OrleansLawyer
Active member
The system gives people the opportunity to be good parents. It cannot force them - that is their life choice.
Negotiating Child Support
- Thread starter treegirl97
- Start date
- Status
shellshocked22
New member
I get a kick when I see the "recipient" spouse whining about how the "payor" spouse has a better lifestyle than them. I'll let you in on a little "secret" on how you can enjoy the same thing... It's called GET a F****** JOB !!!!!
Some people's sense of entitlement never ceases to amaze me. Amazing how divorce brings out the parasite in some people....
Some people's sense of entitlement never ceases to amaze me. Amazing how divorce brings out the parasite in some people....
blinkandimgone
Moderator
And the recipient spouse was often the main caregiver during the marriage having their career potential put on hold to do the caregiving while the other spouse advanced. Even having a job (which most do) they are at a disadvantage career-wise from their former spouse, the payor.
Berner_Faith
New member
I don't think it matters whether you are the payor or the recipient... the fact is, the children should be cared for by both parents... CS is the right of the child, and the payor has a responsibility to pay for the child, but the recipient also has a responsibility to ensure that the CS money covers what it is suppose to cover and not seek more money, simply because the recipient is unable to balance their finances... this holds true for the payor as well when they try to diminish their CS obligations because they "can't afford" the CS.
shellshocked22
New member
To our esteemed moderators comment...
Why is it always assumed the "stay at home" parent gave up a promising career as a brain surgeon ? Let's "assume" that the stay at home parent had no post secondary education (years before having kids) and to be blunt would always have a low paying job. Doesn't matter how many years of seniority at a McJob you'll never make 6 figures.
So, if the stay at home parent, to be blunt, enjoyed a MUCH better lifestyle than he/she ever would have on their own while married, and didn't "lose" earning potential/seniority of any significance, then please explain why they are entitled to be a parasite for decades off the hard working spouse.
Why is it that someone who commits the horrific crime of marrying below their income equivalent is screwed over financially ?
Again, I can appreciate our theoretical brain surgeon who gave up a promising career, but I really doubt that's the norm. SO if the stay at home parent did NOT give up a promising career, and did NOT suffer any lack of advancement/seniority, why are you defending their right to mooch off the working spouse ?
Why is it always assumed the "stay at home" parent gave up a promising career as a brain surgeon ? Let's "assume" that the stay at home parent had no post secondary education (years before having kids) and to be blunt would always have a low paying job. Doesn't matter how many years of seniority at a McJob you'll never make 6 figures.
So, if the stay at home parent, to be blunt, enjoyed a MUCH better lifestyle than he/she ever would have on their own while married, and didn't "lose" earning potential/seniority of any significance, then please explain why they are entitled to be a parasite for decades off the hard working spouse.
Why is it that someone who commits the horrific crime of marrying below their income equivalent is screwed over financially ?
Again, I can appreciate our theoretical brain surgeon who gave up a promising career, but I really doubt that's the norm. SO if the stay at home parent did NOT give up a promising career, and did NOT suffer any lack of advancement/seniority, why are you defending their right to mooch off the working spouse ?
TiredOfTheDrama
New member
Wow! Maybe you need to learn how to comprehend what you read.
In many cases the recipient has a job (I for example am in the same field as my x). I am a few years behind him in work experience because we had decided I'd stay at home and raise the children (Take Note: this was so he would have the flexibility to further his career without worrying about the daily children's needs)
I have had to limit my chances to advance to the same extent due to being available for the child. I'm the one who takes off to take them to Dr's appointments or when they are sick or wanted a parent to accompany on school field trips. I didn't have every evening free to take night classes because evenings are spent shuttling the children to the activities such as sparks, soccer, etc or helping with homework, baths (when they were younger), etc then laundry and maintaining the home doesn't leave much time to study & staying up late is not an option when in the morning you have to get up, get ready, then get the children ready for school with breakfast eaten,lunches made & a plan for dinner all before getting them on the bus or to day care, all of which is done before you put in a full 8 hour day. I can't just travel at a moments notice or work Over Time unless I have made arrangements ahead of time.
So please tell me again how I'm not pulling my weight and how I should be grateful for a any CS he deems is sufficient.
blinkandimgone
Moderator
Interesting that you assume the opposite: that a CS recipient is an unemplyed mooch who is living off their former spouse. If one spouse contributed to the career advancement of the other and made it possible for them to advance in their career while taking a hit on their own career potential then yes, it is an unfair disadvantage to them.
Why is it you assume that all CS recipients or stay at home parents are mooching off the payor? Bitter much?
OrleansLawyer
Active member
1 - Whatever they were doing before, they could have sought a better career but for the relationship.
2 - It isn't just their loss, but also the gain from the payor parent. But for their contribution to the household, the working parent would have been home more and thus been behind in their career.
You have entered into a financial union with someone. Why should the courts deprive either party of the consequences of their decision? You are always able to show an intention to the contrary through domestic contracts.
When I buy shares in Apple, they don't increase in value or pay dividends according to my education or job skills. I have a proportionate share in the corporation, and I get a proportionate share in the profits, and I get a proportionate share of value of the firm when I sell.
A marriage is a financial partnership. If you don't want that, don't get married. You have signed a contract that your partner has a 50% share in the total of what you both are able to contribute over the years. That includes a share in the long-term value of your career.
If you don't get the issue of future value, when I sell my Apple shares, I'm selling based on how well I know the company is GOING to do, that is part of the value.
This is just an analogy, I'm sure we could pick it apart, but the point is that a partnership isn't the same as hiring a housekeeper. Your career is part of your assets (just ask the bank manager when you want a bigger mortgage) and that value can be part of what is shared.
The way it is shared is called spousal support. If our education and careers were assessed and given net values and this was split through equalization maybe it wouldn't cause so much bitterness.
No, it probably would still cause bitterness.
slughead10
New member
ss of any type is plain horse shit a person should be responsible for themselves.
OrleansLawyer
Active member
They are. That's why you are expected to fulfill the obligations of the agreement you signed by getting married.
slughead10
New member
and that ends when you get divorced
OrleansLawyer
Active member
Not according to the laws as related to marriage in Ontario.
Rioe
New member
I believe the legal marriage terms are until death. Not divorce. Marriage should really be a series of five year contracts or something!
slughead10
New member
the person does all bills paid and food and clothing or is that stuff free these days?
murphyslaw
New member
If you hired a live in Nanny just to mind the kids you would have to pay for food anyway and still pay a weekly wage .Of course many smart men do support their wife in upgrading their education, and re-entering the work force, prior to dropping the d-bomb.That way she is actually able to support herself.Its a newer trend in divorce.
Tayken
Well-known member
Just to highlight the only elements for which a court will order non-table amount child support. Very rare situations.
Furthermore, should both parties agree to a lower child support amount and the receiving parent go back to court... You could be paying the outstanding arrears because "child support is the right of the child".
It is very hard to sign away the rights of the child by either parent.
Good Luck!
Tayken
frustratedwithex
New member
If you are negotiating outside of a court room, you can most definitely agree to a lesser amount of child support.
If it is not that much different than the table amount, why not agree to it and stay out of court?
If both parties are being reasonable, this can be done. Not every divorce is high conflict. It can always be re-negotiated when income information is exchanged.
- Status