Kids move in with dad, but he owes CS to mom

[HammerDad]

Janus, you are talking out both sides of you mouth here.

First you are suggesting that c/s is the right of the child and that it is for the benefit of the child. But on the flip side that you are willing to completely wipe clear a period of time where one parent ignore their obligation solely because that parent now has custody.

Thankfully, it doesn't work that way. Otherwise you'd have parents who choose to be deadbeats for years on end, only to bribe the kid(s) to come live with them when the kids are of an age to choose, if for no other reason, then to avoid having to pay arrears. You see what kind of slippery slope you'd open up?

In the real world, if you have an obligation and you don't live up to it, you are required at some point to live up to it.

In this instance the only person who can be blamed for no c/s being paid is the CP. They choose not to pay c/s, creating the arrears. They now have to sleep in the bed they made and deal with not receiving c/s until their arrears are eliminated.

The OP here isn't the bad parent. They shouldn't be put out due to the ex's unilateral decision to ignore their obligation to the kids while they lived with the OP.

 

[Janus]

Janus, you are talking out both sides of you mouth here.

First you are suggesting that c/s is the right of the child and that it is for the benefit of the child. But on the flip side that you are willing to completely wipe clear a period of time where one parent ignore their obligation solely because that parent now has custody.

My focus is on the welfare of the precious children. Punishing the father does not help the children, nor does it compensate them for CS that was missing earlier in their lives. It compensates the mother, who is of no importance at all in this situation.

Thankfully, it doesn't work that way. Otherwise you'd have parents who choose to be deadbeats for years on end, only to bribe the kid(s) to come live with them when the kids are of an age to choose, if for no other reason, then to avoid having to pay arrears. You see what kind of slippery slope you'd open up?

Might want to read what OrleansLawyer said earlier in this thread

Family law already strongly encourages the bribery of teenagers. You can pretend otherwise, but it won't change the reality.

In the real world, if you have an obligation and you don't live up to it, you are required at some point to live up to it.

This is family law world, which has at best a tenuous link to this "real world" that you keep on trying to use for analogies.

In this instance the only person who can be blamed for no c/s being paid is the CP. They choose not to pay c/s, creating the arrears. They now have to sleep in the bed they made and deal with not receiving c/s until their arrears are eliminated.

I'm not disagreeing that your solution is fair. I just think that if we truly believe that CS is for the benefit of the children, then it doesn't make sense to punish the children now for a crime committed by their father. Essentially, the children would be hurt twice. They were hurt before by their father not paying appropriate CS, and now they are going to be hurt again by their mother not paying appropriate CS.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

So, what matters more, the best interests of the children, or justice?

The OP here isn't the bad parent. They shouldn't be put out due to the ex's unilateral decision to ignore their obligation to the kids while they lived with the OP.

She is not being put out, she clearly raised them well since they are alive and kicking. I am just saying that if CS is for the children, then it should be paid, regardless of previous peccadilloes.

 

[firhill]

Does raising the standard of living of the NCP retroactively help the children now? CS is about helping children.

CS is about helping the children.

Therefore, what if, to maintain the child's standard of living, the now NCP took out a loan every month, in the amount of the CS ordered and is now in debt for that amount?

One could argue that the NCP is also owed the interest on the arrears.

 

[Janus]

This ignores the financial consequences of the father not paying CS while the mother raised the kids. There are real financial effects of this on the parents, that needs to be rectified.

I agree, but not on the backs of the children. Children are our future, support them well and let them lead the way. Support allows children to have a sense of pride, and their laughter reminds of how the marriage used to be.

Why is everyone so willing to punish the children to get at the father?

There is a debt owed by the father to the mother - it has to be repaid, and deducting her CS from his CS arrears is a reasonable approach.

It is just as reasonable as the mother taking money from the children's RESP funds to pay off the debt.

Adults are precious too.

Only recipient adults.

The mother is making CS payments, she is just deducting the CS money owed to her by the father.

The father does not currently pay CS. She is taking the money from her children.

Should parents simply give all their money to their kids? If the best interests of the kids is the only factor as you seem to keep stating, then perhaps.

Not all their money, just most of it. Remember, the more they give, the better for the children. If the payor sells their house and moves into a shelter to pay CS, then that helps the children. The mother here won't even have to do that, so she should pay.

I'm not suggesting that the kids go without, just that the father takes on more of the cost to raise the kids until the guideline amount he avoided giving to the mother has been repaid.

What you suggest is "fair", assuming that CS is for the recipient, since you would be taking away his money. If CS is for the children, then stealing from the children to pay off a debt incurred by the father is not fair in any way.

So, is CS for the children or the recipient? I think it is for the children, it sounds like you disagree.

 

[Rioe]

If CS is for the children, think of it as a pot that both parents have been paying into all along, and withdrawing as expenses related to the children come up. They each pay in proportion to their income. If custody is not shared, the custodial parent gets the whole pot. In most shared custody situations, parents each take back out the amount of the smallest of the two contributions, and the lower income parent takes out the remaining amount. This is the equivalent of offset CS. I've heard of some situations where each parent takes out half the remaining amount, which amounts to the higher income parent paying the lower parent half-offset, which personally seems most fair to me but isn't often used. I suppose though that the other method is fair enough when you consider that the higher income parent still has more money.

In this case, when the mom was the custodial parent, she got to keep the entire pot. However, the father was not putting in his proper contribution, so there was a shortfall every month, which made the children suffer. Who knows if the mom made up for it from her own money, or if the children just went without.

Now that the father is the custodial parent, he is the one who gets to draw the entire pot. However, it turns out he owes the pot $10,000. He has withheld money from his children all along. He owes money to them in a way. He has to make up for it to them. He will do this by paying extra into the pot each month on behalf of the mother, until the debt is gone.

As you and others have pointed out, we don't know if the mother made up his shortfall out of her own pocket and could now really use the money to make up for the debt incurred, or if the kids just went without benefits they could have had. The one would imply the father should pay his arrears, and the other would not.

And yes, for years there was less in the pot than there should have been due to the father's actions, and now we are proposing that the mother put less in the pot to make up for it. Neither his shortfall then, nor her proposed one going forward are in the best interests of the children and two wrongs don't make a right. I would agree a lot more with Janus on this except that I recall that in this case, the father makes significantly more income than the mother. He should not have been a deadbeat then and made his children suffer, and I'm okay with him being 'fined' for that by not receiving money he doesn't need as badly as she does until the arrears are paid.

Maybe it's a good thing I'm not a judge. Cause boy am I judgmental.

And if we as adults think of it in a variety of confusing ways, the absolute worst thing either parent could do is try to explain the CS situation to the children.

 

[HammerDad]

I agree, but not on the backs of the children. Children are our future, support them well and let them lead the way. Support allows children to have a sense of pride, and their laughter reminds of how the marriage used to be.

Why is everyone so willing to punish the children to get at the father?

It is just as reasonable as the mother taking money from the children's RESP funds to pay off the debt.

Only recipient adults.

The father does not currently pay CS. She is taking the money from her children.

Not all their money, just most of it. Remember, the more they give, the better for the children. If the payor sells their house and moves into a shelter to pay CS, then that helps the children. The mother here won't even have to do that, so she should pay.

What you suggest is "fair", assuming that CS is for the recipient, since you would be taking away his money. If CS is for the children, then stealing from the children to pay off a debt incurred by the father is not fair in any way.

So, is CS for the children or the recipient? I think it is for the children, it sounds like you disagree.

Why do I suspect if genders were reversed you'd change your tune.....but I digress.

And if it is all about the kids, why should their family life with the NCP suffer now due to years where the CP, who was the NCP didn't pay.

If it is all about the kids, the now NCP cannot provide the same lifestyle they would had the now CP a) paid their original obligation or b) has the c/s setoff against the arrears.

And yes, I have heard of cases where arrears were cancelled because it was deemed a transfer of wealth. And in most of those cases it was where the "children" were actually now adults or near emacipation and the CP was going back for c/s updates from years back. This is not the same situation.

 

[Janus]

Why do I suspect if genders were reversed you'd change your tune.....but I digress.

There are a variety of ways to make a point. Due to standard gender-based assumptions, some points are better made when females are paying instead of receiving.

I'm tossing a bit of straw here

And if it is all about the kids, why should their family life with the NCP suffer now due to years where the CP, who was the NCP didn't pay.

Since when does the family life with the NCP matter at all when it comes to CS payments?

If it is all about the kids, the now NCP cannot provide the same lifestyle they would had the now CP a) paid their original obligation or b) has the c/s setoff against the arrears.

NCP does not spend a penny on the children. Having less money should not affect the relationship between the NCP and the children, since nothing is being spent anyway. All money spent on the kids should be properly given to the CP first, since the CP has the best interests of the children at heart.

Is it your contention that CS is inappropriate if it would damage (financially) the relationship between the CP and the NCP?

And yes, I have heard of cases where arrears were cancelled because it was deemed a transfer of wealth. And in most of those cases it was where the "children" were actually now adults or near emacipation and the CP was going back for c/s updates from years back. This is not the same situation.

In fact, the case is even stronger here for forgiving arrears. With adult children, arrears can be paid without harming the children. In this case, arrears can only be paid in a manner that directly hurts the children.

Again, unless child support is really just recipient support in disguise, arrears should be forgiven, and full table child support should be paid. So, does child support help children, or does it help the recipient?

 

[Janus]

I would agree a lot more with Janus on this except that I recall that in this case, the father makes significantly more income than the mother.

In your opinion, should the income of the recipient factor into CS calculations?

If CS is not needed by the recipient, but paying CS would damage the relationship between the children and the NCP, is CS still appropriate?

 

[dinkyface]

Seems pretty logical that since dad chose to spend the 18% of gross income earmarked for the kids on his own needs (and left mom to take up the slack) that now he can take up his obligations, and pay 36% (probably less, assuming mom's income is lower) for a while. (these numbers based on 2 kids, 60K income).

 

[dinkyface]

1) In your opinion, should the income of the recipient factor into CS calculations?

2) If CS is not needed by the recipient, but paying CS would damage the relationship between the children and the NCP, is CS still appropriate?

1) No, because the recipient is presumed to be also 'paying' according to their means.

2) It would be the NCP's choice to permit any damage to the relationship.

 

[Janus]

(2) (Regarding if CS is acceptable if it would destroy the ability of the NCP to have a relationship with the child) It would be the NCP's choice to permit any damage to the relationship.

So, when Hammerdad made the following statement:

If it is all about the kids, the now NCP cannot provide the same lifestyle they would had the now CP a) paid their original obligation or b) has the c/s setoff against the arrears.

You would disagree, since you believe that the effect of CS payments on a relationship between NCP and child should not be a factor. Correct?
.

 

[arabian]

People have the option of collecting support through FRO. If one party fails to pay then the other party should pursue the matter. No bleeding-heart exceptions.

Speaking of bleeding hearts - happy Valentine's Day everyone!

 

[teezy]

I have a solution. Dad puts $100 away every month into trust funds - $50 for one kid, $50 for the other. It would take just over 8 years to give back what he owes in arrears to those children. At that point, either the kids use that money for whatever they want, or Dad pays off their student debt. Or whatever works.

It won't erase the damage that was probably done for those 5 years with lack of financial assistance from him, but it sort of redeems himself to the kids because he would have given back what he owed them them in the end... and then he's not necessarily a deadbeat.

As I think others have pointed out, simply deducting it from the money the NCP is paying doesn't solve the issue of $10,000 outstanding.

That's my two cents.

 

[arabian]

Money is owed to the other parent. No one's business how/when/where/why the parent spends the money.

 

[HammerDad]

There are a variety of ways to make a point. Due to standard gender-based assumptions, some points are better made when females are paying instead of receiving.

I'm tossing a bit of straw here

Since when does the family life with the NCP matter at all when it comes to CS payments?

They do care. There are various remedies to ensure the relationship with the child etc. And should cs be too excessive, there is undue hardship.

NCP does not spend a penny on the children. Having less money should not affect the relationship between the NCP and the children, since nothing is being spent anyway. All money spent on the kids should be properly given to the CP first, since the CP has the best interests of the children at heart.

Is it your contention that CS is inappropriate if it would damage (financially) the relationship between the CP and the NCP?

You are obviously only playing devils advocate here and can't be serious with this.

To believe that the ncp pays nothing for the child is complete BS. I can't recall if you are an NCP, but they obviously have child related expenses similar to the CP, just a lesser amount.

And we aren't suggesting that an NCP not pay support. What is being put forth is that Parent A failed to live up to their obligation and pay C/S to Parent B creating arrears. Parent B now owes C/S to Parent A. Parent B is "paying" support to Parent A by slowly reducing the debt owed by Parent A to Parent B.

In fact, the case is even stronger here for forgiving arrears. With adult children, arrears can be paid without harming the children. In this case, arrears can only be paid in a manner that directly hurts the children.

The needs of the children weren't a consideration in those cases as they were adults, and the NCP still has a need to provide for the kid (your assertion that NCP's pay nothing notwithstanding).

Again, unless child support is really just recipient support in disguise, arrears should be forgiven, and full table child support should be paid. So, does child support help children, or does it help the recipient?

C/S is for the children. You are just trying to twist this into an argument that C/S isn't for the kids, but for the benefit of the parent. It is a strawmans argument, one that solely promotes an agenda .

To break it down, you are fine or are otherwise suggesting that you are completely cool with a parent being a deadbeat for years, amassing thousands of arrears, causing the kids to go without, or causing the CP to make up the funds out of their pocket, and are willing to forgive said parent for being a deadbeat, solely because the children now have moved in for with them.....enlightening.

 

[arabian]

A deadbeat is a deadbeat is a deadbeat is a deadbeat.

Debt from one parent to the other is one issue and and should be dealt with as such. Future CS, due to change of custody should have no bearing whatsoever on an old debt. For all one knows the person who was short-changed might have had to borrow money to make ends meet.

 

[baldclub]

A deadbeat is a deadbeat is a deadbeat is a deadbeat.

Debt from one parent to the other is one issue and and should be dealt with as such. Future CS, due to change of custody should have no bearing whatsoever on an old debt. For all one knows the person who was short-changed might have had to borrow money to make ends meet.

And it's very possible that the original payor may have had to borrow money to make ends meet while paying CS to a much higher income earning parent. The original payor may also have had no option to borrow said money because of no credit. The NCP's relationship with the children may have greatly suffered due to this mandatory shift of income...of course, in the best interest of the children.

No, all 'deadbeats' are not created equal.

 

[arabian]

You make a valid point Baldclub, I stand corrected and concede that there is always two sides of a story. Good post.

 

[oink]

No sh1t.....some people fail to see it that way when they are in the "me me me mode"

two sides to every story? A bit of an understatement innit?

And it's very possible that the original payor may have had to borrow money to make ends meet while paying CS to a much higher income earning parent. The original payor may also have had no option to borrow said money because of no credit. The NCP's relationship with the children may have greatly suffered due to this mandatory shift of income...of course, in the best interest of the children.
.

 

[arabian]

Actually, there are three sides of the story: his, hers and the truth. So often the latter is ignored when it comes to revealing financial information so court has to make a call.