the position of the parent who needs the financial support intended to continue and maintain the child in a similar economic environment as the the non-primary residence.
The child's lifestyle between both households is meant to be equal.
If 6 months is spent with one parent and another 6 with the other. The primary residence parent would still need to maintain the residence when the child is away.
The child's lifestyle between both households is meant to be equal.
If 6 months is spent with one parent and another 6 with the other. The primary residence parent would still need to maintain the residence when the child is away.
piggybanktoex
New member
Child support in the higher income levels does nothing other than enrich the non-working or low paid ex.
When did Family Law become all about wealth transfer?
When did Family Law become all about wealth transfer?
blinkandimgone
Moderator
Really now. So if both parents work making a decent amount of money it's ok for the non custodial parent to pay child support, however if one parent gave up their career to raise the children it's not ok to expect the non custodial parent to contribute to the children's expenses through child support?
It's not about wealth transfer, it's about being responsible for your child/ren.
It's not about wealth transfer, it's about being responsible for your child/ren.
piggybanktoex
New member
Who said anything about not supporting our children.
Oh, and it was her choice to quit work and not start again when the kids were in school all day
Need was not considered, only my means to pay.
- Ex got mortgage-free $500 house
- Ex will never need a job - free ride for life
- All the RRSPs
- Both kids have money in trust for higher education (funded by me)
- Shared custody
- I pay for private schools
- SS of $200k plus for 15 years
- To be Mom & Dad half the time
- buy a much smaller house with full mortgage
- To work forever now
- To share my income for a decade and a half
- continue to fund a lifestyle for an ex who didn't earn it by working
Oh, and it was her choice to quit work and not start again when the kids were in school all day
Need was not considered, only my means to pay.
blinkandimgone
Moderator
So how is that different than if you'd stayed together?
Your made a blanket statement about child support in general, which isn't true.
"Child support in the higher income levels does nothing other than enrich the non-working or low paid ex."
Your made a blanket statement about child support in general, which isn't true.
"Child support in the higher income levels does nothing other than enrich the non-working or low paid ex."
piggybanktoex
New member
Of course it's true, especially at higher levels and longer term.
The lower paid or non-working ex is given an income that they don't earn, simple as that. And that income comes from the working and/or more successful ex.
Also, the big difference now is that we are not a couple and, apart from the children, are not working towards a common goal.
Why should I have to hand over my income to someone above that which takes care of needs.
At the higher levels, all the needs of the children are met. The excess amounts, I noticed, seem to go to ex's travel with new partner, new car, new clothes, and new single lifestyle (paid by me). The extra money certainly doesn't go into safe-keeping for the kids.
There is no incentive to even try to support herself. Why would she work, when the law will just hand her my money so her lifestyle remains unchanged, regardless of who is earning it.
Again, I am speaking about high income levels, with all the kids needs and special needs met. After that it is all about her lifestyle.
The lower paid or non-working ex is given an income that they don't earn, simple as that. And that income comes from the working and/or more successful ex.
Also, the big difference now is that we are not a couple and, apart from the children, are not working towards a common goal.
Why should I have to hand over my income to someone above that which takes care of needs.
At the higher levels, all the needs of the children are met. The excess amounts, I noticed, seem to go to ex's travel with new partner, new car, new clothes, and new single lifestyle (paid by me). The extra money certainly doesn't go into safe-keeping for the kids.
There is no incentive to even try to support herself. Why would she work, when the law will just hand her my money so her lifestyle remains unchanged, regardless of who is earning it.
Again, I am speaking about high income levels, with all the kids needs and special needs met. After that it is all about her lifestyle.
blinkandimgone
Moderator
So even if the "more successful" ex is more successfull BECAUSE the other gave up a career to stay home and raise the children, enabling the "more successful" ex to become more successful you think they deserve less than the "more successful" ex?
piggybanktoex
New member
And if the ex had worked and only made $25K a year and the more successful spouse made $400K, after separation should I share my income with the nanny?
And since you seem to want to put a money amount to being a housewife or mother, what is a housewife or working mother's job worth? According to "salary.com" a stay home is worth $131K and a working mother should be paid $85K.
Oh my God, most women are underpaid!
And if I had to pay my ex $200K of my $400K income, then she would be really overpaid.
Plus, the stay home might have married to a guy making $30K or $600K. What is fair really is not what is practised by Family Law.
And since you seem to want to put a money amount to being a housewife or mother, what is a housewife or working mother's job worth? According to "salary.com" a stay home is worth $131K and a working mother should be paid $85K.
Oh my God, most women are underpaid!
And if I had to pay my ex $200K of my $400K income, then she would be really overpaid.
Plus, the stay home might have married to a guy making $30K or $600K. What is fair really is not what is practised by Family Law.
roxyroller71
New member
I have a question about benefits.
I have Provided benefits for my son since birth. Finally after 6 yrs my ex decides to pitch in for this.
My ex makes 152/yr and his benefits aren't that good but his bday is march. I make 38 and my Benedfits bday is sept.
My ex refuses to coordinate. He refuses to provide the letters. The payments if I pay thus keeping any money I paid. I smartened up after a couple of times.
Basically now he just covers the dentist pays on his cc and it just stays on his benefits. I don't have anything to submit which means no payment.
Will I get screwed?
And how long should I wait for this? 4 -6 weeks?
I'm not sure how to have this situation verified in an agreement.
In sure ortho work is coming and then my ex will want to use my benefits. I just need some advice for court or an agrement.
And how do I prove this situation?
When he first covered my son, it was because he was having dental surgery then went on to lie and mislead court that he hasn't been informed nor consulted. Regardless of emails proving otherwise.
I have Provided benefits for my son since birth. Finally after 6 yrs my ex decides to pitch in for this.
My ex makes 152/yr and his benefits aren't that good but his bday is march. I make 38 and my Benedfits bday is sept.
My ex refuses to coordinate. He refuses to provide the letters. The payments if I pay thus keeping any money I paid. I smartened up after a couple of times.
Basically now he just covers the dentist pays on his cc and it just stays on his benefits. I don't have anything to submit which means no payment.
Will I get screwed?
And how long should I wait for this? 4 -6 weeks?
I'm not sure how to have this situation verified in an agreement.
In sure ortho work is coming and then my ex will want to use my benefits. I just need some advice for court or an agrement.
And how do I prove this situation?
When he first covered my son, it was because he was having dental surgery then went on to lie and mislead court that he hasn't been informed nor consulted. Regardless of emails proving otherwise.
blinkandimgone
Moderator
We put everything on my ex's credit card, or he pays by cheque if CC isn't an option. I have my insurance directed to reimburse him.
This way, I don't have to worry about trying torecoup any money after it's been paid to him.
This way, I don't have to worry about trying torecoup any money after it's been paid to him.
This is an issue for us as well. Mom has the earlier birth date but no insurance. So dad's is the first to be applied, then mom's bf, then dad's new wife. This is a standard set by the insurance providers and we are expected to adhere to it. So far there have been no repercussions for not following the proper order but there are financial repercussions to us personally as a result of mom's non cooperation.
Mom refuses to provide her bf's insurance info for the kids. So we have never been able to use it. It is not as simple as saying we pay for dental and they pay for something else. There are larger costs that are covered at only 50% or a flat rate per visit regardless if the per visit cost is $400. This is the case for the paramedical expenses for the children in our situation. We can and have spent $1800 a month and only received less than $600 back from the only insurance we have had access to.
I provide this information to demonstrate that the simplest approach may not be a long lasting or prudent one in future years. As we did not foresee the children needing these services and were basically willing to suck up the additional costs for what we could not recoup on a dental cleaning as it amounted to little over the course of a year. Now we are out of pocket significantly as the expenses have risen.
We also pay for all the benefit costs despite the SA stating that these are to be shared equally. In fact, mommy dearest has even advised us in writing to cancel our benefits a few years ago. But of course, continues to seek payment should she pay out of pocket for any medical expenses herself (although this is rare). In layman's terms, she wants to suck and blow.
We have maintained the benefit costs on our own. We have been asking for her to contribute for over two years. She just refuses. We have added it to our list of items to be resolved in court.
Sadly, expenses cannot be submitted to a plan after a year has gone by. So many of these expenses cannot even be claimed now. It goes to show how anger can con volute an individual's rational thought process. As they have increased the other parent's out of pocket costs and to have allowed the claim to go through would have cost them nothing in the end. At this time, they may be on the hook for these expenses and the alternative was that they could have resolved this with NO COST TO THEM!
Mom refuses to provide her bf's insurance info for the kids. So we have never been able to use it. It is not as simple as saying we pay for dental and they pay for something else. There are larger costs that are covered at only 50% or a flat rate per visit regardless if the per visit cost is $400. This is the case for the paramedical expenses for the children in our situation. We can and have spent $1800 a month and only received less than $600 back from the only insurance we have had access to.
I provide this information to demonstrate that the simplest approach may not be a long lasting or prudent one in future years. As we did not foresee the children needing these services and were basically willing to suck up the additional costs for what we could not recoup on a dental cleaning as it amounted to little over the course of a year. Now we are out of pocket significantly as the expenses have risen.
We also pay for all the benefit costs despite the SA stating that these are to be shared equally. In fact, mommy dearest has even advised us in writing to cancel our benefits a few years ago. But of course, continues to seek payment should she pay out of pocket for any medical expenses herself (although this is rare). In layman's terms, she wants to suck and blow.
We have maintained the benefit costs on our own. We have been asking for her to contribute for over two years. She just refuses. We have added it to our list of items to be resolved in court.
Sadly, expenses cannot be submitted to a plan after a year has gone by. So many of these expenses cannot even be claimed now. It goes to show how anger can con volute an individual's rational thought process. As they have increased the other parent's out of pocket costs and to have allowed the claim to go through would have cost them nothing in the end. At this time, they may be on the hook for these expenses and the alternative was that they could have resolved this with NO COST TO THEM!
smileandwalkaway
New member
My agreement says ex provide benefits as long as available. I di not have benefits at the time of divorce but I do now. Ex refuses to submit claims. He refused to contribute to braces. He agreed to be directly billed by the SLP for his share but once the bills started to come in he refused to pay. Ex's birthday falls before mine but refuses to acknowledge that his benefits deny one of the kids. Only way to "fix" that was to reverse the order our benefits kick in. Funny, that only applies to one kid.
In all cases I ended up paying because the kids needed things. It sucks but that is my reality. My kids will not do without because their father refuses to accept his responsibilities.
In all cases I ended up paying because the kids needed things. It sucks but that is my reality. My kids will not do without because their father refuses to accept his responsibilities.
Trying to answer based on your original post, as it was hard to wade through the other posts in this thread...
When did son "decide" to live with you guys "full-time"? Was that in 2008? Or is this more recent? I wasn't clear on that with the way this was written. Judging by your comments about "cheque cashing", it sounds like for the last few months, since last November? How has this been addressed with your current joint-custody agreement? It sounds like it has not. Why not? You need to take care of the legal aspect of this (your court order).
It would be in everyone's best interests, likely, to have benefits on both sides, to coordinate costs. If the other parent cancelled the benefits, I guess you could likely address this in court, if needed, if it's ordered that he keep them. Won't look well on him, cancelling kids coverage. He's still on the hook for his share of dental/health costs. So keep track of what he's not covering. Perhaps show him that it's cheaper for him to keep benefits coverage? Big expenses like braces and such, would be good to have covered through both benefits.
Probably because you still have a court order, that states you share 50/50 joint custody. One can put a stop payment on cheques, FYI. Not sure it that should be the case or not, as I'm not clear on how this "custody" change happened.
When did son "decide" to live with you guys "full-time"? Was that in 2008? Or is this more recent? I wasn't clear on that with the way this was written. Judging by your comments about "cheque cashing", it sounds like for the last few months, since last November? How has this been addressed with your current joint-custody agreement? It sounds like it has not. Why not? You need to take care of the legal aspect of this (your court order).
It would be in everyone's best interests, likely, to have benefits on both sides, to coordinate costs. If the other parent cancelled the benefits, I guess you could likely address this in court, if needed, if it's ordered that he keep them. Won't look well on him, cancelling kids coverage. He's still on the hook for his share of dental/health costs. So keep track of what he's not covering. Perhaps show him that it's cheaper for him to keep benefits coverage? Big expenses like braces and such, would be good to have covered through both benefits.
Probably because you still have a court order, that states you share 50/50 joint custody. One can put a stop payment on cheques, FYI. Not sure it that should be the case or not, as I'm not clear on how this "custody" change happened.
