| CHILD SUPPORT-I WANT MY MONEY BACK
Posted: 3/7/2007 3:13:38 PM | Brandi;
Its ok I know that, the point of my post above was that if someone was to try to change the laws in order to have the mother's spouse's income included as a determining factor in the amount of child support then the reverse would be true if the NCP was to get married. That was point.
As for the character point above, if the CP is doing well financially. due to being remarried for examplen, and the NCP parent receives an increase in pay and the difference in child support would be lets say $20 to $30 then I if I was the CP I would say don't worry about it. But thats just me. Some would do the same and same would simply say, that's what's owed according to the tables so you pay it. Just comes down to a person's character in the end. | |
|
| |
| CHILD SUPPORT-I WANT MY MONEY BACK
Posted: 3/7/2007 4:33:42 PM | Candy
Could you please expand on your comment as this expression "in the best interest of the child" is used a fall back position all the time on here.
With the above in mind what is your definition of what is in the best interest of the child. | |
|
| CHILD SUPPORT-I WANT MY MONEY BACK
Posted: 3/7/2007 5:45:25 PM |
If the household income has gone up substantially the CP could show character by saying that the next increase in salary the NCP gets they don't have to pay more since it isn't needed. That to me is character. The NCP parent still pays. This would though have to be a decision between the CP and NCP parent and not something that could not be put into law. Just because someone has a right to something does not give them the right to take advantage of another person simply because it is there.
I agree with your point about character. However, your last statement could perhaps be re-worded. Rather than saying "does not give them the right", it should be "does not make it right". The child support system gives a CP every right to take it just because it is there. There are not a lot of people in this world who will turn down free money. My ex claims to need the support, but it takes her over a month to cash the cheques? Then she says she needs the amount increased simply because I had a raise? She's managed this long on what I pay, and she can go an entire month without cashing a cheque, but she needs more... why? Because the Guidelines say she's entitled to it. It's alimony with a guilt-enforced name to belittle NCP's into thinking that questioning the amount indicates that they don't care about their children.
We should be able to easily sit down and determine each others' household incomes, expenditures, and come up with something that is reasonable and equal for both of us. However, because of so many CP's and NCP's that either want everything, or don't want to pay anything, everybody in the middle ends up paying the price. | |
|
| CHILD SUPPORT-I WANT MY MONEY BACK
Posted: 3/8/2007 12:01:21 PM | i would have the courts look at it as a shared custody situation if the time split is 50/50. chances are, you won't be entitled to child support. they look at what you'd pay her if she had sole custody, and subtract what she'd pay you if you had sole custody, and that's what you'll end up paying (assuming your income is significantly greater than hers). if however you apply for joint custody with you having more than 60% of the time share, you would have primary caregiver status and she may be ordered to pay child support.
this assumes you're in canada - i didn't check before replying :) | |
|
| CHILD SUPPORT-I WANT MY MONEY BACK
Posted: 3/8/2007 12:13:26 PM | That guy;
Couldn't have said it better myself and thankyou for the correction in "does not make it right". That was the point I was trying to make. | |
|
| CHILD SUPPORT-I WANT MY MONEY BACK
Posted: 3/8/2007 3:16:09 PM | awesome_male posted...
I personally think that if a woman remaries a man of viable means that the father of the child should be absolved of any support responsibility at least in the legal sense.
brokensmilensj posted, after a few others offered a similar point of view...
This is probably the most ignorant statment I have read in this thread. Are you serious???
So, just because she remarries that's your "get out of jail card" eh? You are now free of your financial responsibilties now that this awsome man has entered the picture to co-op parent with your ex? He didn't sign up to pay for YOUR child which is YOUR responsibility. You created that life now invest in it!
Does anyone see the flaw in the above logic many of us have about the remarried scenario? In Canada it's interesting that the bio dad is still responsible for support in the case of remarriage but should that new marriage fail the non bio "dad" is on the hook for support now too? I really don't get the logic in that? It's like ok the new man is not deemed at all responsible financially for a child that was part of the package until the marriage or common law relationship fails? | |
|
| CHILD SUPPORT-I WANT MY MONEY BACK
Posted: 3/8/2007 3:49:06 PM | The logic that is failed is in the laws themselves which states that the children must be maintained at the same standard of living as to when the couple was married. The inherent problem with this is since their are now two households to support instead of one the standard of living will go down but I can see from messages posted on this and other boards that allot people will not accept that reality.
As for the non-bio dad having to pay after the relationship breaks up its under the same logic. The mothers and children's standard of living is most likely increased due to the new partner, therefore under the current law so that the children don't have to suffer the non-bio dad has to pay in order so that their standard of living is not dimished.
It is why, that when someone gets into a relationship with a single parent that they should take into consideration, the what if the relationship does not work out. Can I as a non-bio father afford the child support and how will this effect the current child support I pay for my biological daughter and her standard of living. There are also assets to protect from both sides. For example, if I was to move into the mothers house, from that point forward I am entitled to a portion of the increase in value. This could mean that if the relationship does not work out the mother may have to sell the house in order to "buy me out" of my equity portion attained during that period.
I guess an example of the above would be that I met a woman who had three kids, no support from the ex and a few weeks into dating told me how she would like to return to school full time. I decided that this situation was not for me as I am looking for someone who is established in their career. I guess you could call it risk mitigation. | |
|
| CHILD SUPPORT-I WANT MY MONEY BACK
Posted: 3/9/2007 7:52:15 AM | | This thread has been an eye opener for me. I am sooo glad that a) I am not married and that b) I always use a condom!! | |
|
| CHILD SUPPORT-I WANT MY MONEY BACK
Posted: 3/9/2007 8:44:37 AM |
This thread has been an eye opener for me. I am sooo glad that a) I am not married and that b) I always use a condom!!
You are one smart fella, nick..... just remember to keep that tube of spermicide handy too. | |
|
babs3
|
Joined: 7/30/2006
Msg: 136 | |
| CHILD SUPPORT-I WANT MY MONEY BACK
Posted: 3/9/2007 8:50:49 AM | | First of all, I want to address the comment about a non biological Father having to pay support if there is a break-up in a relationship for kids that aren't his.....I can tell you (being the ex wife of a man who pays his ex-girlfriend more than me) that this situation will only occur when the biological father has not paid support or has been involved in said childrens lives. Secondly, I don't disagree with the courts ordering a man to be responsible for said kids when he made the concious choice to live with a woman with kid(s). I think this has made alot of people stop and think about the choices we make in life and discourages someone from playing house for a few months! The OP's title dosen't surprise me at all. He sounds like he is the only victim with his ex painted as the wicked witch. The only thing I heard him say with all of his posts was...I got screwed....she doesen't deserve a dime ....and I do half the work...and pay for everything....so gimme my money back! Instead what you should be saying is....Thank God I will have my daughter and she is safe and healthy......and move on!.......Come on guys....grow up....you all had a choice at some point....there are no mulligans in real life! | |
|
| CHILD SUPPORT-I WANT MY MONEY BACK
Posted: 3/9/2007 8:55:35 AM |
The logic that is failed is in the laws themselves which states that the children must be maintained at the same standard of living as to when the couple was married.
This is the bit that bothers me. People love to yap about how CS in ONLY about the kids, when, in reality, it's about equalizing the living conditions of households. So,if my ex were to get remarried, the resources available to her household will likely increase at least by 100% since she only works part-time for minimum wage.
. | |
|
| CHILD SUPPORT-I WANT MY MONEY BACK
Posted: 3/9/2007 8:59:20 AM |
.....I can tell you (being the ex wife of a man who pays his ex-girlfriend more than me) that this situation will only occur when the biological father has not paid support or has been involved in said childrens lives.
That's not quite accurate, babs. I got nailed for CS of my stepson despite the fact that the bio-dad was very much in the picture and was also paying CS to the mom. The courts decided that because I made more money than bio-dad, mother can collect from both of us. | |
|
| CHILD SUPPORT-I WANT MY MONEY BACK
Posted: 3/9/2007 9:07:11 AM |
I got nailed for CS of my stepson despite the fact that the bio-dad was very much in the picture and was also paying CS to the mom. The courts decided that because I made more money than bio-dad, mother can collect from both of us.
WHAaaaaaaaT??
Is that legal???? | |
|
| |
| CHILD SUPPORT-I WANT MY MONEY BACK
Posted: 3/9/2007 9:18:28 AM | You are one smart fella, nick..... just remember to keep that tube of spermicide handy too.
I keep a lot of things handy. Don't know if I am smart, I just try to think ahead.
By the way, my sincere sympathies to guys who have all these problems. Was not trying to make fun. It was a sincere comment.
I also flush the used condom (see thread on related topic).
Some threads - like this one - are really educational (so were the "Married with Children" cult series, lol) | |
|
| CHILD SUPPORT-I WANT MY MONEY BACK
Posted: 3/9/2007 9:32:15 AM |
some states/provinces - yes; some - no
Okay you mean everything North? Say Canada...correct?
Nowhere in the USA can this be legal....I mean BOTH paying...
Hasn't this been adjudicated in the highest Crown (court/whatever) up there?
Are you sure this is real.... Boyfriend???? Suppose the women dates a third???
Where would it stop legally???
I'd like to see someone start a board on this. I have no idea how to search , but I've been chatting with a fish in Canadna for almost a year and was thinking.....?????
Should I start rethinking?????? | |
|
| CHILD SUPPORT-I WANT MY MONEY BACK
Posted: 3/9/2007 9:43:38 AM | | Does the information in this thread help explain the rationale for some of the antics of men that women complain for in many other threads (at least as far as certain countries (or states of countries)) are concerned)??? | |
|
| CHILD SUPPORT-I WANT MY MONEY BACK
Posted: 3/9/2007 9:46:54 AM |
Okay you mean everything North? Say Canada...correct?
Canada, yes.... CS laws are couched in gender neutral language, but the laws, as practiced, are pretty biased.
It's ok to double, or possibly triple dip with CS, but it's not a bottomless pit of money for mother.
The way they do it is that they look at which guy makes the most money, base the amount that guy would have to pay for the kid and subtract the amount that the lesser paid guy would pay.
So, it's good for women to trade up each time..... | |
|
| CHILD SUPPORT-I WANT MY MONEY BACK
Posted: 3/9/2007 9:58:22 AM |
HOWEVER, she has directly caused me to just WASTE thousands of dollars because she does not care about money as she has never 'earned' very much anyway (career student/welfare recipient)
Oh grow up, please. It wasnt like you slipped and your penis just happened to fall into her vagina.
I appreciate that you resent losing a ton of money, but the courts generally decide whats in the best interest of the child, and if they chose that since you make a bit more than she does, that you should pay for more than she does.
I support you filing for primary, but I dont think you should do it just to save money, because you will NOT save money that way, whatsoever, and you might have more (worse) emotional/ mental hell just based on her resentment over it, also.
I am also not against you in telling you to grow up, but you seem to be very condescending to your sons mom, and that needs to stop, as it is very immature, and it isnt exactly being the bigger person.
Good luck with you two and your son, and try to remember whats best for your kiddo, first. | |
|
babs3
|
Joined: 7/30/2006
Msg: 146 | |
| CHILD SUPPORT-I WANT MY MONEY BACK
Posted: 3/9/2007 10:44:43 AM | scruldbrug,
I don't know who your lawyer was...but you get what you pay for! There is no way a judge would order more support from a non-bio father figure to impliment the said wifes income! I call BS and stand by what I have lived! There is no double dipping in regards to CP with step parents and parents.......unless of course you were dumb enough to settle out of court and agree to it! I think you are confusing something here..spousal dosen't count as CP! | |
|
| CHILD SUPPORT-I WANT MY MONEY BACK
Posted: 3/9/2007 10:53:26 AM | Nowhere in the USA can this be legal....I mean BOTH paying...
In New York State, the Family Court Act provides that :step parent shall be obligated as natural parents to provide for the support of step children"
in practice, Family Court Judges only order child support from step parents who have lived with the child for many years (eg.10) and have significant ability to pay and child has needs. | |
|
| |
| CHILD SUPPORT-I WANT MY MONEY BACK
Posted: 3/9/2007 10:59:31 AM | Hey Babs, actually it happens all to often. If had the case in fron of me i would show you one that would make your toes curl. Essentially what happened was this. Mom leaves hubby, hooks up with new man. Mom leaves new man, moves back in with bio dad. new man is held in Loco Parentis as per section 5 of the CS guidelines. so now mom collects CS from non bio dad while shes back with Bio dad. It will take me a bit of time but if you like i will post the case for you.
Lovely eh | |
|
babs3
|
Joined: 7/30/2006
Msg: 150 | |
| CHILD SUPPORT-I WANT MY MONEY BACK
Posted: 3/9/2007 11:32:27 AM | DeadBolt,
That is ridiculas. I don't doubt there is a judgement like that...but you failed to say if the guy was fighting it. I think common sense would prevail and any lawyer worth his hourly rate would argue this ruling has the potential to set up unsuspecting people with the intent to defraud them for CP. Getting back to the origional post though, I truly believe most payors view the CP payments as some kind of windfall for the custodial parent. It is a fine line to debate with anyone, since every circumstance is different. It makes me wonder sometimes why someone such as the OP would sue for custody. With the bitter comments about the Mom and lack of respect the OP has conveyed for the mother of his child, it seems to me the last concern he has is the welfare of his kids. If you keep score long enough, you may win....but only because everyone else stopped keeping track. The title thread of this post sounds like an arguement my kids had last week! | |
|
Home
login