Confusing language

[rockscan]

Ive been wondering about confusing language that comes up in S7 stuff on spending patterns, reasonable contributions from kid, appropriateness of the expense, future plans etc. Theyre used a lot in court decisions Ive been reading but it seems to still be unclear.

if the parents were overspending/living outside their means before divorce and that issue was a contributing factor in the break down of the marriage and one spouse continued to live outside their means following the divorce, should the unhealthy spending patterns be considered in determining the contribution and expense going forward? Whats considered a "normal spending pattern"?

Ive been doing a lot of reading on the whole post secondary cases and for my partners case, he said they had agreed during their marriage that the kids would have an active role in contributing to their school expenses. However they didnt agree on how much it would be or how much they could contribute as parents. Following the divorce his ex took on all the marital debt and paid him out for the house. Shes now deeply in debt because she chose to stay in the house. Because theyre divorced, shes now saying that the contribution from the kid shouldnt be too high and they should bear the burden of the costs even if it means going into further debt.

Thats where I get confused again. "The means of the parents." One parents means are lower now due to household debt, spending patterns and poor financial decisions. The other parents means are lower due to employment issues. Parent one makes a significant pay cheque and receives full table support. Added to all that, Ive also read some stuff that says kids who choose to go away to school should be required to up their "reasonable contribution" to the cost of the education.

Then theres the issues related to program, plan of study, future career prospects etc. THEN theres the issue of obligation of kid to provide info and have a connection to the paying parent especially if they expect a significant financial contribution from that parent.

Anyone else confused? How can anyone mediate a situation where one parent says "we should support our kids dream to get a phd in under water basket weaving even if we both are broke" and the other says "our kids need to learn responsibility and if they want to go to paris to study canadian heritage they have to contribute something to a degree that wont get them a job!"

 

[annapurna66]

Yes, I am also confused. Have trial on section 7 in a few weeks. What I have managed to get from the case law (which is all over the place) is this. All parties should contribute (this means the children too)...parties who have large disparity between incomes usually rely on a percentage that is "proportional to ones income". This still leaves the question of how much do the kids kick in? RESP's (if they factor in) make it more confusing as they can be considered the "child's savings" (even when contributed post-separation)...in my mind this doesn't really equate when you think of WHO put the money into the RESP's. Parents are generally not expected to take a second mortgage out on their house to help their child get their third degree in underwater basket-weaving...but a first degree is usually a given. I did, however, read caselaw where the father was ordered to assist the child through med school (apparently something the parties had contemplated during the marriage) Gone are the days when parents can tell children to stand on their own two feet like they had to when they were young. Divorced parents appear to not have that option. Sorry that is not much help...its very confusing.

 

[rockscan]

And trying to understand it makes me feel cheap. Hes not saying he wont contribute, hes saying kid has to contribute some too. And hes also saying that the 75000 disparity in income levels makes a difference.

 

[annapurna66]

I think that the child does have to contribute. And the 75,000 disparity does make a difference.

 

[rockscan]

RESPs should be allotted as the grant money the government puts in is the childs $$. The principle put in by the parents is for parents portion. If the RESP was opened by someone else its considered a gift and therefore the childs to use.