[Old Bumped Thread] Support payments

[Fuzzy McGillicuddy]

The Supreme Court of Canada rules divorced dads' support payments must keep up with pay increases.

I sense a call from the ex.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl.../National/home

[Language]

We always get the shaft. Damn legal system.

[ken0042]

I wonder what happens if somebody approaches their boss, explains that because of support payments they need a raise. Boss is a good guy so gives him a raise so he can afford to live, then the support payments go up.

[RedMan12]

what if your dead beat dad never paid child support anyways?

[Frank the Tank]

Originally Posted by leonk19

We always get the shaft. Damn legal system.

Ya the nerve of having to support you children! Damn the system!!

[Bobblehead]

As long as it is child support and not spousal support, I don't have any problem with the ruling.

The article says they left lots of room for dealing with specific situations.
I hope so - I have always wished that there could be a 'common sense' clause written onto the books, so the intent of the law can be used instead of the strict letter of the law (whole new issue with that, I know, but I can still dream).

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by Frank the Tank

Ya the nerve of having to support you children! Damn the system!!

I think it more has to do with supporting the mothers.

I dont think most dad's are upset about providing for thier children, but when supporting a mother is built in either cause of a prenup or whatever.

MYK

[Radically Red]

So why is this never affected if the Mothers income goes up. Should this not also be taken into account.

Dads pay goes up. payments go up. Mothers pay goes up should this not bring Dads payments down?

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Radically Red

So why is this never affected if the Mothers income goes up. Should this not also be taken into account.

Dads pay goes up. payments go up. Mothers pay goes up should this not bring Dads payments down?

I agree.

This SHOULD be all about providing a standard of living for the kids. Dead beat dads should be forced to pay for their kids... that said, the mothers also deserve to have some of the responsibility.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Radically Red

So why is this never affected if the Mothers income goes up. Should this not also be taken into account.

What, have you never been married? What's hers is "hers" and what is yours is "ours".

[ericschand]

Originally Posted by Frank the Tank

Ya the nerve of having to support you children! Damn the system!!

Just having been through this in the past few years, it isn't about
supporting my child, I will do what it takes for her, and I believe most
fathers are that way (contrary to stereotyped opinion).

My problem is supporting the ex. She has *no* alimony payments allocated
to her. Where do you think she gets money? And of the
money given, my ex is going on trips to Cuba, Mexico, UK, California,
and so on. (She has been to all 4 since Jan 2004, 3 of them 2 times
over)

Meanwhile my daughter gets 2nd hand clothes because for new ones
"[my ex] can't afford them!" ??? Or shoes that go past their lifespan?

Lawyer? He says that there is no accounting built into the system. My
ex does not have to account for any of the money, and how much was
spent on my daughter. Further, by his suggestion, I am not to buy
new clothes/shoes/etc for my daughter while she is at her mother's
house, it would set a very bad precedent. Thus I watched as my
daughter got few toys, few monies spent on splurges for her, lots
for the ex (a friend of mine came in from out of town, never having
met my ex before. He asked what she did for a living (data entry
operator) because "she had $600 in clothes on!")

Adding to the confusion, there are no clear guidelines in the event that
split time with my daughter 50/50, which I do. Should full child support
still be paid to my ex? Or half? More than half? Less? After all, the
federal guidelines are on the amount expected to spent on a child
in one month. Do I not have to support my child during my 50% of
the time?

Now, back to the original intent of the story. After I split with my ex,
she has done nothing, nor given anything towards my promotions and/or
raises. Why should she get a piece of them? When my daughter is with
me, she is more than free to enjoy the extras my raises provide, and
I am more than happy to share it.

The situation has changed since my ex got re-married, no more
2nd-hand clothes, bad shoes, etc. A new child support agreement
also drawn up and put into a court order, approved by a judge,
also liberated me from full child support (since I was willing to not only
have my daughter for 50% of the time, I was willing to go even further
to 100% if need be. I would say I average 66% easily.)

ers

[ericschand]

Originally Posted by Radically Red

So why is this never affected if the Mothers income goes up. Should this not also be taken into account.

Dads pay goes up. payments go up. Mothers pay goes up should this not bring Dads payments down?

This is sort of built into the system via tradition.

Basically you have a chart, showing gross income and payments per month.
The feds put this out all the time.

If both parents work, and there are no other outside considerations,
then you would take the fathers income minus the mother's income
and have a value. Let's say it's $30,000. You would go across the
chart, find $30,000 and the number next to it is how much you would
pay per month.

So, yes, under this system, if the mother gets a raise, she gets
less.

If the mother makes more than the father, then she pays the father.

Note that IANAL, you should talk to your own about the legalities
and other issues surrounding this method. There are many other
methods out there.

ers

[edit] You can also find the amount that each would pay to the other,
and subtract the two. So if father would pay $600, and mother would
pay $400, then the father would pay the mother $200 to "equalize" it.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy McGillicuddy

The Supreme Court of Canada rules divorced dads' support payments must keep up with pay increases.

I sense a call from the ex.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl.../National/home

Hey, Fuzzy, your ex told me to tell you to pay up, deadbeat.

[troutman]

When the children live more than 60% of the time with one parent, the payee's income is not relevant in calculating basic child support from the table. It is only relevant in calculating proportional shares for the children's extraordinary expenses (or in the rarely successful undue hardship applications).

The federal child support guidelines:

http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/sup/grl/glp.html

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by troutman

When the children live more than 60% of the time with one parent, the payee's income is not relevant in caculating basic child support from the table. It is only relevant in calculating proportional shares for the children's extraordinary expenses (or in the rarely succesfful undue hardship applications).

The federal child support guidelines:

http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/sup/grl/glp.html

I ws just about to post that same info. Good job.

BTW, the underlying philosophy behind all of this is that the system is created to absolutely protect the children. Which is how it should be, in my view. I have no sympathy for deadbeat parents. Not saying that anyone here is, but those young-uns need to be protected at all costs.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

I have no sympathy for deadbeat parents. Not saying that anyone here is, but those young-uns need to be protected at all costs.

I agree...

What happens when the child lives with the mother and the mother is the deadbeat parent (as in Eric's situation above)?

I can't believe that any parent would choose vacations over providing for their child, but I do acknowledge that it happens. What protection is built into the system for those situations?

[Bobblehead]

From Peter King's July 24th Monday Morning Quarterback column, his "Quote of the Week":

"My daughters like to be accessorized. Isabella doesn't like to leave the house without a purse.''
-- Jean Strahan, who became the ex-wife of Giants defensive end Michael Strahan last week at a family court in Newark, N.J., commenting on why she needed to spend $27,000 on clothing for her twin daughters, who are not yet two.

[calculoso]

not yet two?!?!?

Wow

[Language]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

From Peter King's July 24th Monday Morning Quarterback column, his "Quote of the Week":

My earlier quote was referring to situations like this.

[troutman]

Why can't mother have vacations?