What happens in situations where a child is born out of wedlock, to parents who were never in a relationship (ex: brief encounter, one-night-stand, teenage tryst, etc.) but who both accepted the responsability of taking care of their child separately, and who both hope to have a marital relationship and family of their own? Should that dream of having a family be denied to them because, for unplanned reasons, they are responsible for a child? Granted, it will be much easier for the custodial parent receiving support to realize this dream, but what about the non-custodial parent who responsably pays child support and wants nothing more than to abide by the guidelines which have somehow passed him by and for inexplicable reasons don't apply because his wife has an "above average" income? And so this couple, wanting nothing more than to have a family together, is unable to do so because they are both supporting another child, a child who is not the biological child of the "stepmom" and a child who is being supported by three if not four 'parents.' I'm just curious how this is justified. Because I just cannot see it.
The rights of the new spouse and child
- Thread starter enoughalready
- Start date
- Status
Good points #1stepmom and billm,
I would also add that when the person recieving the CS payment decides to have more children, the CS recieved for the "first" child, gets "shared" with their new siblings, so in effect the "first" child in that scenario gets "less" when brother or sister comes along. But as it stands now, when the CS payor has a new child, the CS does not become any less for the "first" child.
I beleive ALL children have a right for equal financial resources from BOTH parents. When 2 people divorce, they are allowed to go on with their lives and have new children if they want. Most people have the means (and the will) to support ALL their children equally, and this fact of life should be taken into consideration in the Guidelines.
To lulu46 - I hear what you are saying, that the CS reciever shouldn't be at the whim of the CS payor. But what about my situation? WE were at the whim of the CS reciever. How? She doesn't work so we had to pay for braces ($6800 ones) and access costs ($approx. $3600/year) plus 94% of all other "extra-ordinary" expenses. HER choice, not to work and not pay her share of these costs DIRECTLY affects the quality of life we can give our 2 children.
And when my husband took 2 months off to help with child rearing, she came after him and he had to increase his income by adding those two months to his income and pay CS on it. And yet, she hasn't worked for over 72 months, and thinks she is "entitled" not to work.
It is very intersting, every person has been affected differently by the Guidelines.
I would also add that when the person recieving the CS payment decides to have more children, the CS recieved for the "first" child, gets "shared" with their new siblings, so in effect the "first" child in that scenario gets "less" when brother or sister comes along. But as it stands now, when the CS payor has a new child, the CS does not become any less for the "first" child.
I beleive ALL children have a right for equal financial resources from BOTH parents. When 2 people divorce, they are allowed to go on with their lives and have new children if they want. Most people have the means (and the will) to support ALL their children equally, and this fact of life should be taken into consideration in the Guidelines.
To lulu46 - I hear what you are saying, that the CS reciever shouldn't be at the whim of the CS payor. But what about my situation? WE were at the whim of the CS reciever. How? She doesn't work so we had to pay for braces ($6800 ones) and access costs ($approx. $3600/year) plus 94% of all other "extra-ordinary" expenses. HER choice, not to work and not pay her share of these costs DIRECTLY affects the quality of life we can give our 2 children.
And when my husband took 2 months off to help with child rearing, she came after him and he had to increase his income by adding those two months to his income and pay CS on it. And yet, she hasn't worked for over 72 months, and thinks she is "entitled" not to work.
It is very intersting, every person has been affected differently by the Guidelines.
I think the point is that the guidelines unfortunately don't always come into play. The rule for child support is that it shall be according to the guidelines, based on the payor's income. Well, in 3 separate cases when my husband went to court to determine his child support payments, he was imputed income because the judge felt the support amount based on his actual income was insufficient, because in her mind, it costs $800-1,000 per month to raise a child of school age, and each parent should be responsible for half.
And for the record, my husband was neither voluntarily unemployed or underemployed at those times. His income was representative of how much he was able to make given the circumstances at the time. Yet this was not taken into account, and he was imputed income based on the judge's "feelings" about how much it costs to raise a child. For a period of time, he was paying close to 60% of his monthly income towards child support. (Only because my "above average" income was considered enough to support us both.) Yet according to the guidelines, he should not be paying any more than 11% of his monthly income. In my opinion, if judges are allowed to base child support amounts on their personal throughts and feelings, then there should be no child support guidelines, or at least there should be a "minimum" payment requirement, regardless of the payor's income. At least that's the experience we've had in this regard.
And for the record, my husband was neither voluntarily unemployed or underemployed at those times. His income was representative of how much he was able to make given the circumstances at the time. Yet this was not taken into account, and he was imputed income based on the judge's "feelings" about how much it costs to raise a child. For a period of time, he was paying close to 60% of his monthly income towards child support. (Only because my "above average" income was considered enough to support us both.) Yet according to the guidelines, he should not be paying any more than 11% of his monthly income. In my opinion, if judges are allowed to base child support amounts on their personal throughts and feelings, then there should be no child support guidelines, or at least there should be a "minimum" payment requirement, regardless of the payor's income. At least that's the experience we've had in this regard.
Last edited:
Interesting discussion. Re above quote, but why should a new partner's child support payments have anything to do with you being able to have kids of your own? Maybe you have to look at your partner's income as net after cs payments have been made and thus making your own standard of living a little less. Having kids is expensive (i'm a single mom that raised a child without cs from my ex) but at least there are two of you. In my case i did it alone, struggles, worked 15hr/day/7 days/week for the past 15 years, again: alone.
It is not impossible to raise a child on a shoe-string, it's close bond you form. It's not easy, but at least you will have a partner to share the responsibility with, and your child/children will have siblings.
There are two ways to look at this.
best of luck and go after your dreams of having a family (but maybe you might want to look at your new partner's background, he may dump you as well when things get tough and you'll be here complaining about being a single parent
) - not singling out any one in particular in this post, just making a general statement.He never had a history of making more. He actually had a history of making less. The reason for this being that he had only just started university, during which time he didn't make the best choices (we've all been there) and had a one-night-stand which resulted in him fathering a child at a very young age. Both him and the mother of the child agreed that they both wanted to finish their schooling and obtain a degree, and so that is what they both did while he worked part-time and paid as much child support as he could, voluntarily, in amounts that were greater than the guidelines required (he was unaware of the guidelines at the time). When they finally went to court to set up child support properly (instead of agreements made between them, without knowing the rules and law associated with child support) the guidelines didn't matter to the judge. It didn't matter that he was a full-time student working part-time trying to make a future for himself to benefit his child. It didn't matter that the mother was enrolled in school full-time as well and not working, so why wasn't he allowed this same option to get an education? I think that is where the double standard lays, in situations where the guidelines are ignored and one parent is allowed certain luxaries while the other is not. Do you see what I mean?
sufferer
New member
Wow I have seen the SS amount has low to high range.But child support isbased on the payors income.How come you have to pay a loyt more thanthe guidelines.My ex pays on his imputed income as he left his $70,000 job and still i get the child support only on 50,000.And he refused to share any additional activities cost , dental cost etc.;-((
Like Lulu said... it depends on the judge's mood. In our situation, my husband was ordered to pay above guidelines because - as a young student - he was living with his parents at the time and so the judge felt that since he can be supported by his parents, he can thus pay more than guidelines. And now, since he's living with me - despite both our names being on the lease - and based on what the judge called my "above average" income, he was ordered to pay above the guidelines because the judge felt that I could easily support him too. And please note that my husband makes a decent income too. It's not as if he's underemployed or anything of that sort. Again, it all depends on the judge's mood and personal feelings on the matter. After all, the Canadian court does give them full authority to order an amount above or below guidelines if they feel it's "appropriate." Though I have never seen a lower amount ordered.
Well I am where you are mine was paying 1300 and wants to pay 350! And has still not contributed to extraordinary costs! Its been three years of one thing or another from this guy all I can say is I am glad I dont share custody as he would always being making excuses! So lets see what the judge says!
I think what we all want is to pay or receive what is legally obligated according to guidelines (even if guidelines are flawed, as per the recent Canadian Court report). What we are all frustrated with is the inconsistency of support orders. And for some, lack of enforcement as well.
Nathank posted an interesting link in Political Issues under the thread of Guidelines to Change May 1 (or something along those lines). It's worth a read, especially by support payors.
Nathank posted an interesting link in Political Issues under the thread of Guidelines to Change May 1 (or something along those lines). It's worth a read, especially by support payors.
formyhubby
New member
wouldn't you think that after so many marriages something is wrong? Doesn't someone learn the first time around? I think divorce is far too easy to obtain. If the rules made it more difficult as to include searching out all options to at least attempt to fix the marriage maybe this child support wouldn't become such a huge issue.
So here's a twist to the discussion, I pay cs and ss, if my present partner were to leave and I was paying cs to her, does it affect my ss? I can't make ends meet now, so if I were to have 2 cs payments AND a ss payment it would be finacially impossible for me to live. Do second children come before first wives?
- Status