Divorce Law are a Joke and Dads are the Punch Line

[Decent Dad]

Hubby,

I know where your coming from.

In the child support guidelines there is a undue hardship test at the end. Schedule II to compare standards of living from each household.

What I find difficult and hard to swallow is that the cost of raising and providing for a child is similar. A pair of shoes costs relatively the same regardless if your parents make 30K a year or 100 K. But yet support tables factor this disparity in. Does this mean that married couples with intact relationships should be spending this amount on each of their children, if not would they be considered bad parents?

You are right if a significant portion of your income is allocated for support purposes, and very little is left to accommodate your child, it does make you wonder how you can have a decent relationship with your child/children.

The child support guidelines are a joke. Actually, the Divorce Laws are a joke. And Dads are the punchline.

I could not, in my entire life, think of any month where I could even BEGIN to spend the amount of money on my children that my ex receives in support. And this is very common. It is even worse when you have the kids 50-50 and are ordered to pay full support. Nice, eh.

Child support is lifestyle support. Well, her lifestyle. Not yours (and actually not the children's since CS is not accountable).

Unfortunately you must petition the court and file a motion to get your support re-evaluated. But you most likely will lose. Judges do not go below the table amount. But you acn try.

That is something that is always missed in all the newspaper horror stories of the man not disclosing income increases so the ex could get more support. People have no idea how hard it is (next to impossible) and how costly it is to get support reduced or lowered or stopped during employment variations or trying to maintain basic life. Yup, that seems to be always missed in these discussions. A common question asked: "You mean, when your income goes down... you support does not go down?" Only through a court motion... Nice, eh.

 

[Lindsay]

Decent Dad,

In response to your most recent post:

you have the kids 50-50 and are ordered to pay full support

If a parent has access to the child[ren] more than 40% of the time, it is likely that child support will be readjusted or made payable by setting off each party's child support obligation against each other. So, although it is true that a parent who has the children 50% of the time would technically be paying full child support, please keep in that the other parent would be paying full child support as well.

That is something that is always missed in all the newspaper horror stories of the man not disclosing income increases so the ex could get more support.

Please note that the onus is on the child support recipient to request financial disclosure from the payor (normally the possibility of review is once per year) for the purposes of increasing child support. When disclosure is requested, however, full and frank disclosure must be provided.

Unfortunately you must petition the court and file a motion to get your support re-evaluated

Just to make things clear to other members - child support must only be adjusted by motion if it has been set out by court order. With a separation agreement, the parties could sign an amending agreement stating the new child support amount or mediate the issue if they are not able to agree on the issue.

Lindsay

 

[Decent Dad]

If a parent has access to the child[ren] more than 40% of the time, it is likely that child support will be readjusted or made payable by setting off each party's child support obligation against each other. So, although it is true that a parent who has the children 50% of the time would technically be paying full child support, please keep in that the other parent would be paying full child support as well.

I meant full table amount. And you are correct in the use of the word 'likely'. As in 'not always' and the trend is not to adjust at all.

BTW, I always find that statement very funny "And the other parent is paying full support as well" If that was the case, my children would be receving over 2500 per month based on both parents income and payments. Which is completely absurd. It is the paying parent's income that is paying the way here (for the children and the other parent).

Please note that the onus is on the child support recipient to request financial disclosure from the payor (normally the possibility of review is once per year) for the purposes of increasing child support. When disclosure is requested, however, full and frank disclosure must be provided.

Again, no rules for income going down. Sure you can lower your payment. And if the ex does not like that, off to the FRO and courts everyone goes. Provide dislocure when your income goes up - pay more. Provide discloure when your income goes down - tough luck.

Just to make things clear to other members - child support must only be adjusted by motion if it has been set out by court order. With a separation agreement, the parties could sign an amending agreement stating the new child support amount or mediate the issue if they are not able to agree on the issue.
Lindsay

I guess I am trying to explain what really happens out there. Sure, in the perfect world, your income goes up, your support goes up. Your income goes down, your support goes down. Your income is suspended - your support is suspended. With no court intervention. But that is NOT the case. You are correct - you have to have a motion (costing a few grand) to have it adjusted. And, it most likely will not be. Sorry, I am just trying to manage expectations. I am not saying don't go for it. It appears there is one set of rules for one thing (Mom) and another set of rules for another thing (Dad).

 

[Lindsay]

Decent Dad,

I understand that your post was meant to be informative, but the outcome of your case may not necessarily be the outcome of everyone else's case. I used the word "likely" simply because there can be no definte or guaranteed result. Custody and child support is determined by the issues and circumstances of each case and how information is presented to the court.

I think it's very unfair to say that there are different rules for mothers and fathers. There are many cases where the father is the primary caregiver and the mother the support payor. In that kind of situation, the court would not give the payor special treatment simply because she is a woman. There is no male and female when it comes to child support. There is, however, a payor and a recipient.

Lindsay

 

[Decent Dad]

I understand that your post was meant to be informative, but the outcome of your case may not necessarily be the outcome of everyone else's case. I used the word "likely" simply because there can be no definte or guaranteed result. Custody and child support is determined by the issues and circumstances of each case and how information is presented to the court.

I was going on the outcome of the 100's of cases I have read. Sure, I am not in court every day (well, it feels like every day), so I cannot tell what happens in every single case, but I have researched enough to state what really happens.

I think it's very unfair to say that there are different rules for mothers and fathers. There are many cases where the father is the primary caregiver and the mother the support payor. In that kind of situation, the court would not give the payor special treatment simply because she is a woman. There is no male and female when it comes to child support. There is, however, a payor and a recipient.
Lindsay

There may be one set of rules, and in the rare situation like child support, the mother is treated the same as the father. For the most part, the rules are certainly implemented quite differently. You are not equals going in. And that is the first mistake a father can make.

BTW, I have never said, that mothers never pay support, or for that matter, have never lost custody or access.

I guess we need a spreadsheet with 4 columns:

Column #1: Question
Column #2: What the law says
Column #3: What you think should happen
Column #4: What really will happen (in 80% of cases)

So, taking our post above:

Question:
What happens when a court ordered child support award exceeds my ability to live.
What the law says:
You can claim undue hardship (as posted above) using formula, etc., to see if you qualify. Then, file a material change in circumstance, motion the court, prepare the paperwork (affidavits), etc
What you think should happen:
With his properly researched and prepared case, he thinks his support would go down.
What really will happen (80% of the time):
Nothing.

 

[Lindsay]

Decent Dad,

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I just hope that other parents involved in support and custody situations remember that every case is different, and that another individual's interpretation of law is just that.

Lindsay

 

[god knows the truth]

Lindsay

You've stated your point in a very concise and classy style; you were so tactful--thumbs up to you.

 

[god knows the truth]

Decent Dad
Regarding your statement that if parent's incomes were combined, your children would receive OVER $2500.00; you obviously pay at least $1250.00month. Why couldn't I have have married and divorced YOU? That's a nice chunk o' change!!
I'm only joking; trying to put a smile on your face.After reading your posts, sounds like you need a chuckle.

 

[bearall]

Decent Dad
I very much appreciate your experience and opinion. It appears you have already seen what I am currently looking at too !
I have also studied , now near a thousand different files and I agree with what you are saying. It is a breath of fresh air to hear opinions without the sugar-coating, we all know the "lets hope" context of law as we read about it, but the "lets's get real" school is much more valuable. Diplomacy has it's place though and Lindsay is within her circle of responsibility to state what she wrote for sure.

"Education is what you get when you read the instructions"
" Experience is what you get when you don't"

I am guilty of being ignorant of how the Family Law interpretations got set adrift the last few decades--- I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then.
Who really knows these potental ramifications for tragedy on the day two people decide to share the obligations of family life, it is a shock to learn the laws after the family breaks down.The system is broken and very sick in my humble opinion, Win or lose in a Divorce breakdown, is a concept that has no place in civil societies witnessing the pain and suffering of the families ,there is little need for lawyers throwing gas on the fire, it is already a five alarm blaze before they even hear about it.The courts just don't seem to be the right institution anymore to deal with this....but if not a judge....then who ??

 

[Grace]

Lindsay

You've stated your point in a very concise and classy style; you were so tactful--thumbs up to you.

I second that motion!!! No wonder they call her "Super Moderator".

 

[Decent Dad]

Lindsay.

Fair enough. But if you go into court thinking the law works and the system is fair, you will get creamed. Manage your expectations, know how and why the system works.

 

[Decent Dad]

Decent Dad
Regarding your statement that if parent's incomes were combined, your children would receive OVER $2500.00; you obviously pay at least $1250.00month. Why couldn't I have have married and divorced YOU? That's a nice chunk o' change!!
I'm only joking; trying to put a smile on your face.After reading your posts, sounds like you need a chuckle.

Thanks. I have a very good life. Unfortunately people are interpretting my posts as the "bitter ex". I understand that Jeff and Lindsey are explaining what legally should happen. I am just trying to explain what most likely WILL happen. Of course, it is all my (educated) opinion. I obsolutely do not wish ill-will on anyone (mom's or dad's). I am just supporting the father since they will get screwed if they are not careful. Yup. I may be a little harsh, but father's need to wake up.

 

[hubby]

Thanks. I have a very good life. Unfortunately people are interpretting my posts as the "bitter ex". I understand that Jeff and Lindsey are explaining what legally should happen. I am just trying to explain what most likely WILL happen. Of course, it is all my (educated) opinion. I obsolutely do not wish ill-will on anyone (mom's or dad's). I am just supporting the father since they will get screwed if they are not careful. Yup. I may be a little harsh, but father's need to wake up.

Actually, I interpreted your posts as showing maturity and experience of which many on this board will benefit from.

Sometimes, 'telling it like it is' is what some people are searching for.

Lindsay does have a nice way of saying things from a legal perspective, then again, she should, with that Latte in hand.

Hubby

 

[Decent Dad]

Well, this is a forum on a lawyer's website, moderated by lawyers and legal clerks. I would only expect them to state the law and be neutral. It only took a few days of reading the threads in here to get me going. Yikes!

The problem is there are multiple groups in this fourm. Only one deals with emotional supportive issues. The rest are legal, parenting and money issues. If people do not want to hear the harsh reality of the courts in the last three groups, stick to the emotional support group. I have no respect for people sticking it to other people, using the kids as weapons and screwing dads over and I will tell them that to their face. And I find it a disservice to fathers who get a rosey picture that everything is going to be okay. Right.

 

[sasha1]

Hoping Jeff or Lindsay can answer this one ...

You know the law stipulates both spouses are entitled to their children, yet, they (the law) turn around, rob one spouse of their ability to provide and say, 'tough'! -- I'm speaking purely finanacially at this point.

Casue really, lets face it, ya gotta have money in this world to raise a family and live ...

If I'm blowing this way out of context, please people, correct me.

Which brings us back to 'undue hardship' ...

Hubby

Ok, again, I've gotta ask, where the h-e-double hockey sticks do you people LIVE? For the non-custodial parent to be 'robbed of their ability to provide'? Again, my ex is the epitomy of an Albertan red-neck.. working the rigs for all his life, making good money, too caught up in his booze and drugs (can't prove the drugs, though) to give a damn about his other responsibilities, if that's what you'd call two sons.. My ex has so totally PROSPERED by not being with me and the kids. Suddenly instead of having a mortgage and a family of four to provide for, the law asks that he kick out $1010 child support for the two kids, and he's good.. at least until we establish a spousal support amount. Still, $1010 out of the average $7000 per month TAKE-HOME pay?! How is this a reasonable amount to expect? Yes, $1010 will keep two kids fed, sheltered and clothed with some thrifty budgetting, but let's face it.. if a parent earns that kind of money, shouldn't the kids be entitled to a little bit better than just getting by? Not necessarily the ex, mind you, but the kids?

 

[Grace]

I have no respect for people sticking it to other people,

Then I suggest you practice what you preach and be more respectful to all of the members in this group.

 

[Lindsay]

Hi everyone,

To save myself from beating a dead horse, I will only say this:

There is a light at the end of the tunnel. Some things may not turn out the way you want them to, but when it comes to fighting for custody, access, or the financial support that you and/or your children are entitled to, giving up before even trying will get you no where. You have to be positive not just for you, but for your children as well. Please do not feed into the idea that you should not even try because you'll just get screwed. I do not call that support, I call it negatively that brings already damaged spirits to an even lower level.

You owe it to yourself to try. Or, at the very least, you owe it to yourself to find the healing you deserve by turning to our members for support. I am so proud to say that I am part of a forum full of people who are on here day in and day out lending their ears and providing their imput out of the kindness of their hearts. Thank you to the members who have been so wonderful.. you know who you are.

Also, thank you to God knows, Grace and hubby for their kinds words.

Lindsay

 

[Hanging On]

Ok, I'm only adding my two cents to something but there seems to be an idea out there by some dads (or moms) paying child support that the amount is purely for the kids stuff - food, clothes,ect...But, correct me if I'm wrong, isn't child support about making sure they can live by the same standards that they have been used to/or that the other parent can give them? For example, a similar size home? Therefore, child support would go to a portion of the rent/mortgage/heating/utilities, ect?? You are not supporting your wife/husband's "standard of living" but the KIDS standard of living. If Dad lives in a 200,000$ home while Mom has to live in an apartment, even if she is getting 1000$ a month but doesn't have a great job and can't afford anymore, there is a great discrepancy in the children's lifestyles while they are with each parent. When you get married and have children, you have a responsibility to maintain what they have become accustomed to, don't you?.

 

[Grace]

Lindsay,

Thanks for your kind words and encouragement. Ottawa Divorce Forum has been a god send for me personally, having a support group available 24 hours a day on the Internet, offering a personal and accessible support format. Not to mention not needing to have to search case law, thanks to LV. One caveat with regard to online support forums is that they can be plagued by 'trolls' - people who are there to insult and ridicule legitimate members.

Your one classy lady,
Grace

 

[Grace]

Hanging On,

It doesnt work that way, as now the family assets are split in half including the matrimonial home, and two households need to be maintained. In most cases I would think that it would be impossible for both ex's to maintain the lifestyle they had while married.